SL120 Lutheran Confessions
Tewodros
SL120 Lutheran Confession
Final (Theological) Paper
What does the Apology on the Augsburg Confession have to say about Justification?
Introduction: The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate how the Doctrine of Justification in
Article IV of the Apology of the Augsburg Confession is articulated and underpinned as a very
important confession of the Augsburg Confession. The paper tries to show and present how the
Apology (Ap) understands the doctrine of justification. As justification is the single most important
teaching of Christian doctrines in the Apology. Thus, Melanchthon went to a greater length to
explain in detail this important Christian doctrine and refutes the objection of the opponents.
Background: The Augsburg Confession was presented to the Holy Roman emperor, Charles V,
and the assembled princes and representatives of imperial cities in the Diet of Augsburg on 25June 1530. The confession was prepared by Philip Melanchthon, and it was later published in May
1531 alongside the Apology. Later the ‘first draft of the Confutation or a rebuttal, of the Augsburg
Confession was presented on 12 July’ and the second draft was presented to the emperor on 3
August. This second draft was accepted by the emperor. 'By the end of August, Melanchthon was
rewriting the initial response' for the Confutation. 'Later in October when Melanchthon came into
possession of the actual text of the Confutation, he felt constrained to answer what he called its
insidious and deceitful arguments, especially in the article on justification.' Particularly,
Melanchthon sought support and suggestions for improvement from other Wittenberg theologians
(notably Luther) “, especially regarding justification”1. ‘Melanchthon consulted with several other
1
Charles P Arand and Robert Kolb, The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church
(Minneapolis Fortress Press, 2005), 107-109
1
SL120 Lutheran Confessions
Tewodros
theologians, including his opponent of the late 1520s, Johann Agricola; Johannes Brenz, who had
been with him in Augsburg; and Martin Bucer, the reformer of Strasbourg. Most importantly,
Luther made extensive suggestions, on both how to sharpen the argument and where to abbreviate
it.”2 The Quarto Edition of the Apology to the Augsburg Confession was printed in Apr/May 1531
(and its Octavo Edition in Sep 1531). It was published as a public defence document rather than
as a private polemic.
About the Apology: Melanchthon in his preface to the Apology noted that the assembly of the
princes commanded him and some others to prepare an Apology of the Augsburg Confession to
repudiate the opponent who thought they have refuted the Augsburg Confession from the
Scriptures. But the Apology is written to demonstrate that the Confutation has done so contrary to
the testimony of Scripture on the chief arguments. The chief argument, justification, took a quarter
of the Apology. ‘This article required special reflection, dealing as it does with the heartbeat of the
Reformation and, indeed, of the whole Christian existence’.3
Justification in the Augsburg Confession: At this point, it is important to note the centrality of
Justification in the Augsburg Confession. The first four articles of the Augsburg Confession are
considered the core of the Lutheran Church doctrines. Particularly the fourth article (Justification)
is prominent over the remaining articles of the confession. The Smalcald article treats the article
on justification as the first and chief article. Martin Luther reaffirmed this when he stated 'nothing
on this article can be concealed or given up…. On this article stand all that we teach…. otherwise,
2
Charles P Arand, Robert Kolb, and James A Nestingen, The Lutheran Confessions: History and Theology of the
Book of Concord (Philadelphia, Pa: Fortress Press, Cop, 2012), 125
3
Arand and Kolb, The Book of Concord, 106
2
SL120 Lutheran Confessions
Tewodros
everything is lost'. Meanwhile, in the third (Smalcald) article, Luther regarded the rest of the
articles as issues that 'could be discussed with learned, reasonable people or among ourselves.'
Purpose: The reason the Apology was written regarding justification is described in various parts
of Article IV of Ap. The goal was to substantiate article IV of AC and remove the objections and
false allegations presented against the Lutherans in the Confutation (4). Melanchthon intended to
dissect the doctrine of justification in greater detail by refuting the complete misreading and
misunderstanding of the opponents of the AC that they brought in the Confutation. He wanted to
expound on the “by faith alone” notion of the AC in a greater detail which was adamantly rejected
in the Confutation. The opponents of AC also brought some abstracts to detect but subtly
differences in understanding related to the doctrine of justification which has damaging effects if
they are not dealt with rightly. Melanchthon laboured to make the matter noticeably clear by
demonstrating fully enough from the testimony of the Scriptures and argument derived from the
scriptures (117). He also employed the testimonies of the fathers.
In doing so, Melanchthon started his argument by making a clear distinction between the law and
the gospel (the promise) (183). Then he proceeded to remove the objection basing the argument
on this clear distinction. He made it his purpose to clarify this distinction because one must
distinguish the promises from the law to recognize the benefits of Christ. The goal of the Apology
is thus to put this in a simple, clearer, and unambiguous way. Melanchthon was convinced that it
is from such ambiguity (of law and gospel) that many and varied solutions were forwarded. So, it
is the intention of the Apology to present a clear-cut description of the source to the question at
hand, i.e., justification (183-185) by responding to the argument of the opponent. The important
debate at the stake is the honor of Christ and the consolation of the faithful (156). Melanchthon
3
SL120 Lutheran Confessions
Tewodros
also made it his purpose to refute various wrongly interpreted citations from the scripture by the
defenders of the Confutation.
The Roman Opponents / Defenders of the Roman Confutation: How did the Melanchthon view
his Opponents and the idea they expressed in the Confutation? In the Apology, the Defenders of
the Roman Confutation were viewed by Melanchthon as scholastic philosophers that fabricate
theology and as people who did not know how forgiveness of sins takes place. Melanchthon
criticizes them for using fallacious dichotomization of merit (merit of congruity and condignity)
in their effort not to be labeled as Pelagians. He also blamed them for misinterpretation (283) and
hermeneutical error [by corrupting many of the passages by reading into the scripture their own
opinion rather than deriving the meaning from the texts themselves (224)]. He also condemned
them for purposefully omitting (or not teaching) about faith that justifies. Melanchthon views the
argument and judgment of the Defenders of the Confutation as sinful and wicked (393A). It is in
this context and views Melanchthon responded to the Confutation.
Fundamental issues and Recurring themes in Article IV of the Apology
The Premises – Law & Gospel: The assumptions of the Augsburg Confession and its Apology
stand is on the ground that adheres to the belief that presupposes all Scripture to be Law and Gospel
(promises). The Apology assumes that the Law should be seen in its entirety including the first
table (which requires the true fear and love of God in all circumstances even in afflictions and to
the point of death). According to Melanchthon, the defenders of the righteousness of law presume
the Law as the second part of the Decalogue (i.e., outward civil works). By fulfilling this civil
laws/righteousness and attaining meritorious good work, they argued that people merit forgiveness
of sin and justification (18). The premise of the defender of the Roman Confutation is based on
(the philosophical) notion that state reason can love God above all things (Righteousness of
4
SL120 Lutheran Confessions
Tewodros
Reason). Based on this premise, the Apology state that the Roman Opponents teach righteousness
of reason and righteousness of the law (21).
Melancton also recognized the appeal attached to the fulfillment of the civil law might have to
human reason. But where is the appropriate place of ‘righteousness of reason’? Fulfilling the civil
law restrains people from living according to the flesh through fear of penalty. To a certain extent,
Melanchthon believed, reason can produce righteousness by its power which is its greatest
goodness. God even rewards it temporally (22). But it should not be forgotten that such
‘righteousness of reason’ is transactional4. As Melanchthon put it, the ‘righteousness of reason’ is
‘shackled by its natural weakness' (23). It could by no means earn the merit of justification and
forgiveness of sin (25, 26). Melanchthon underlines that it should by no means undermine the work
4
The terms TRANSACTIONAL and transformational mostly are used concerning leadership models or
styles. Here I want to use them in relation to the doctrine of justification in the following sense.
Transactional is a process of "exchanging one thing for another". It involves a kind of give and take. A
person tends to be a law-abiding citizen because there is some benefit that came from obeying the law.
Behind the transactional process there is a carrot and stick principle to drive motivation. In leadership
styles that peruse this principle, there is the notion of contingency behind the process (i.e., rewards are
contingent upon good performance). Transactional processes are the exchange of good work or
productivity for reward and the denial of rewards or lack thereof. The transactional process rewards or
punishes, depending on the merit of the performance. So, transactional is contingent i.e., it rewards
exceptional performance.
While TRANSFORMATION is meant to be radically changed from within. A person that was unable to
perform is transformed and is capable to do the work because the person shares the value of the
transforming leader without any expectation of reward (or because the person is already rewarded). The
transformed person is motivated, inspired, and empowered to do the good work not that the person will get
something out of the good work but for the simple reason the person already is motivated and rewarded.
So, the person does not intend to transact their performance to get access to the reward. A transformational
change could hardly happen in a transactional mindset. (Adapted from Transformational Leadership
Second Edition)
5
SL120 Lutheran Confessions
Tewodros
of Christ. ‘Righteousness of reason’ “ought not (be) praised at Christ's expense" (24). Because
reason cannot love God and is not free from sinning (28). So, Melanchthon argued that the Law
(Decalogue) has elements of work that reason may produce to some extent, but it goes far beyond
‘the reach of human reason,’ to totally and completely obey and love God in all circumstances (8).
In this instance, Melanchthon seeks support from the fathers (particularly Augustine’s argument
against Pelagians). Augustine said reason cannot free us from sin (31). ‘The flesh sins even when
we perform outward civil work…that are excellent and praiseworthy in human eyes’ (33). But the
defenders of the righteousness of reason say we merit forgiveness of sins through an elicited act
of love. But Melanchthon argued that it is impossible to love God until the forgiveness of sin is
first grasped by faith’ (36).
The Purpose of the Law
Melancton said his opponents miss the whole purpose of the giving of the Law. This difference
underlines the major difference in the doctrine of justification between the Lutherans and the
Romans. Melanchthon proceeded to affirm that the purpose of the law is to bring wrath and terrify
the consciousness. A terrified conscious flees from God's judgment or trembles in unworthiness
before God. This means, the law in and of itself does help us to love God or it does not teach us
the forgiveness of sins. But when the promise of forgiveness of sin and justification on account
of Christ is proclaimed, and when the person embraces this promise through faith, then it is after
this the person can love God (38, 40). The (first tablet of) the law cannot be kept without the prior
reception of the forgiveness of sin, justification, and the Holy Spirit (70).
6
SL120 Lutheran Confessions
Tewodros
The Promise
The Gospel is the promise, i.e., the promise of forgiveness of sin and justification on account of
Christ. The promise cannot be grasped in any other way than by faith. Faith is like the hands we
receive the gifts in the promise. The gospel is the proclamation of the righteousness of faith in
Christ. It offers reconciliation on account of Christ. As we have seen above, the law does not give
this promise (43). Faith in such promise does not bring to God trust in our own merits. Such faith
is not transactional. It does not bring anything to the table (the altar) in exchange to receive the
gift of the gospel (forgiveness of sin). Such faith is there only (as an extended hand) to receive the
gift (the mercy promised in Christ) (44). Melanchthon accused the Defenders of the righteousness
of law for not monition a thing about such faith.
Justifying Faith
According to the Apology (48), a faith that justifies is a faith that embraces the promise of God in
which forgiveness of sin and justification is bestowed freely on account of Christ. Such faith is
different from mere knowledge, an idle knowledge of history (61). A faith that justifies is rather
the desire to receive the offered promise of the forgiveness of sins and justification. Such faith
receives God’s promises. Therefore, it is not enough to know or even to believe the story of
incarnation, death, and resurrection unless we receive the forgiveness of sins (51). This must be
one of the reasons the Lutherans considered the article on justification to be the ‘first and chief in
which nothing can be concealed or given up and on it stands all that we teach…. otherwise,
everything is lost’. While the righteousness of law tries to offer God its own merits (in exchange
to receive justification and forgiveness of sin). The notion of 'give and take' makes the
righteousness of law and reason into the realm of the transactional process.
7
SL120 Lutheran Confessions
Tewodros
At this juncture, Melanchthon introduced three elements of Justifying faith. These are 1) the
promise, and 2) the absence of a price tag on the promise. (This means it is not for sale and it is
offered freely) and 3) Merit of Christ (It is paid). The promise is lavishly bestowed freely without
cost, meaning no amount of merit is expected from us. The merit of Christ is the payment for
atoning scarifies for our sins as a satisfaction (53). As such, Christ stands as our only mediator and
propitiator (40). The promised mercy is the object of faith. But it should be noted that ‘Faith is
not a worthy work in and of itself.’ (56). Such a view of faith a very important but subtly difficult
to grasp (intrinsically, such a notion of viewing faith as something we brought to the table as a
meritorious act of ourselves misleads many to fall to the prey of the righteousness of reason).
The proclamation of repentance (the law part of the preaching of the Word) accuses us and terrifies
our conscience with genuine and serious terror. In the midst of this, the gospel (and the promise of
Christ) is proclaimed. Faith that arises and console us amid these fear help us embrace the promise
to receive forgiveness of sin and justification and make us alive (62). Faith is not an idle thought
but frees us from death and proceed new life in our heart. It is transformational. It is a work of the
Holy Spirit that simultaneously bring forth the good work in us (that no longer coexists with mortal
sin) (64).
Regeneration and the Word
Another fundamental issue the Apology points out is the regeneration we received through the
Word. The Apology asserts that regeneration is received through the Word because God cannot be
dealt with us other than through the Word. God cannot be grasped in any other way than the Word.
Thus, our justification takes place through the Word (65). According to Rom 10:17, justification
takes place only through the Word, and the Word is grasped only by faith, then faith justifies (67).
8
SL120 Lutheran Confessions
Tewodros
Melanchthon here is very keen to correct the subtle notion presented by his opponents. Defenders
of the righteousness of law think of the faith that justifies as foundational and the beginning (or
the preparation) for justification. Melanchthon unequivocally says it is not! The Apology asserts
that ‘by faith and by it alone we are regarded as righteous for Christ’s sake’. Melanchthon
especially underlines the word 'alone’. When the Apology says ‘alone,’ it is to underscore the
exclusion of any form of merit whatsoever that intend to get the favourable treatment from God.
At the same time, the Apology did not intend to exclude the Word and the Sacraments because
faith is sparked by the Word. Love and good works ought to follow faith thus love and good work
are not excluded [but no amount of trust (however tiny) it may be in the merit of love and good
work in justification is excluded (71-74)].
Christ our Mediator and Propitiator
Another subtle but misguided issue imbedded in the Confutation that Melanchthon wanted keenly
to address concerns the notion of Christ being our mediator. The Defenders of the Roman
Confutation apparently said Christ is our meditator and propitiator. But the reason they said this
was because Christ has initiated and has merited the disposition of love. Through him, we got “the
infusion of grace”. Thus, after getting the initial disposition, we have access to God (and thus the
forgiveness of sin) through our work. As such, this has led the Roman Catholics not to urge people
to use Christ as a mediator now and always. Essentially, such teaching “bury Christ”. Melanchthon
argued (81) that we have access (peace) always through Christ by faith alone. The Apology
underlines that Christ is not grasped as the mediator in any other way than by faith (80). There will
be no time when we can set our love and our works as merit against the wrath of God to access
forgiveness of sin. It is the understanding of the Apology that Christ always remains our mediator
and propitiator. Melanchthon cited support from Paul (Rom 3:25) saying we embrace the benefits
9
SL120 Lutheran Confessions
Tewodros
of Christ atoning scarifies through faith alone. In other words, the benefit of Christ's propitiation
is effective only through faith.
The Right Knowledge
The scriptures testify justification by faith alone. It regenerates the unrighteous people to be
righteous. Such knowledge of faith is necessary because it is through such knowledge that we
understand the work of Christ and we receive the benefits of Christ. It is such knowledge that
brings consolation to the godly mind (117).
Love and the fulfilling of the law (122-182): After we have been justified and reborn by faith,
we begin to fear and love God. These things cannot happen until we have been justified, reborn,
and received the Holy Spirit. It is impossible to keep the law without Christ and the Holy Spirit.
God is not loved until we are grasped by his mercies. Civil work might be done to some extent but
those laws in the first tablet cannot be rendered without the Holy Spirit. But the opponent’s
theology focuses only on the second tablet and civil work and pays no attention to the first. Even
though the opponents accuse the Lutherans saying they do not teach about good work,
Melanchthon responded to such accusation by stating that inner spiritual impulse, as well as
outward good work, are included simultaneously in the teaching of Lutherans (136).
The Apology unequivocally underlines that we are justified by faith alone (78) and Melanchthon
reiterated the definition of justification again and again saying justification by faith also should be
“understood as the making of a righteous person out of an unrighteous one or as a regeneration’.
In this regenerated person's life, love and good works naturally must follow faith. Thus, good work
and love are not excluded (as the opponents of the AC falsely accused). What Melanchthon insisted
should be underlined is the merits of love or good works are excluded in justification.
10
SL120 Lutheran Confessions
Tewodros
In Summary, I would like to cite a couple of theologians' views on the Apology. Arand, Kolb, and
Nestingen noted that what was at stake for the Wittenberg theologians was ‘the honor of Christ
and the consolation of troubled consciences.’ This has led Melanchthon to go ‘on the offensive
against those whose positions “bury Christ completely” (81, 18), “obscure the glory and blessings
of Christ” (3), fail to make use of Christ (12), “insult Christ” (149, 150), “abolish Christ” (229),
and “rob Christ” of his glory as mediator and propitiator (157, 214–15). Conversely, “Christ’s
glory becomes brighter when we teach people to make use of him as mediator and propitiator”
(299). When Christ’s sole responsibility for salvation is not made clear, dismay, disquiet, and
despair can overwhelm the pious (24, 157, 165, 213, 215, 257, 269, 285, 317). The righteousness
of human performance did not win merit before God, Melanchthon insisted, for "God does not
regard a person as righteous in the way that a court or philosophy does (that is, because of the
righteousness of one's works). Instead, he regards a person as righteous through mercy because of
Christ when anyone clings to him by faith" (283+)’.5
Martim C. Warth generalized article 4 of the Apology as Melanchthon emphasizing ‘the (total)
monergism of God. It is God who offers the promise that also creates faith so that justification is
received by faith as a gift of God’. Such notion of monergism guaranteed ‘the two main concerns
in this controversy, namely, "the honor of Christ" and the abundant consolation" for pious
consciences.’6 Warth also noted another important summary of the Apology when he stated that
‘Melanchthon understands justification and sanctification (to be) simultaneous, so that there is no
justification without sanctification, and there is no sanctification without justification. There is
5
Arand, Kolb, and Nestingen, The Lutheran Confessions History and Theology of The Book of Concord,
Martim C. Warth, “Justification through Faith in Article Four of the Apology,” CONCORDIA THEOLOGICAL
QUARTERLY 46, no. 2-3 (April 1982): 105–27, http://www.ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/warthjustification.pdf., 107
6
11
SL120 Lutheran Confessions
Tewodros
only logical precedence of justification over sanctification, not a temporal one. Melanchthon calls
attention to this fact when he speaks of a first and a second - "faith precedes while love follows"7
Conclusion and Relevant for Today’s Church
The doctrine of justification as stipulated in the fourth article of the Apology is still valid for
today’s world and church. The righteousness of reason and law is still appealing to the reasonable
mind as it is always transactional in its operation. The notion of obtaining a certain disposition
(initial grace) from Christ so that we have something to transact with God is still prevalent even
within the circle of Evangelicals who presume this to be a pious way of spiritual life. Most of the
time, we count our deep desire and fervent prayer to experience the power and presence of God as
merit we present to God. But underneath it lies that faint but subtle voice of ‘righteousness of
reason’. Intrinsically, such a transactional approach to justification made Christ be on the sideline
(while our written Confessions are ‘justification by faith alone’). So, the church must be aware of
how tricky the reason could be in presenting its merit before God to justify itself. That subtility
lurks in individual and group life must be watched and refuted time and again not only of 'the
opponents’ theology but amongst us who believe in justification by faith alone. Believing and
adhering to the doctrine of justification is not a matter of belonging to a denomination that
confesses and teaches this doctrine. It is a matter of attitude a person has in a given time. In the
Parable of the Prodigal son, it is the elder son (who thinks he is at home with the father) that falls
prey to self-righteousness and a kind of 'I deserve' attitude. Whenever we feel we deserve it and
whenever we think ‘others’ don't deserve it, then this is the clear sign we are falling to the prey of
the righteousness of the law (while still feeling we are at home). Simultaneously, every effort
should also be put to keep the balance in providing a context of fulfilling our Christian
7
Warth, Justification through Faith in Article Four of the Apology, 118
12
SL120 Lutheran Confessions
Tewodros
responsibilities on what flow out of regeneration and justification by faith alone such as good
works and civil responsibilities/duties (without considering them as merits).
References
Arand, Charles P, and Robert Kolb. The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church.
Minneapolis Fortress Press, 2000.
Arand, Charles P, James A Nestingen, and Robert Kolb. The Lutheran Confessions: History and Theology of the
Book of Concord. Philadelphia, Pa: Fortress Press, 2012.
Bass, Bernard M., and Riggio, Ronald E. Transformational Leadership Second Edition. New Jersey, Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates Press, 2006.
Warth, Martim C. “Justification through Faith in Article Four of the Apology.” CONCORDIA THEOLOGICAL
QUARTERLY 46, no. 2-3 (April 1982): 105–27. http://www.ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/warthjustification.pdf
13