a. "By grace, for Christ’s sake, through faith.” These terms are used to exclude from the article of justification all works of men, either preceding, present, or following. The Formula of Concord writes Thor. Decl., III, 25: "For not everything that belongs to conversion belongs likewise to the article of justification, in and to which belong and are necessary only the grace of God, the merit of Christ, and faith"
The expression by grace ascribes salvation alone to God’s gracious disposition in Christ (gratuitus Dei favor) and excludes from justification as a meritorious cause the so-called “infused grace” (gratia infusa) of papistic theology. The expression for Christ’s sake means as much as “for the sake of Christ’s vicarious satisfaction,” “since He has made satisfaction for us to the Law and paid for our sins” (Formula of Concord, Thor. Decl., III, 14).
Justification for Christ’s sake must be maintained a) against the papists, who regard infused grace (gratia infusa), love, etc., as a cause of justification; b) against all enthusiasts, who base justification not upon the merits of Christ, but upon the “Christ in us,” or upon His indwelling and sanctifying influence in the heart (Osiander); and c) against all modern rationalistic theologians, who reject the forensic character of justification as too “juridical” and define it as an ethical process, or a transformation of man (Umgestaltung der Menschheit) through the sanctifying influence of the Holy Spirit (actus medicinalis).
The expression by faith designates faith as the receiving means (medium ληπτικόν), by which the believer appropriates to himself the merits of Christ offered to him in the means of grace (media δοτικά). All three expressions together affirm the Scriptural truth “that all our righteousness is to be sought outside the merits, works, virtues, and worthiness of ourselves and of all men and rests alone upon Christ the Lord” (Formula of Concord, Thor. Decl., III, 55).
This truth must be defended against all errorists who substitute for the objective righteousness of Christ, which is outside the sinner, a righteousness which is within man as the ground for his justification (papists, enthusiasts, religious experimentalists (Erlebnistheologen), etc.).
b. “Justification not a physical or medical, but a forensic, or judicial, act." The meaning of these expressions is that justification does not consist essentially in the inward transformation of the sinner, or in his sanctification, but rather in the divine act by which God declares a sinner righteous for Christ’s sake. That is to say, justification is not essentially a change by which man is made just, but a change whereby he is declared just on account of the perfect righteousness of Christ which he appropriates by faith. The change which follows justification is the fruit of faith and properly belongs into the doctrine of sanctification, not into that of justification.
When we speak of justification as a forensic, or judicial, act, we must note, however, that there is a distinctive difference between the judgment of the civil courts and that of God. The civil courts justify, or declare righteous, the just and condemn the wicked. Those who justify the wicked and condemn the just are an abomination to the Lord, Prov. 17,15. But God, in the act of justification, justifies the ungodly, Rom. 4, 5, and this on the valid ground that Christ by His perfect obedience has paid the debt for the wicked, Is. 53, 5. 6; 2 Cor. 5, 21.
The Apology declares Art. III, 185:
“Moreover, in this passage Rom. 5,1 to justify signifies, according to forensic usage, to acquit a guilty one and to declare him righteous, but on account of the righteousness of another, namely, of Christ, which righteousness of another is communicated to us by faith. Therefore, since in this passage our righteousness is the imputation of the righteousness of another, we must here speak concerning righteousness otherwise than when in philosophy or in a civil court we seek after the righteousness of one’s own work.”
This distinction is important; for if God would justify only the just and condemn all the unjust, as do the civil courts, not a single sinner would be saved, Luke 18, 14; Gal. 3, 10, since in spite of all their moral efforts all men remain unrighteous before God, Is. 64, 6. The papistic doctrine that God can justify only those who really are just, either in whole or in part, cancels the entire Gospel-message of justification by faith. Luther rightly called this doctrine “the venom of Satan” and the “most pestilential pest (pestilentissima pestis; St. L., V, 517), since it deprives the sinner of all true consolation and robs God of the honor which is due Him as the gracious Lord, who freely forgives sin for Christ’s sake, Rom. 3, 28; Eph. 2, 7—9.
It is necessary to emphasize this truth because not only all Romanizing Protestants (Andrew Osiander, Schwenkfeld, Weigel), but also Arminians and synergists deny the actus forensis in its Scriptural sense.
That the verb δικαιοῦν means “to declare righteous” and not “to make righteous” is incontestably proved not only by its consistent usage in Scripture, but also by the exclusive particles (particulae exclusivae) which in Scripture are commonly joined with this term, Rom. 3, 23—28; 4, 5—8. These show that justification is not a healing or sanctifying process (actus medicinalis), by virtue of which the sinner is enabled to merit salvation by good works, but rather a forensic act, by which God for Christ’s sake declares him to be righteous, though in himself he is unworthy and unrighteous, Rom. 4, 5.
c. “By faith alone” (sola fide). Luther’s insistence upon the sola fide was well motivated. His papistic opponents were willing to concede that the sinner is saved by faith; but they refused to admit that he is justified solely by faith (sola fide). They well understood that by this expression the Reformer did not mean to exclude from justification God’s grace, Christ’s merit, and the means of grace as God’s means of conferring the righteousness which Christ by His vicarious satisfaction has secured for the world (media δοτικά). But they knew that by this term the Lutherans meant to define faith merely as a receiving means (medium ληπτικόν; medium aut instrumentum) of the righteousness of Christ offered to the sinner in the Gospel; and to this definition they persistenly objected. When they declared that the sinner is “saved by faith,” they defined faith as a virtue or good quality (bona qualitas), implanted into him by God (gratia infusa), so that, after all, “salvation by faith” means “salvation by works” (fides, quae per caritatem operatur).
The sola fide of Luther therefore served the purpose of denying this Semi-Pelagianistic error. Positively, it affirmed that faith saves merely as an instrumentum, or medium; negatively, that in the article of justification faith must not be considered as a good work or quality.
The Lutherans were fully justified in their contention that their opponents, since they denied the sola, denied also the fide; in other words, that their doctrine of justification was in direct opposition to that of Scripture, Rom. 3, 28; 4, 5, which excludes from justification all human works.
Thus the sola fide has become the shibboleth of the Reformation; and to-day it still is the slogan of the confessional Lutheran Church to proclaim to the world its chief article of faith, namely, that a sinner is justified before God gratuitously, by His grace (δωρεὰν τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι), apart from works of the Law (χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου), Rom. 3, 21—28. The Catholic Encyclopedia, sub “faith,” says: “By leaving out the obnoxious sola (alone), the article Art. IV of the Augsburg Confession might be glossed in Catholic sense.” (Cp. Christl. Dogmatik, II, 643 ff.)
d. “Justification does not require even the presence of good works.” (Neque PRAESENTIA operum ad iustificationem requiritur.) This statement must be understood in the light of the important truth “that faith is never alone, yet always justifies alone” (Fides nunquam est sola, sed iustificat sola). This truth is clearly taught in Scripture. On the one hand, saving faith is always followed by works, Rom. 5, 1—5; Gal. 5, 6; Jas. 2, 20; on the other hand, faith never saves inasmuch as it is productive of good works, Rom. 3, 28; 4, 5.
Of this the Formula of Concord writes Thor. Decl., III, 41:
"Good works do not precede faith, neither does sanctification precede justification. But first faith is kindled in us in conversion by the Holy Ghost from the hearing of the Gospel. This lays hold of God’s grace in Christ, by which the person is justified. Then, when the person is justified, he is also renewed and sanctified by the Holy Ghost, from which renewal and sanctification the fruits of good works then follow. . . . This should not be understood as though justification and renewal were sundered from one another in such a manner that a genuine faith could exist and continue for a time together with a wicked intention, but hereby only the order ... is indicated how one precedes or succeeds the other. For what Luther has correctly said remains true nevertheless: Faith and good works well agree and fit together (are inseparably connected); but it is faith alone, without works, which lays hold of the blessing; and yet it is never and at no time alone.”
The statements “Good works are required in justification,” or “Good works are necessary for salvation,” must be condemned as both wrong in themselves and as favoring the Pelagianistic doctrine of human cooperation in conversion. It is against such erroneous statements as these that the Lutheran Church confesses: “Justification does not require even the presence of good works.”
e. "Justification has no degrees" (Iustificatio non admittit gradus, non fit successive , non recipit magis et minus.) This Lutheran statement is directed against the doctrines of the papists and Romanizing Protestants, who, while mingling sanctification into justification, assume that justification is successive, or gradual, inasmuch as divine grace in man (gratia infusa sive inhaerens) operates toward perfection by degrees, so that a person’s justification actually depends on his progress in sanctification.
Against this error the confessional Lutheran Church teaches on the basis of Scripture that justification is instantaneous and therefore complete as soon as the sinner believes in Christ, Rom. 4, 7; Luke 18, 24; Rom. 5, 1. Luther thus writes: “Justification does not come in pieces, but in a heap.”1
It is true, there are degrees with respect to faith, for the faith of one Christian is strong while that of another is weak; but also a weak faith justifies as much as does the strong, since even a weak faith is trust in Christ’s righteousness. Luther rightly says St. L., XI, 1840:
“Therefore we are all alike in Christ through faith. St. Peter may have a stronger faith than I, yet it is nevertheless the same faith in Christ. . . . Who receives Him (Christ) receives Him entirely, no matter whether he receives Him weakly or strongly.”
f. “Forgiveness of sin is the entire justification, not merely a part of it.” This truth our Confessions affirm time and again. The Apology writes : “To attain the remission of sins is to be justified, according to Ps. 32, 1: 'Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven.’ ” And the Formula of Concord states : “According to the usage of Holy Scripture the word justify means in this article to absolve, that is, to declare free from sins”; and again : “The righteousness of faith before God consists alone in the gracious reconciliation, or the forgiveness of sins.”
This truth is taught by St. Paul in Rom. 4, 5—8, where he describes the justified as such whose sins are covered, or forgiven. Those of our dogmaticians who divide justification into two parts, namely, imputation of Christ’s righteousness and forgiveness of sins, do this for the sake of clarity. In reality the imputation of Christ’s righteousness is the necessary prerequisite of forgiveness; in other words, God, by imputing to the sinner Christ’s perfect righteousness, forgives his sins. In the divine verdict of justification the two acts really coincide; or we may say, they constitute one act, namely, that of justification.
Scripture, when referring to the cause of justification, sometimes mentions Christ (Rom. 3, 22), then again Christ’s righteousness (Rom. 6, 18), or Christ’s death and blood (1 Cor. 2, 2), or His resurrection from the dead (Rom. 10, 9), or His name (1 John 5, 13), etc. But all these phrases express the same truth, namely, that a sinner is justified on account of Christ’s vicarious suffering and death, which God freely offers to all men in the Gospel. For the sake of clearness our dogmaticians usually distinguish between the causes of justification as follows: Divine grace is causa impulsiva interna; Christ (His vicarious satisfaction), the causa impulsiva externa sive meritoria; the Gospel, causa instrumentaiis ex parte Dei. These distinctions help us to understand the great truth that God most graciously forgives the sins of all who by faith appropriate to themselves Christ’s righteousness offered in the means of grace. And such forgiveness is justification.