The topic of justification by faith versus works is a quintessential can of worms in Christian theology. As many Christians are already aware, the justification debate gained a strong momentum in Luther’s day, and since then has morphed, splintered, morphed again, splintered again – – and again and again — into one of the top reasons we now have a mind-numbing array of Christian denominations.
Recently, I happened to watch a response video to a Protestant podcaster, who made bold claims that the wide range of denominations out there helps promote “diversity in thought” — that they are much more divided on minor points, and not so much on the core of Christian theology. Except that very last claim is far from correct. Just look at Calvin versus Luther as two early examples of theological differences splintering into different denominations. And it goes like ths:
Whenever I read or discuss the subject of “justification by faith versus works (including “works of the Law)”, I immediately think of two people I have come to know pretty well in my theology studies: a Jewish classmate I had during a New Testament course, and my professor in a Hebrew scriptures course.
My Jewish peer, who came from an Orthodox leaning background, had never studied the New Testament prior to the course we took together. One reason why I appreciated his persecptives was that his only frame of reference going into the course was his understanding of Covenant; that is, God coming down to form a family relationship with the Hebrews, and then the Hebrews (eventually known as Israelites, followed by “Jews” post-exile) now dealing with a 3000+ year-old challenge of fully keeping to Covenant. (And hence why, as my peer put it, the Jews await a Messiah / a king to put things back in right order).
This fits well with something my professor said at the beginning of Hebrew Scriptures course: “When studying the Old Testament, we will be reading it entirely as if we ourselves are ancient Jews hearing / looking at this Scripture for the first time. (In other words, no Christian lenses allowed). By end of the course, you just may be *blown-away* by how this leads to Jesus as Messiah.”
A sort of similar kind of thought process can be applied to the debate of “justification by faith versus works” and how the Law factors into this. Namely, when we look at Luther’s and Calvin’s thoughts on the Law versus salvation through faith in Jesus, how much did Luther and/or Calvin consider the Jewish angle to this debate? Sure, they both quote from several OT passages to make their case for, as Luther put it, “precepts and promises” (par. 17).
However, this seems to be yet another example of carte-blanche retrofitting OT scriptures to make the case for Christ, rather than understanding more clearly why Jews follow covenants (particularly, the Mosaic covenant) in the first place. Covenant is first a relationship. Then, keeping to Law is about being obedient and helping fortify the relationship. Meaning that Jesus presenting Himself as the final covenant leads to both accepting faith in this covenant (salvation) while keeping obedient to – and not breaking – the relationship with Jesus.
Yet as the above point has not effectively ended the debate (though I pray it does someday), let’s look a bit more at how Calvin and Luther approached justification and scrutinized the Law’s association with it. First, Calvin and Luther, did have a few views in common. For example, they both saw Mosaic Law as a precept to remind humankind of its sinfulness and inability to achieve salvation without God’s mercy and grace.
And Luther’s work, Concerning Christian Liberty and Calvin’s work, Institutes of the Christian Religion, both repeatedly emphasize that only through faith in Jesus can humankind experience real freedom from sin – and that Jesus Christ begins where the Law ends (Luther par. 12, Calvin par. 5, 7).
But there is still a problem here: Are Calvin and Luther referring exclusively to works of the Law, or are they also including *moral virtue* as works? Take the following comments by Luther, for example: “Works, since they are irrational things, cannot glorify God, although be done to the glory of God, if faith be present” (par. 33). AND “Through this perversion of things it has happened that the knowledge of Christian grace, of faith, and of liberty, and altogether of Christ, has utterly perished, and has been succeeded by an intolerable bondage to human works and laws” (par. 45).
At the risk of splitting hairs, notice that Luther separates “works” and “laws” in that last passage. But that’s not meant to read too much into the text. Rather, it goes back to the question: What exactly are we talking about when words such as Law, works, works of the Law, or Moral Law are used in same, different, or interchangeable contexts? For instance, while scholars agree that Luther and Calvin both speak of Mosaic Law and refer to the Ten Commandments, Calvin additionally talks about “Moral Law”: that the Law provides a guide on how to avoid being hypocritical to God (par. 6).
Which begs the question: Is all this hoopla surrounding faith versus works due to conflating the misuse of rituals with actual moral obedience to the justification? After all, aren’t there various types of works: works of the Law, works that involve a moral virtue / staying in a state of grace, and works of the flesh, to name a few?
Whichever the case, it’s hard to deny that Luther and Calvin had clear biases going into their positions. From the get-go, Luther already wasn’t a fan of any hint of Aristotelian or nominalist influence in Christian theology (MacColluch 606); and just the mere fact that laws existed in the OT caused Luther to go into conniption fits about how to reconcile Law with his ultra-streamlined view of salvation. So much so, that he apparently had no qualms about being “fast and loose with scripture,” as scholars have noted (MacCulloch 608, 619).
Then there’s Calvin: While he was considered a boon for a Reformation that, despite gaining some traction, was also having trouble moving from walking to running with his new take on Christian theology, Calvin’s approach would soon show one of the reasons why the Reformation built a reputation on mass splintering: predestination. Calvin essentially updated Luther’s position on justification by claiming that if human works are irrelevant anyway, then God somewhat arbitrarily chooses people to save. In other words, only the elect are saved. (MacCulloch 634).
Therefore, here is another case of deciding which lenses to look through to understand context. Above all, whether looking through a Calvinist Lens, or a Lutheran lens, or really any lens that redressed the core of Christian theology, are we as Christians willing to work together towards a more complete, hopefully unbiased answer to faith versus works?