Justification as Union and Christ’s Presence: A Lutheran Perspective

Justification as Union and Christ’s Presence:

A Lutheran Perspective¹

Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen

Part I

A New Interpretation of Martin Luther’s Account of Justification

A New Emerging Paradigm of Considering Luther’s Theology of Justification

Reformation theology in general and Lutheran tradition in particular have had a hard time in trying to reconcile the idea of theosis with the doctrine of justification. Historically, these two traditions have been considered diametrically opposed to each other. A corollary problem is that, for Lutherans, Eastern Orthodox soteriology entertains problematic notions of the freedom of the will, too positive an anthropology, and, worst of all, the idea of human-divine synergia in salvation. It is not uncommon among Lutheran theologians to consider any reference to theosis as a form of Osiandrism, that is, a Lutheran heresy according to which “the presence of God in Christians amounts to a participation in the majestic divine essence.”² It is also a fact that poorly-read Protestants have insisted that the Eastern Orthodox idolatrously make us all little gods or that they think of participation in the divine nature only in “physical” terms.³ It is safe to say that until recent decades, the standard Lutheran assessment of theosis as a controlling metaphor has been ignored or, if need be, resisted and rejected. I am not aware of any major historical Lutheran theologian or Lutheran theological community that have lifted up theosis as a favorable soteriological concept, notwithstanding the fact that related concepts such as union and participation, of course, belong to the Lutheran theological thesaurus.

Against this historical background, one of the most unexpected and theologically-ecumenically most fpromising developments in international Lutheran studies is the rise of a “New Perspective on Luther’s soteriology” which can be named as “salvation as union” or “salvation as Christ’s ‘real’ presence in faith through the Holy Spirit.” Under the leadership of the late Finnish Professor Tuomo Mannermaa, a number of Luther scholars at the University of Helsinki have not only helped radically revise the canons of the interpretation of the Reformer’s own theology but also accomplished unprecedented ecumenical achievements.⁴

It was a great surprise that important commonalities were discerned between Luther’s theology of justification and the ancient concept of theosis, widely embraced by Eastern Christianity — notwithstanding the largely negative (or dismissive) reception of deification among Protestants. The breakthrough came at the end of the 1970s, thanks to ecumenical contacts with the Orthodox tradition (of Russia). The Lutheran-Orthodox dialogue produced a highly influential soteriological document in Kiev (Ukraine) 1977 titled “Salvation as Justification and Deification.” The preamble to the theses claims that

[u]ntil recently, there has been a predominant opinion that the Lutheran and Orthodox doctrines of salvation greatly differ from each other. In the conversations, however, it has become evident that both these important aspects of salvation discussed in the conversations have a strong New Testament basis and there is great unanimity with regard to them both.⁵

It was found that the doctrine of deification covers the idea of a Christian’s life as righteous and sinful at the same time, as Lutheran theology has always emphasized. The idea of deification makes more explicit what is sometimes in danger of being under-emphasized in Lutheranism, namely the sanative role of grace: “When the Christian has been justified, he takes a new road leading to deification.”⁶ Soon it was also discovered that important convergences could be discerned between the soteriologies of Luther and of Catholics – and even beyond.

The basic theses and claims of this new Lutheran interpretation can be summarized as follows:

1. Luther’s understanding of salvation can be expressed not only in terms of the doctrine of justification, but also as deification. Thus, while there are differences between the Eastern and Lutheran understandings of soteriology, over questions such as free will and understandings of the effects of the Fall, Luther’s own theology should not be set in opposition to the ancient idea of deification. Concepts such as “union” and “participation” speak the same language as deification.

2. For Luther, the main idea of justification is Christ present in faith (in ipsa fide Christus adest, “in the faith itself Christ is present/indwells.” Justification for Luther means a participation in God through the indwelling of Christ in the heart of the believer through the Spirit. Obviously, this is “more” than merely an “external” forensic declaration of justification although it does not have to dismiss it.

3. In contrast to the theology of the Lutheran Confessions, the Reformer Martin Luther himself does not typically make a categorical and programmatic separation between forensic (that is, the believer is “pronounced” righteous similarly to an accused person in the court) and effective justification (that is, the change of the believer), but rather argues that justification includes both. In other words, in line with Roman Catholic theology, justification means both declaring righteous and making righteous.

4. Therefore, justification means not only sanctification but also good works, since Christ present in faith makes the Christian a “christ” to the neighbor.⁷

The purpose of this essay is to consider carefully the possibility and conditions of the new perspective on Luther’s understanding of salvation. Furthermore, it also seeks to assess what the liabilities of this new interpretation under the leadership of Helsinki Mannermaa School might be and what are the areas of further investigation. While a new interpretation and in many ways strongly contested, some leading ideas of Mannermaa’s interpretation have been echoed by some other contemporary scholars as well. The late Wolfhart Pannenberg with the concept of “adoption” as the key metaphor of explaining the meaning of the Lutheran doctrine of justification with a focus on the transformative union comes to mind here. That said, he did not specifically address the Helsinki School paradigm although he was aware of it, and in his theology, deification plays no role in his soteriology. Furthermore, the essay also seeks to advance ecumenical discussion of Luther’s theology of salvation by looking at resources in a trinitarian-pneumatological orientation, oftentimes left to a junior role in this theological tradition.

This essay will not attempt an ecumenical dialogue between either Lutherans and Orthodox or Lutherans and Roman Catholics; that task has been attempted elsewhere. The focus will be on Lutheran contributions to and perspectives on salvation as union and participation.

Justification as Renewing Union with and Participation in Christ

The standard account of Lutheran doctrine of justification by faith is something like this: whereas the forensic declaration of the sinner as just is something that happens “outside” the believer in the sense that it is not conditioned on the inner change of the justified, sanctification as the second step is meant to refer to the improvement of life. But as important as the latter is (sanctification), the success (or lack) thereof has little or no effect on the foundational status of the sinner as the justified. As a result, in some popular preaching – or at least anecdotally – Lutherans may even speak of “bold sinning.”⁸ No wonder, Roman Catholic theology at the mid-sixteenth century Council of Trent, in response to Protestant Reformation, vehemently and fiercely attacked the alleged lack of pursuit of holiness. Similarly, the Orthodox tradition casts serious doubts on an account of salvation which is divorced from the renewal and holiness of life. Be this caricature true or not, it helps us set the stage for an interpretation of Martin Luther’s own view in which even when forensic declarative terminology is being deployed, the “big picture” is that of linking tightly together justification as the change of status and change of the believer’s life as the follower of the Triune God.

Justification in Luther can be described with the help of several closely related concepts such as participation in God, the presence of Christ in the believer through the Holy Spirit, union with God, perichoresis (mutual indwelling between God and the human person), and, occasionally also, deification. Regardless of the term used, Luther saw justification as the union between Christ and the believer, as Christ through faith abides in the Christian through the Spirit. In fact, Luther says, Christ is “one with us”⁹ and “Christ lives in us through faith.”¹⁰ For the Reformer, Christ

is the divine and inestimable gift that the Father has given to us to be our Justifier, Lifegiver, and Redeemer. To put on Christ according to the Gospel, therefore, is to put on, not the Law or works but an inestimable gift, namely, the forgiveness of sins, righteousness, peace, comfort, joy in the Holy Spirit, salvation, life, and Christ Himself.¹¹

For the reception of this wonderful Gift, the Wittenberg theologian uses the important term “apprehension” (apprehendere) rendered in English as “taking hold”: “[F]aith itself is a gift of God, a work of God in our hearts, which justifies us because it takes hold of [apprehendit] Christ the Savior.”¹² The Latin term apprehendere (which occurs in various forms in his mature commentary on Galatians [1535] about 300 times!) is a key scholastic philosophical concept denoting not only “intellectual apprehension when seen in terms of understanding and comprehension” but also the idea that “the object of knowledge becomes the property of a knowing subject.” For Luther this means “knowing Him as God who gives Himself to and on behalf of all sinners,” in other words, participation and union; Christ indeed is the righteousness of the Christian.¹³ The frequent use of this key-term alone tells us how very deeply union-driven Luther’s conception of justification is.

While insisting on this idea of union and participation, Luther also has in the background of his thinking an important medieval Catholic teaching which he saw as detrimental to a proper understanding of grace and salvation. It is often referred to in its Latin form simply as the principle of ordo caritatis. It was a central theological motif for St. Thomas Aquinas. It means that love as a natural capacity may reach out to the highest end, which is God. In other words, the human being is able (and under certain conditions, willing) to love God, the highest good. Technically put, love is the “form of faith” (fides caritate formata). In other words, faith coupled with love is the key to loving God, to be saved. While Luther himself highly appreciated love correctly understood, he adamantly denied any such capacity to fallen human person when it comes to the access to salvation. To express his opposition to the Thomistic teaching, he rather insisted on making “Christ the form of faith” (fides Christo formata).¹⁴ In place of love, he put faith in Christ, indeed Christ himself, as the key to justification. Hence, as cited above, “Therefore faith justifies because it takes hold of [apprehendit] and possesses this treasure, the present Christ.”¹⁵ Keeping in mind that the thick meaning of “taking hold” of Christ helps us appreciate his union-driven view of justification totally focused on Christ, not on the human person and his or her natural capacities.

For Luther himself justification is not only – and perhaps, not even primarily – a matter of forensic declaration of the sinner (although it is of course also that). Rather, as a union and participation – “taking hold of” Christ – justification is an inner change, renewal, sanctification. Theologians often name the latter aspect of justification as “effective” justification as it speaks of the effects to the believer of God’s renewing work. Having been trained and immersed in late medieval debates and thought-forms, Luther was fond of expressing this coupling of forensic and effective justification with the help of two widely used Scholastic concepts, namely “gift” (donum) and “favor” (favor), the latter of which was usually understood as the forgiveness of sin.¹⁶ Whereas Lutheran Confessions typically (but not exclusively) focus justification on the latter aspect, namely the forgiveness of sins, Luther himself typically (but not exclusively!) wished to keep the gift and favor tightly linked with each other. Luther states it unambiguously: “But ‘the grace of God’ [favor] and the ‘gift’ are the same thing, namely, the very righteousness which is freely given to us through Christ.”¹⁷ This is also at the heart of Roman Catholic teaching before and after Reformation. In this regard, with all his critique towards the ordo caritatis principle, Luther remained a faithful son of the Catholic Church.

The focus of Luther’s conception of justification just explicated here is important in the sense that it can be found both in Luther’s earlier and one of the latest main writings which is the final form of the Commentary on Galatians (1535) from which the above references to “taking hold” mainly come from. And recall that it is this major writing of the mature Luther which is endorsed “officially” by the drafters of the Formula of Concord (the official “summation” of Lutheran Confessional teaching on disputed issues among various fractions in the emerging new church) as a reliable guide to the Lutheran doctrine of salvation.¹⁸ Importantly, this commentary presents justification as participation in Christ and thus goes beyond and amplifies the forensic paradigm.¹⁹

Justification as “Christ Present in Faith”

In an important passage, already alluded to above, Luther makes this programmatic statement of the nature of true faith: “It takes hold of Christ in such a way that Christ is the object of faith, or rather not the object but, so to speak, the One who is present in the faith itself [in ipsa fide Christus adest].”²⁰ In this light it is understandable that, as discussed above, the distinction between effective and forensic righteousness does not play an important role in Luther. That said, another kind of distinction is crucial, namely that between two kinds of righteousness: the righteousness of Christ and the righteousness of the human being. The first kind of righteousness Luther defines as “alien” righteousness. It is being infused to us from outside in a sense that it does not come from within human resources. It comes from Christ, and it is that kind of righteousness that Christ is in himself, Christ who is the righteousness of faith. This kind of righteousness of Christ makes the human being just.²¹ This type of righteousness is given without our own works, solely on the basis of grace.²² This is the famous sola gratia, “grace alone.” Any allegedly meritorious human activity is totally excluded in this process. As explained, the “infusion” of this righteousness is more than mere forensic imputation, though; it also means the realization of the righteousness of Christ in the believer.

On that basis, Luther calls the other kind of righteousness “our” righteousness.²³ It is a result of the first kind of righteousness and makes it effective, “perfects” it.²⁴ Even though it is called “our” righteousness, its origin and source are outside the human being, in the righteousness of Christ.²⁵ In other words, it is not something the human person brings about; it is “ours” in a sense that it indwells us. Indeed, Luther says, Christ present in faith “absorbs all sin in a moment,” since the righteousness of Christ infused into the human heart is “infinite”; at the same time, the power of sin and death is deteriorating day by day but is not fully destroyed until death.²⁶ This means that the central Lutheran principle of simul iustus et peccator, “simultaneously just and sinner” is not dismissed. It is in the daily repentance and return to the regenerating grace given in the sacrament of water baptism that the “old Adam” is being “drowned” and put to death. The believer is not partially just and partially sinner but simultaneously both, waiting for the final eschatological consummation of God’s renewing justifying work.

The Finnish theologian Arto Seppänen summarizes the core idea of Luther’s doctrine of justification in a succinct manner:

Through faith the Christian and Christ are one, the union of which is pictured in the union between a bride and bridegroom. On the basis of this union [literally: being one] the Christian possesses all that Christ has in the same way the bride has everything that belongs to her bridegroom. Similarly, the sins of the human being become Christ’s possession. It is the unio which makes possible this participation. The whole of Christ is donated to the believer. The donation takes place through faith in Christ. “Happy exchange” is related to the essence of faith and is a natural consequence of the union with Christ.²⁷

The indwelling of Christ through faith in the Holy Spirit, the union, results in continuous renewal to the measure that rightly understood the Christian can be called “christ” (lower case) to the neighbor.

Christian as “christ” to the Neighbor

What is truly important to Luther’s union-driven account of justification is that as a result, good deeds follow “our” righteousness.²⁸ Good deeds are the fruit of justification, not a human merit – a suspicion among the drafters of Lutheran Confessions in their mixed relationship to good works. Similarly, to the fact that the human person depends solely on grace, sola gratia, with regard to initial justification, the resulting good deeds are also attributed to the indwelling Christ rather than human achievements. To repeat: good works spring from the union, Christ’s presence through Spirit in the believer.

All works except for faith have to be directed to the neighbor. For God does not require of us any works with regard to himself, only faith through Christ. That is more than enough for him; that is the right way to give honor to God as God, who is gracious, merciful, wise and truthful. Thereafter, think nothing else than that you do to your neighbor as Christ has done to you. Let all your work and all your life be turned to your neighbor. Seek the poor, sick, and all kinds of wretched people; render your help to those; surrender your life in various kinds of exercises. Let those who really need you enjoy you, insofar as that is possible with regard to your body, possessions, and honor.²⁹

Indeed, opines the Reformer, if we do not use everything that we have to serve the neighbor, we rob him or her of what we owe her according to God’s will.³⁰

In keeping with his idea of justification as participation in the Triune God through the indwelling of Christ in the heart through the Spirit, Luther simply believes that the human being also participates in the characteristics or “attributes” of God, or as he often puts it, of the Word of God. On the one hand, this participation means putting down those human traits that are contrary to the righteousness of God, and on the other hand, participating in the goodness, wisdom, truthfulness and other characteristics of God. Luther also expresses this truth by saying that God in fact becomes truthful, good, and just in the human person when God himself makes the person truthful, good, and just. Never is there reason to boast, though, since even the presence of Christ and its consequences are always hidden in the Christian.³¹

Astonishingly, Luther is so bold as to claim that the Christian not only becomes a “work of Christ,” but even more, a “christ” to the neighbor; the Christian begins to do what Christ does. “[S]ince Christ lives in us through faith . . . he arouses us to do good works through that living faith in his work, for the works which he does are the fulfillment of the commands of God given us through faith.”³² Says Luther: “I will therefore give myself as a Christ to my neighbor, just as Christ offered himself to me; I will do nothing in this life except what I see is necessary, profitable, and salutary to my neighbor, since through faith I have an abundance of all good things in Christ.”³³ Mannermaa succinctly summarizes:

Therefore “sanctification” – that is, the sanctity or holiness of the Christian – is, in fact, only another name for what Luther speaks when discussing the communication of attributes, the happy exchange, and the union between the person of Christ and that of the believer. Christ is the true agent of good works in the Christian…Because of the Christian’s union with Christ, his or her works are works of Christ himself…In this argumentation Luther’s view of Christians as ‘Christs to their neighbors’ finds its ontological realization. Luther argues that Christ who is present in faith becomes, as it were, incarnate in Christian’s works.³⁴

Of course, the human being left to his or her own devices would be incapable of fulfilling this divinely mandated law of love – and Luther would be the first to remind us of it. It is possible only through Christ who fulfilled the law. Those who participate in Christ, in other words those Christians in whose hearts through faith Christ indwells, are capable of fulfilling the law. They do the works of Christ through Christ’s presence in them and so meet the requirement of the Second Table of the Law:

Love is the common virtue of all virtues, their fulfillment and source. Love feeds, gives drink, clothes, consoles, prays, makes free, helps, and saves. What do we say then? It gives itself, body and life, possessions and honor and all its power internally and externally to meet the desperate need of the neighbor for his benefit. It does not hold back anything either from a friend or fiend with which it can serve other people. Therefore, no virtue can be compared to it, neither is it possible to describe or name any specific work for it as with regard to other virtues, which are actually partial virtues, such as purity, charity, patience, and goodwill, etc. Love does everything . . . so much so that Saint Paul says that all the commandments are included in this summa: love your neighbor.³⁵

It is to be noted that Luther differs from those well-meaning contemporary (to us) teachers who emphasize that in order to be able to love the neighbor one has to love one’s self first. Realistically, Luther believes that every person already knows how to love oneself;³⁶ what is lacking, rather, is the capacity and desire to love another person, especially when nothing good is to be expected in return.

Before turning to an assessment of this new interpretation of Luther’s soteriology and connecting it to a wider Lutheran thought, for the sake of the focus of this current set of essays in the book, it is worth asking if the term deification has any currency in Lutheran theology.

What about Deification? Is it a part of Luther’s Vocabulary?

Following Western Christian tradition, differently from the East, Lutheran theology rarely deploys the ancient term deification. That said, for Luther himself it is not a totally foreign concept. Indeed, Helsinki scholars have credibly shown evidence that at times Luther’s view of justification can also be called deification.³⁷ The term “deification” and its cognates appear about 30 times in Luther’s corpus.³⁸ It is not much in ratio to his extensive writings, but neither is it meaningless.

The core of the doctrine of deification from Luther’s viewpoint is the idea of real participation in the divine life in Christ. We receive the salvific gifts through participation in Christ. This is in keeping with the wider Lutheran tradition which holds to the idea of God living in the believer (inhabitatio Dei). This for Mannermaa is analogous with the doctrine of deification even when the term itself is not employed. He reminds us that according to Luther, Christ, and thus his person and work, is present in the faith itself.³⁹ Justification and deification, then, as the “participation” of the believer in Christ is also a participation in the triune God himself because Christ is God. Of this participation, Luther says boldly: “[I]t is true that a man helped by grace is more than a man; indeed, the grace of God gives him the form of God and deifies him, so that even the Scriptures call him ‘God’ and ‘God’s son.’ ”⁴⁰ And: “Just as the Word of God became flesh, so it is certainly also necessary that the flesh become Word. For the Word becomes flesh precisely so that the flesh may become Word. In other words: God becomes man so that man may become God.”⁴¹

It is easy to see that Luther presents here the idea of deification with the help of formulations from the Church Fathers such as Athanasius and Irenaeus, as a union of logos (Word) and “flesh” (human nature). This is what the patristic doctrine of theosis foundationally means:

Divine life has manifested itself in Christ. In the church as the body of Christ, man has a share in this life. Man partakes thereby of “the divine nature” (2 Pet 1:4). This “nature”, or divine life, permeates the being of man like a leaven in order to restore it to its original condition as imago Dei.⁴²

In other words, Luther himself joins the ancient patristic line of teaching as a key formulation of his soteriological doctrine.

Pneumatological implications of this new approach of Luther scholarship are obvious. The leading idea, Christ present through faith, can also be expressed pneumatically: it is through the Spirit of Christ that the mediation of salvific gifts is accomplished. Participation in God is possible only through the Spirit of Christ, the Spirit of adoption.⁴³

Yet another way of considering the idea of justification and deification in Luther is in reference to the concept of “giving” and gift. For Luther the divinity of the triune God consists in that “God gives” himself. The essence of God, then, is identical with the essential divine properties in which he gives of himself, called the “names” of God: Word, justice, truth, wisdom, love, goodness, eternal life, and so forth. Says Mannermaa: “The theosis of the believer is initiated when God bestows on the believer God’s essential properties; that is, what God gives of himself to humans is nothing separate from God himself.”⁴⁴ God is, as Luther says, the whole “beatitude” (beatitudo) of his saints:

And so He gives Himself, and He does not give, but is Himself the good and complete blessing of the saints. For as it is said that “God gives Himself to the saints,” which means that “God is the good [beatitudo] of his saints,” so also His name gives Him to them, that is, it is their good. But the name of God is Christ Himself, the Son of God, the Word by which He verbalizes Himself and the name by which He calls Himself in eternity.⁴⁵

We can summarize hence like this: while the idea of union and participation points to the same direction as does deification and its cognate terms, understandably it is not typical for Lutheran tradition to deploy that language.

Part II

Re-affirming and Re-stating the Mannermaa School’s Ecumenical Proposal

For Orientation

To no one’s surprise, responses to the Mannermaa School’s reinterpretation of Luther have been varied.⁴⁶ Roughly put, the responses can be classified like this: Whereas the Continental, particularly German, Luther scholarship has been deeply critical,⁴⁷ a number of leading American Lutherans have enthusiastically endorsed it.⁴⁸ Understandably, conservative Lutherans (Missouri Synod), along with many evangelicals, to whom the forensic-imputational template is the only correct interpretation, have expressed deep reservations.⁴⁹ The reasons for the German and conservative American criticism of Mannermaa’s paradigm are the ones listed in the beginning of the essay, that is, a general hostility towards any notion of deification and corollary misunderstandings of its nature, e.g., a danger of pantheism. Furthermore, these critics are not convinced at all that a critical distinction between Lutheran confessional and Luther’s own theology can or should be drawn; or, if it be made, then the Confessional side should be followed.

While I myself materially adopt the basic insights of the Mannermaa School, there is also a felt need for the sake of ecumenical rapprochement to critically assess its liabilities and propose some new revisions.

Let me list here what I see some of the liabilities not only of this particular Lutheran School but also more widely and then suggest briefly some constructive ideas for a remedy:

• The need to envision salvation as justification as union and participation in pneumatological-trinitarian terms, not only in christological terms;

• To imagine justification, while being one with and participating in Christ, also through the lens of the “eccentric” nature of faith, that is, faith resides in Christ;

• While critiquing the one-sided Lutheran confessional focus on justification by faith as forensic declaration, there is also a need to rehabilitate, so to speak, the proper role of forensic justification as an integral part of justification as union and participation;

• Coupling justification as union and participation with an “active reception of gift” in order not to make the justified merely passive recipients of justification without any effects on life and ethics;

The Pneumatological-Trinitarian Form of Salvation as Participation in Divine Life

There is a curious trinitarian deficit in most Protestant soteriological accounts in general and Lutherans in particular when it comes to the doctrine of justification. Quite striking is the passive (or almost nonexistent) role of the Spirit in most accounts of justification as opposed to the Eastern theology of deification.⁵⁰ In a typical Protestant conception of justification, the Spirit’s role is somewhat external; as the Pentecostal Frank Macchia puts it: “the Spirit function[s] from the outside, inspiring faith in the gospel” without having to do with the “substance of justification,” and the Father “seems to be a relatively passive spectator who happily accepts Christ’s advocacy” without having an active role to play.⁵¹

Referring to passages such as Titus 3:5-7, which speaks about the “washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, which he poured out upon us richly,” the Reformed Jürgen Moltmann laments the pneumatological deficit. He rightly emphasizes that “‘regeneration’ as ‘renewal’ comes about through the Holy Spirit” when the “Spirit is ‘poured out.’ ”⁵² By making further reference to John 4:14, the metaphor of the divine “wellspring of life” that begins to flow in a human being, he contends that “through this experience of the Spirit, who comes upon us from the Father through the Son, we become ‘justified through grace.’ ”⁵³

Indeed, the Christ event itself, reconciliation, has an integral trinitarian form.⁵⁴ The identification with humanity in incarnation and the voluntary suffering at the cross through which the Father shows himself to be just Rom. 3:25) are followed by the raising to new life “for our justification” (Rom. 4:25) of the Son by the Father, and the ascension, which propel the Pentecostal pouring out of the Spirit.⁵⁵ Even when the forensic/legal aspects of justification are in the forefront, the Spirit’s role is not excluded: the Spirit as the Paraclete is both Advocate and Judge according to the Johannine testimony (John 14 and 16).⁵⁶ The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification between the Roman Catholics and Lutherans got it right: “Christ himself is our righteousness, in which we share through the Holy Spirit in accord with the will of the Father.”⁵⁷

Perhaps unbeknownst to many, Martin Luther’s theology of salvation is not void of this proper pneumatological-trinitarian element although most Lutheran accounts do not usually highlight it. His focus on justification as the presence of Christ through the Spirit exhibits an integral trinitarian-pneumatological focus as evident in his remarkable comment on Galatians 3:7. Therein, Luther equates righteousness “imputed” to the believer with the gift of the Spirit:

Now is not the fact that faith is reckoned as righteousness a receiving of the Spirit? So either he proves nothing or the reception of the Spirit and the fact that faith is reckoned as righteousness will be the same thing. And this is true; it is introduced in order that the divine imputation may not be regarded as amounting to nothing outside God, as some think that the apostle’s word “grace” means a favorable disposition rather than a gift. For when God is favorable, and when He imputes, the Spirit is really received, both the gift and the grace. Otherwise grace was there from eternity and remains within God, if it signifies only a favorable disposition in the way that favor is understood among men.⁵⁸

The Spirit’s role comes into play also in the central concept of Luther concerning the “ecstatic” nature of faith as something rooted in and finding its source “outside” the believer, that is, in Christ.

Union and the “Ecstatic” Nature of Faith

Every Lutheran trained in catechism knows this statement of Luther’s:

I believe that by my own reason or strength I cannot believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to him. But the Holy Spirit has called me through the Gospel, enlightened me with his gifts, and sanctified and preserved me in true faith, just as he calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies the whole Christian church on earth and preserves it in union with Jesus Christ in the one true faith. ⁵⁹

Luther rightly saw not only the necessary role of the Spirit in making possible faith in Christ, but also the eccentric (or “ecstatic,” as in ek-stasis, “to stand outside of oneself”) nature of faith. Faith places trust “outside” of itself, in Christ. Luther’s profound statement in the early pamphlet The Freedom of a Christian (1520) puts it succinctly:

We conclude, therefore, that a Christian lives not in himself, but in Christ and in his neighbor. Otherwise he is not a Christian. He lives in Christ through faith, in his neighbor through love. By faith he is caught up beyond himself into God [rapitur supra se in deum]. By love he descends beneath himself into his neighbor. Yet he always remains in God and in his love.⁶⁰

It is the Spirit who makes this eccentric nature of faith possible. Building on this key insight, Pannenberg states that through faith in God the Spirit lifts us “up to participation in the sonship of Jesus Christ” and “binds believers together in the fellowship of the body of Christ.”⁶¹ Faith has this “outside of ourselves” (extra nos) character⁶² and at the same time “links believers to Jesus Christ as they rely on him and on the promise of salvation that is given in his message and history”; indeed, this means nothing less than the believer’s participation in the filial relation of the Son to the Father.⁶³

As a result, Pannenberg selects — surprisingly to his Lutheran readers — “adoption” as the overarching and determining concept of his ordo salutis. Whereas the importance of the concept of adoption is of course nothing new in the Lutheran (or Reformed) tradition, making it an overarching concept that also regulates justification, is new.⁶⁴ The surplus of opting for adoption as the main framework, namely, that “[b]eing God’s children is thus of the essence of the Christian life,” helps utilize not only the Pauline theology (Rom. 8:16, among others) but also Jesus’ teaching (Luke 18:17; Mark 10:15; Matt. 5:9).⁶⁵ Adoption in this theological template means that the believer is lifted up by the Spirit through faith into the filial relationship with Christ and is united with other believers in the same body.

What about the Theological Significance of the Forensic Aspect of Justification?

Although the rediscovery of the centrality of union, participation, and adoption as controlling metaphors has helped contemporary Finnish Lutheran theology to establish a more satisfactory and integral account of justification, an account which materially approximates deification, the downplaying of the forensic element (particularly by the Mannermaa School)⁶⁶ also calls for reconsideration. It does not do — nor is it necessary — to pit union against forensic justification; that was the valid critique of the Council of Trent against the Protestant Reformers. In this respect, Lutherans have had a chance to correct themselves as in that joint declaration with the Roman Catholics they affirm justification as both forgiveness of sins (forensic) and making righteous (effective).⁶⁷

Those interpreters who advocate the effective understanding of justification (that is, justification includes also the inner change) understandably have undermined the idea of “imputation” (of Christ’s righteousness), a key mainstream Protestant idea. The reason is self-evident: in Protestantism at large, imputation has been seen merely as a forensic act. But does it have to be so? I don’t think so. Only if justification as imputation is understood exclusively as a forensic act that blocks the way for making righteous is the opposition justified. But what if, as the most recent research has allowed us to understand,⁶⁸ the concept of imputation of Christ’s righteousness does not have to be solely (or even primarily) forensic but could also include the process of change and renewal? Indeed, as argued above, Luther’s own concept of “Christ present in faith” (in ipsa fide Christus adest) is just that: the “imputed” Christ’s “real” presence in the believer also instantly brings about the lifelong process of change.⁶⁹ Even semantically, “imputation” has a number of meanings, from commercial exchange and accounting (the primary meaning in Protestant orthodoxy) to personal (not to count the friend’s mistake as a reason for breaking relationship) to hermeneutical (to consider one’s own experience as the key to understanding), and so forth.⁷⁰ What clearly comes to the fore in Luther’s theology is the personal orientation. As Mannermaa’s successor in Helsinki, Risto Saarinen importantly argues: whereas in Augustine righteousness could be imputed to the believer in a nonpersonal manner (as a liquid is poured into a container), in Luther it is always a matter of personal trust, personal relationship.⁷¹ That justification is more than forgiveness (forensic declaration, “favor”), however, should not hinder us from lifting up its significance in a proper manner.

Active Reception of the Gift of Justification

Back to the concept of gift and giving: it was noted above several times that another way of speaking of union and participation is to speak of gift. In Luther’s theology the meaning of divine Gift serves as a defining feature: God’s love seeks that which is worthless in itself and donates not only gifts but oneself. The basic Greek verb didōmi (to give or donate) appears over 400 times in the NT alone!⁷² Macchia rightly reminds us that “ ‘justification’ refers fundamentally to the gift of righteousness (or ‘just relation’) that is granted to the sinner.”⁷³

With this in mind, worth hearing among the Lutherans (and others) is the justified critique of the British Radical Orthodox John Milbank of the overly “passive” reception of justification in mainstream Protestant tradition. Rightly he demands that “an account of the arrival of grace must . . . also mean an account of sanctification, and of ethics.”⁷⁴ This is what Milbank names “active reception” of gift.⁷⁵ Although common sense is not always the best guide in matters theological, I believe it is here: it just does not make any sense to think of the recipient of a gift — say, a child at a birthday party or a spouse on an anniversary — as totally passive; a gift can also be “unreceived,” as when a spouse who is transgressed against by the partner in adultery wishes to forgive. “After all, the creature is not destined to act without any element of choice involved, and God does not commit violence on creation.”⁷⁶ Christian tradition at large agrees that all human response is graced and that — again, following common sense — no parent (the heavenly Father in this case) would enjoy giving a gift to a “robot” rather than to a child who passionately and “actively” looks forward to a gift (say, for Christmas).

I argue that the paranoid fear of “works righteousness” of much of Protestantism, certainly including Lutheranism, has to be challenged and corrected by the “synergistic” (Eastern Orthodox) and “cooperational” (Roman Catholic) understanding of (“prevenient”) grace — while at the same time (in agreement with the whole of Christian tradition) all forms of Pelagianism must be resisted.⁷⁷ Here John Wesley’s robust theology of grace as “therapeutic” is a needed reminder for other Protestants; the “sanctifying” grace begins to heal and change the person the moment the person is justified, the founder of Methodism taught.⁷⁸ Luther’s profound theology of the Christian as “christ” to the neighbor is the needed pointer in this direction.

Concluding Remarks

The purpose of this essay is to shed light on Lutheran, particularly Martin Luther’s, resources for conceiving salvation as union and participation, features which approximate materially what the ancient doctrine of theosis means to say. Rather than a comparative exercise between Lutheran and Eastern Orthodox soteriologies, the current one chose to delve into defining texts in Reformer’s own theology of justification. (Another comparative task, namely that between Martin Luther’s own theology and the theology of Lutheran Confessions was also forfeited.)

As can be guessed from the get-go, Luther did not speak of salvation in terms of deification. . When he very rarely and occasionally chose to deploy that terminology, he was linking his soteriology with that of Church Fathers, particularly Irenaeus and the Eastern Fathers.

Luther’s own way of speaking of justification is focused on the idea of union and participation. The key motif has to do with the presence of Christ in faith through the Spirit in the believer that integrally also leads to the daily renewal of life as the Christian begins to seek to do the kinds of deeds the indwelling Christ did while on earth. Although in Lutheran diagnosis the Christian is simultaneously just and a sinner, the indwelling Christ effects continuous renewal.

The well-spring of justification is Christ’s righteousness. Therefore, it can be called “alien” righteousness as its origin is Christ rather than the human person. This same “alien” righteousness, however, becomes “ours” as it is graciously donated to the Christian through the indwelling of Christ in faith through the Spirit. Therefore, to the nature of faith belongs its eccentric, “outside of us,” characteristic. Faith springs from and resides in Christ but not so externally as not to be also ours as Christ indwells us.

This is a short, non-technical explanation of what I call in this essay a new interpretation of Luther’s theology of justification. It is not necessarily a total alternative to what is more commonly known as a “two-stage” account of salvation found typically in Lutheran Confessions in which the initial justification as a forensic declaration is separated, or at least definitively distinguished, from the need for renewal (sanctification). But, as argued, Luther’s own account links these two aspects integrally together and focuses on indwelling Christ’s sanative, efficient work in the believer.

In the constructive part it was suggested that a more robust role be given to the whole Trinity in the account of justification as union and participation. Christ’s justifying and renewing work comes to us through the Spirit and is founded on Father’s participation in the economy of salvation. Similarly, it was recommended that Lutherans imagine the divine gift in more active terms so that they not be content with merely passive reception.

Insightful and constructive ecumenical exchanges between Lutherans (and other Protestants) and Eastern Orthodox await the ecumenical guild. The work so far has yielded remarkable results, but much more is needed, for example, to tackle the dramatically differing accounts of theological anthropology, particularly the nature of human will and the effects of Fall. The Roman Catholic-Lutheran joint declaration on justification further enriches and inspires this kind of continuing ecumenical exploration.

---

1. This essay is based on and draws directly from chapter 11 in my Spirit and Salvation. A Constructive Christian Theology for the Pluralistic World, vol. 4 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016). Thanks to William B. Eerdmans publishers for granting permission for its inclusion in Transformed into the Same Image: Constructive Investigations into the Doctrine of Deification, ed. Paul Copan and Michael M. C. Reardon (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2024), 268–90, © 2024 by Paul Copan and Michael Martin Chester Reardon, from which it is here reprinted by permission of the author, who retains non-exclusive rights in the essay. Thanks also to the editors and to IVP Academic for their generosity in allowing its republication here.↩︎

2. Risto Saarinen, “Justification by Faith: The View of the Mannermaa School” in The Oxford Handbook of Martin Luther’s Theology, ed. Robert Kolb, Irene Dingel, and L’ubomír Batka (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 259-60 (259). This essay (pp. 254-64) helps put the new Mannermaa School interpretation (to be discussed in this article) in a wider historical context in Lutheranism and its traditional resistance to the doctrine of theosis and related emphases.↩︎

3. Georg Kretschmar, “Die Rezeption der orthodoxen Vergöttlichungslehre in der protestantischen Theologie,” in Luther und Theosis: Vergöttlichung als Thema der abendländischen Theologie, ed. Simo Peura and Antti Raunio, Schriften der Luther-Agricola-Gesellschaft 25 (Helsinki and Erlangen: Martin-Luther Verlag, 1990), 61–80.↩︎

4. In English, see Tuomo Mannermaa, Christ Present in Faith: Luther’s View of Justification, ed. Kirsi Stjerna (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2005 [1979]); consult also Union with Christ: The New Finnish Interpretation of Luther, ed. Carl E. Braaten and Robert W. Jenson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998); for a succinct introduction, see Mannermaa, “Why Is Luther So Fascinating? Modern Finnish Luther Research,” in Union with Christ, ed. Braaten and Jenson, 1-20. A full-scale presentation of Helsinki scholars’ interpretation of Luther’s theology at large is Engaging Luther: A (New) Theological Assessment, ed. Olli-Pekka Vainio (Eugen, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2010).↩︎

5. In Dialogue between Neighbours: The Theological Conversations between the Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Finland and the Russian Orthodox Church, 1970-1986, ed. Hannu Kamppuri (Helsinki: Luther-Agricola Society, 1986), 73.↩︎

6. Dialogue Between Neighbors, ed. Kamppuri, 75.↩︎

7. For various aspects of the discussion, see Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, One with God: Salvation as Deification and Justification (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2004); idem, “Justification as Forgiveness of Sins and Making Righteous: The Ecumenical Promise of a New Interpretation of Luther.” One in Christ 37, no. 2 (April 2002): 32-45; idem, “The Ecumenical Potential of Theosis: Emerging Convergences between Eastern Orthodox, Protestant, and Pentecostal Soteriologies.” Sobornost/Eastern Churches Review 23, no. 2 (2002): 45-77.↩︎

8. An excellent up-to-date account with rich and comprehensive bibliography is Mark Mattes, “Luther on Justification as Forensic and Effective “ in The Oxford Handbook of Martin Luther’s Theology, ed. Robert Kolb, Irene Dingel, and L’ubomír Batka (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 264-73. Highly useful and accessible is also Robert Kolb, “Contemporary Lutheran Understandings of the Doctrine of Justification: A Selective Glimpse’. In Justification: What’s at Stake in the Current Debate? ed. Mark Husbands and Daniel Treier (Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 2004), 153–76.↩︎

9. Martin Luther, “Heidelberg Disputation “ (1518) in Luther’s Works. American ed. (Libronix Digital Library). 55 vols, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut T. Lehman (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002), vol. 31, p. 56 (hereafter LW).↩︎

10. LW 31:56.↩︎

11. Luther, “Lectures on Galatians” (1535); LW 26:353.↩︎

12. LW 26:88.↩︎

13. Olli-Pekka Vainio, Justification and Participation in Christ: The Development of the Lutheran Doctrine of Justification from Luther to the Formula of Concord (1580) (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 20-22, 26 (pp. 21, 22). Luther often uses the expression of Christ as the “form of faith” (forma fidei), for which see p. 27.↩︎

14. Among many other passages, representative is LW 26:128-30.↩︎

15. LW 26:130; see Vainio, Justification and Participation, 27-36.↩︎

16. For discussion on the Galatians commentary (1535), see Vainio, Justification and Participation, 36-42.↩︎

17. Luther, “Lectures on Romans. Glosses and Scholia” (1515-16); LW 25:306.↩︎

18. Formula of Concord [Part II] ch.3, #.67 (other numbering 3.59) in The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, tr. Theodore G. Tappert (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1959), p. 571↩︎

19. For a detailed analysis, see Vainio, Justification and Participation, chap. 2.↩︎

20. Luther, “Lectures on Galatians” (1535); LW 26, 129).↩︎

21. Luther, “Two Kinds of Righteousness” (1519); LW 31:297↩︎

22. LW 31:299.↩︎

23. LW 31:299.↩︎

24. LW 31:300.↩︎

25. LW 31:298.↩︎

26. LW 31:298-99.↩︎

27. Arto Seppänen, Unio Christi: Union ja vanhurskauttamisen suhde Anders Nohrborgin postillassa. Suomalaisen Teologisen Kirjallisuusseuran julkaisuja 211 (Helsinki: STKJ, 1997), 37 (my translation).↩︎

28. LW 31:299-300.↩︎

29. Weimarer Ausgabe (the Weimar edition of Luther’s works [hereafter: WA]), vol. 10 I, p. 2, col. 168, 18-26 (Advent Postil, 1522; my translation).↩︎

30. Luther also describes the essence of sin as “robbery of God,” e.g., in “Against Latomus” (1521); LW 32, 224.↩︎

31. Antti Raunio, Die Summe des christlichen Lebens: Die ‘Goldene Regel’ als Gesetz der Liebe in der Theologie Martin Luthers von 1510 bis 1527). The Publications of the Systematic Theology Department 13 (Helsinki: Yliopistopaino, 1993), 172-77 especially. This monograph is a major study on the concept of love, both divine and human, in Luther’s theology and its relation to Christ’s presence through faith in the believer. Unfortunately, it is not available in English.↩︎

32. . LW 31:56-57. See further, Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, “Christian as Christ to the Neighbor,” International Journal of Systematic Theology 6, no. 2 (April 2004): 101-17.↩︎

33. Luther, “Treatise on Christian Liberty” (1520); LV 31, 367. Speaking of Paul, Luther explains the agency of Christ in the believer: “Paul, living in himself, is utterly dead through the Law but living in Christ, or rather with Christ living in him, he lives an alien life. Christ is speaking, acting, and performing all actions in him.” Lectures on Galatians (1535), LW 26:170.↩︎

34. Mannermaa, Christ Present in Faith, 50.↩︎

35. WA 17 II, 100, 26-101,4 (Lent Postil, 1525; my translation). .↩︎

36. “Therefore I believe that with this commandment ‘as yourself’ man is not commanded to love himself but rather is shown the sinful love with which he does in fact love himself, as if to say: ‘You are completely curved in upon yourself and pointed toward love of yourself, a condition from which you will not be delivered unless you altogether cease loving yourself and, forgetting yourself, love your neighbor. For it is a perversity that we want to be loved by all and want to seek our interest in all people; but it is uprightness that if you do to everyone else what in your perverseness you want done to yourself, you will do good with the same zeal as you used to do evil” LW 25, 513.↩︎

37. A whole monograph on the topic has been written by one of the students of Prof. Mannermaa, the Bishop Simo Peura, Mehr als ein Mensch? Die Vergöttlichung als Thema der Theologie Luthers von 1513 bis 1519, Veröffentlichungen des Instituts für Europäische Geschichte (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1994). Unfortunately, that work is not available in English.↩︎

38. Simo Peura, “Vergöttlichungsgedanke in Luthers Theologie 1518-1519,” in Thesaurus Lutheri, ed. T. Mannermaa, et al., (Helsinki: Luther-Agricola-Society, 1987), 171-172.↩︎

39. Tuomo Mannermaa, “Theosis as a Subject of Finnish Luther Research,” Pro Ecclesia 4, no. 1 (1995): 42-44.↩︎

40. Luther, ”Defense and Explanation of all the Articles” (1521); LW 51:58.↩︎

41. WA 1:28.25-32, quoted in Mannermaa, “Theosis as a Subject of Finnish Luther Research,”, 43.↩︎

42. Mannermaa, “Theosis as a Subject of Finnish Luther Research,” 42.↩︎

43. For a brief summary of the idea of adoption in Luther, see Risto Saarinen, Risto Saarinen, “The Presence of God in Luther’s Theology,” Lutheran Quarterly 3, no. 1 (1994): 9-10. For pneumatological implications, see Kenneth L. Bakken, “Holy Spirit and Theosis: Toward a Lutheran Theology of Healing.” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 38, no. 4 (1994): 409-23.↩︎

44. Mannermaa, “Why Is Luther So Fascinating?” p. 10.↩︎

45. Luther, “First Lectures on the Psalms” (1513-14); LW 10:253; see Simo Peura, “Christ as Favor and Gift,” in Union with Christ, ed. Braaten and Jenson, 50.↩︎

46. An important dialogue with critics is Olli-Pekka Vainio, “Luther and Theosis: A Response to the Critics of the Finnish Luther Research,” Pro Ecclesia, vol. 24, no. 4 (2015): 459-74↩︎

47. The leading German scholar Bernhard Lohse (Martin Luther’s Theology: Its Historical and Systematic Development [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999], 221) virtually dismisses the Mannermaa School’s insight altogether.↩︎

48. See Braaten and Jensen, eds., Union with Christ, among others.↩︎

49. See Robert Kolb, “Contemporary Lutheran Understandings of Justification: A Select Glimpse” in Justification: What’s at Stake in the Current Debates, ed. Mark Husbands and Daniel J. Treier (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004), 153-76.↩︎

50. Frank Macchia, Justified in the Spirit: Creation, Redemption, and the Triune God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 5; see also idem, “Justification through New Creation: The Holy Spirit and the Doctrine by Which the Church Stands or Falls,” Theology Today 58, no. 2 (July 2001): 202-17..↩︎

51. Macchia, Justified in the Spirit, 5; see also, p. 39.↩︎

52. Jürgen Moltmann, The Spirit of Life: A Universal Affirmation, tr. Margaret Kohl (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 146. See further, Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, “ ‘By the Washing of Regeneration and Renewing by the Holy Spirit’: Toward a Pneumatological Account of Justification in Christ” in Spirit and Christ: Essays in Honour of Max Turner, ed. Howard Marshall, Cornelis Bennema, and Volker Rabens (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 303-22.↩︎

53. Moltmann, Spirit of Life, 146. See also, Bakken, “Holy Spirit and Theosis,” pp. 410-11.↩︎

54. For a trinitarian theology of reconciliation (and atonement), see chap. 13 in Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, Christ and Reconciliation: Constructive Christian Theology for the Pluralistic World, vol.1 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013).↩︎

55. See also, Macchia, Justified in the Spirit, 7-8.↩︎

56. Macchia, Justified in the Spirit, 6, emphasis in original.↩︎

57. Lutheran World Federation and the Roman Catholic Church, Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), #15. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_31101999_cath-luth-joint-declaration_en.html (5/10.2018)↩︎

58. ^.Luther, “Lectures on Galatians” (1519), on 3:7; LW 27:252; for comments, see Macchia, Justified in the Spirit, 63-64.↩︎

59. From the third article of the Small Catechism (1531) in Book of Concord, ed. Tappert, 345.↩︎

60. LW 31:371.↩︎

61. Wolfhart Pannenberg, Systematic Theology, tr. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 134-34 [hereafter, ST 3].↩︎

62. Pannenberg, ST 3:136-37.↩︎

63. Pannenberg, ST 3:211.↩︎

64. See the long and detailed section 4, titled “Adoption as God’s Children and Justification” (pp. 211-36), in ST 3.↩︎

65. Pannenberg, ST 3:211-12.↩︎

66. So also Risto Saarinen, “De iustificatione” Teologinen aikakauskirja 118, no. 4 (2013): 291-304 (this section is indebted to it).↩︎

67. See section “4.2 Justification as Forgiveness of Sins and Making Righteous” in the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification.↩︎

68. The key investigation is the massive study by Sibylle Rolf, Zum Herzen sprechen: Eine Studie zum imputativen Aspekt in Martin Luthers Rechtfertigungslehre und zu seinen Konsequenzen für die Predigt des Evangeliums (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 2008). Unfortunately, it is not available in English. See also Alister McGrath, Iustitia Dei, 4^th ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020).↩︎

69. This is the brilliant conclusion of Saarinen (“De Iustificatione,” 295-97), combining Rolf’s and the Mannermaa School’s insights.↩︎

70. Saarinen, “De Iustificatione,” 296, with reference to Rolf, Zum Hertzen sprechen, 27.↩︎

71. Saarinen, “De Iustificatione,” 296; for details, see Rolf, Zum Hertzen sprechen, 33-40.↩︎

72. For a detailed discussion, see Risto Saarinen, God and Gift: An Ecumenical Theology of Giving. Unitas Books (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2005), 36-45.↩︎

73. Macchia, Justified in the Spirit, 3, emphasis in original.↩︎

74. John Milbank, Being Reconciled: Ontology and Pardon (London and New York: Routledge, 2003), 138.↩︎

75. Milbank coins the term “active reception” in his essay “Gregory of Nyssa: The Force of Identity” in Christian Origins: Theology, Rhetoric, and Community, ed. Lewis Ayres and Gareth Jones (London: Routledge, 1998), 95.↩︎

76. Macchia, Justified in the Spirit, p. 25.↩︎

77. On the necessity of good works in the Christian life, see Thomas H. McCall, Caleb T. Friedeman, and Matt T. Friedeman, Doctrine of Good Works (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2023).↩︎

78. See further, Theodore Runyon, The New Creation: John Wesley’s Theology Today (Nashville: Abingdon, 1998), 27-30.↩︎