Contrasting Theologies of Justification: Martin Luther and The Council of Trent

In October of 1517 Martin Luther had no intention of breaking with the established church. When he nailed his Ninety-Five Theses for discussion to the church door in Wittenberg he was concerned primarily with the practice of selling indulgences. Over the course of the Reformation, however, Luther came to see the point of breaking with the Roman Catholic Church was not simply over indulgences, but over the larger issue of soteriology. For Luther the larger banner of the Reformation was “Justification by Faith Alone,” and it was on this point that he and the church clashed. A contrast of their positions on the role of works in justification follows, as a means to identify the distinguishing marks of Lutheran[1] justification.

Justification by faith alone was a theme which Luther could find in almost any passage of Scripture. In a sermon on the Good Samaritan, in 1536, Luther, speaking of the two parts of Scripture that he saw, said:

I experience indeed that God’s law is holy, right and good, but it is my death…Therefore another part is added, the Gospel, which speaks of consolation and teaches salvation, and whence we are to obtain it, so that the law may be satisfied…Thus when we now come before God the Father and are asked: whether we have also believed and loved God, and have wholly fulfilled the law; then the Samaritan will step forth, Christ the Lord, who carries us lying on his beast, and say: Alas, Father! Although they have not wholly fulfilled thy law, yet I have done so, let this be to their benefit because they believed in me. Thus all saints must do, however holy and pious they may be, they must lay on Christ’s shoulders.[2]

Here was the great distinction between the Reformer’s theology of justification and that of the established church. Luther had no place for works in his soteriology. He wrote, “Good works do not make a man good, but a good man does good works.” [3] The Roman Catholic Church, however, was not convinced of Luther’s position and protested it with great ardor.

The formal response of the church to the reformation came in 1545 at the Council of Trent. The Council made no ambiguous statements about their position on justification. Man was justified before God by both faith and good works, and faith, furthermore, was a progressive work. Chapter IX reveals plainly the reaction the church had to the reformer’s view of justification, they titled this chapter: Against the Vain Confidence of Heretics. It reads:

But, although it is necessary to believe that sins neither are remitted, nor ever were remitted save gratuitously by the mercy of God for Christ's sake; yet is it not to be said, that sins are forgiven, or have been forgiven, to any one who boasts of his confidence and certainty of the remission of his sins, and rests on that alone; seeing that it may exist, yea does in our day exist, amongst heretics and schismatics; and with great vehemence is this vain confidence, and one alien from all godliness, preached up in opposition to the Catholic Church. But neither is this to be asserted,-that they who are truly justified must needs, without any doubting whatever, settle within themselves that they are justified, and that no one is absolved from sins and justified, but he that believes for certain that he is absolved and justified; and that absolution and justification are effected by this faith alone: as though whoso has not this belief, doubts of the promises of God, and of the efficacy of the death and resurrection of Christ. For even as no pious person ought to doubt of the mercy of God, of the merit of Christ, and of the virtue and efficacy of the sacraments, even so each one, when he regards himself, and his own weakness and indisposition, may have fear and apprehension touching his own grace; seeing that no one can know with a certainty of faith, which cannot be subject to error, that he has obtained the grace of God.[4]

It is important to note that this is an argument against Luther and the Reformers. Observe that word “alone”. The document insists that no one is saved by his “confidence…of the remission of his sins…alone.” Had such a statement come from Calvin we could conclude that this was an argument for continuous faith and repentance, and a living out of the Christian life.[5] From a Catholic document, however, it must be understood in light of their broader theological foundation. Faith alone without works may have been a tenet of Reformed and Lutheran theology, but no one, according to the Council of Trent, was saved who rested on this faith alone. They refer to their contrary contemporaries as “heretics” and “schismatics”. And it repeatedly, though falsely, assumes that this new justification doctrine depends on the assurance of the person that he is saved, in other words dependent on “faith alone,” as they mischaracterize it.

The Council of Trent repeatedly defines justification by stating what it is not. In the Canons on Justification we read several of these assertions. Canon VII reads:

If anyone saith, that all works done before Justification, in whatsoever way they be done, are truly sins, or merit the hatred of God; or that the most earnestly one strives to dispose himself for grace, the more grievously he sins: let him be anathema.[6]

If the denial that works dispose one for grace, that is merit one grace, is considered heretical, then it seems rather obvious that the embrace of such teaching would be acceptable. The Canons continue with further revealing comments, such as:

Canon IX: If anyone saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of justification…let him be anathema.[7]

Canon XI: If anyone saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them…let him be anathema.[8]

The word “co-operate” in Canon IX, and “inherent” are key to understanding the Roman Catholic doctrine of justification. It is not that the Catholic Church teaches justification by works; this is a simplistic and erroneous understanding. For the church clearly understands the importance of faith. R.C. Sproul stated correctly when he said that the Roman Catholic Church teaches, “Faith is necessary for justification…but not sufficient.”[9] The word “co-operate” reveals that faith must be accompanied by both the sacraments, and good deeds (see Chapter V, Chapter VI, and Canon XXIV). The word “inherent” points to the Roman Catholic churches denial of total depravity. While the church willingly acknowledges the sinful nature of man, it denies that man’s free will is lost. “If any one saith, that, since Adam’s sin, the free will of man is lost and extinguished…let him be anathema.”[10] Inherent within man is an ability for man to dispose himself towards the grace of God, to prepare himself for justification. This is quite distinct from Luther’s theology.

Luther’s teachings on justification are most clearly laid out in his work The Freedom of a Christian (1520). In the address he writes, “faith alone, without works, justifies, frees, and saves.”[11] Again Luther distinguishes between the two parts of scripture and identifies, in this distinction, how justification must be by faith alone.

Here we must point out that the entire Scripture of God is divided into two parts:

commandments and promises…The commandments show us what we ought to do but do not give us the power to do it. They are intended to teach man to know himself, that through them he may recognize his inability to do good and may despair of his own ability…Then, being truly humbled and reduced to nothing in his own eyes, he finds in himself nothing whereby he may be justified and saved. Here the second part of Scripture comes to our aid, namely, the promises of God…Thus the promises of God give what the commandments of God demand and fulfil [sic] what the law prescribes…It is clear, then, that a Christian has all that he needs in faith and needs no works to justify him.[12]

There was no work that man was capable of doing to please God, Luther points out. It is in believing the promises of God alone that man finds himself, like Abraham, credited with righteousness, that is justified.

The great distinction between the two doctrines came down to an issue of glory for Luther. God must get the glory, he determined, for all of salvation. Preaching from Galatians 3, in a sermon on New Years Day, Luther warned against the Roman Catholic Church’s doctrine of justification, saying:

Now if God confers his grace because of their works, their careful preparation, Christ must be without significance. What need have they of Christ if they can obtain grace in their own name and by their works? And this doctrine they teach openly; indeed, they defend it with their utmost power and with the Pope’s bulls, condemning a contrary teaching as they very worst heresy. Therefore I have warned, and still warn, all men that the Pope and the universities have cast Christ and the New Testament farther out of the world than ever did the Jews or Turks. Hence the Pope is the true Antichrist, and his high schools are the devil’s own taverns and brothels. What does Christ signify if by effort of my own human nature I can obtain God’s grace? Or, having grace, what more will I desire?[13]

Luther saw the inconsistency in the Catholic Church’s position, and rejected it with a verbal violence like few others had or have since. He did this because he saw what was at stake, not only true salvation, but the very glory of God. The base level of their divergent views came to this: who gets the glory for salvation?

Luther could speak with experience on this subject. In the monastery he had wrestled with the question: How does one become right with God? When he found in the Scriptures that one is justified by faith alone, he determined to defend it with all his might. He had worked and failed to achieve assurance of salvation. “If ever a man got to heaven by his monkary it was I,” he stated. But that monkary left him deflated and despairing, only faith in Christ’s work on his behalf was a sure guarantee for salvation. This Luther vocalized with all his heart; works were no avail only believe Christ. While the Council of Trent espoused faith and works, Luther shouted Justification by faith alone, in Christ alone, plus nothing!


[1] I will use the term Lutheran throughout this paper to refer to the theology of the man himself, Martin Luther. The Lutheran church over the course of history has rejected some of its founder’s doctrines and I do not claim to represent their current teachings.
[2] The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther. Vol. 3. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2000). 34.
[3] From Luther’s On the Freedom of a Christian. Quoted in Roland Bainton, Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther. (Nashville: Abingdon, 1950). 178.
[4] The Cannons and Decrees of the Sacred and Oecumnical Council of Trent. Ed. and trans. J. Waterworth (London: Dolman, 1848). 36-37.
[5] Timothy George, Theology of the Reformers. (Nashville: Broadman, 1988). 224-228.
[6] Ibid. 45.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid. 46.
[9] R.C. Sproul “The Importance of Preaching on Justification,” an address delivered at the Together for the Gospel Conference. Delivered April 27, 2006 at the Gault House in Louisville, KY.
[10] Council of Trent. Canon V. 45.
[11] Martin Luther, “The Freedom of a Christian.” In The European Reformations Sourcebook. Ed. Carter Lindberg. (Malden: Blackwell, 2000). 39.
[12] Ibid. 39-40.
[13] Complete Sermons of Martin Luther. Vol. 3. 283-84.

Who is the Prodigal Son?

It is one of the most famous stories in the entire Bible, right up there with Noah and Moses, and only second to the Garden of Eden and the Cross. The Prodigal Son has been borrowed by a number of English authors, and re-told for a number of purposes. But who is the “son” in this account? There are two main interpretations of the parable that Jesus tells: 1) The Prodigal Son is a believer who has for a period of time hardened his heart and runaway from God; and 2) The Prodigal Son is an un-believer who is coming to faith within the story. The differences here are significant and will certainly have implications for ones view of salvation and sanctification. So, which is it? That is the aim of this paper.

Arguments for the Son as a Believer
The story of the Prodigal Son has great sentimental value to many Christians. For in the story they see a God who forgives sins, even when Christians themselves have wandered far from God. There is the notion that God always welcomes them back, no matter what. Such an interpretation is based, primarily, on a view of sanctification that does not assert the necessity of fruit in the Christian life. In this view, anyone who professes salvation in Christ is saved regardless of whether his or her life ever evidences a change. There are others, however, who do not hold to this understanding of sanctification and yet still support this interpretation of the Prodigal Son. Let’s look at the textual evidence they offer.

The first defense offered for this theory is that the Prodigal is the son of the Father. We are not speaking of a stranger, or a hired hand, or a distant relative, but of the immediate son of the Father. This connection would necessitate that the Prodigal is part of the family. If the Father is God, and no one debates this, then it seems that the Prodigal is in the Father’s family, as a son. Furthermore the two previous parables that Jesus tells indicate that the lost sheep is of the flock, and the lost coin belongs to the widow. There is present, in the stories, a relationship of possession: The Father’s Son, the Shepherd’s Sheep, and the Widow’s Coin. Such an interpretation is the one held by the editors and commentators of The New Oxford Annotated Bible. They write, “The parable illustrates God’s grace towards those who rebel and return.”[1] But the interpretation has a few holes.

For starters, the concept of the carnal Christian is not found in scripture. Lewis Sperry Chafer asserts that “the added demand that the unsaved must dedicate themselves to do God’s will in their daily life, as well as to believe upon Christ [is a] confusing intrusion into the doctrine that salvation is conditioned alone upon believing.”[2] His assertion, however, misses the point. It is not simply that the regenerate heart must dedicate itself to do God’s will daily, but, in fact, the regenerate heart will desire to dedicate itself to do God’s will daily. This is confirmed by Paul’s words to the Colossians, who were once “hostile in mind” (1: 21) towards God, but now have “faith in Christ Jesus” (1:3). The heart longs for God once it has been awakened. It is not an issue of placing the burden of obedience on man; obedience is the rightful response to the God whom the redeemed man loves.[3] There are a multitude of other passages that add weight to the argument that good works and obedience are the fruit of genuine conversion (2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 2:20; Rom. 6:6; 1 John 3:9-10; John 14:15, 23; 1 John 2:3-4; 1 John 2:19).[4]

Secondly, however, is the issue of the textual argument. At first glance this defense seems reasonable. The Prodigal Son may be viewed as a Christian since he is admittedly referred to as the son of the Father, who represents God. This is a viable interpretation of the passage. Provided that one is not simply trying to assert a doctrine of Carnal Christianity, which is elsewhere refuted, this interpretation can be accepted. But, as I aim to show in the next part, it does not follow the best hermeneutic and fails to explain two key phrases in the passage.

Arguments for the Prodigal Son as Unbeliever
Both sides of the argument agree that the main point of the parable is the merciful forgiveness of God. The divergent views arise, however, over the details of the parable. The difficult task in interpreting parables is not to press the analogy too far. In the early church the common practice was to interpret parables allegorically. So Robert Stein writes, “Tertullian… allegorized the parable of the prodigal son…as follows: The elder son represented the Jew who is envious of God’s offer of salvation to the Gentile; the father is God; the younger son is the Christian; the property is the wisdom and natural ability to know God which man possesses as his birthright; the citizen in the far country is the devil; the pigs are demons; the robe is the sonship lost by Adam through his transgression; the ring is Christian baptism; the celebration is the Lord’s Supper; and the fatted calf slain for the celebration is the Savior at the Lord’s Supper.”[5] This is obviously over the top, for none of these connections are made elsewhere in Scripture, nor does the text indicate them.

The keys to good interpretation of parables is multi-faceted, but one important principle is to maintain the distinction between the two types of details in the story. “The task is to distinguish between ‘local color’ (details not meant to carry spiritual meaning) and theologically loaded details (those which do have allegorical significance).”[6] In the parable of the Prodigal Son the relationship between the father and the son is part of the local color. To focus on the Father/Son relationship as the basis for the interpretation of the parable is to over emphasize it. There are a number of alternative arguments that may be derived from this same focus, such as: 1) Jesus is the Son and God is the Father. The Son’s leaving the Father and going into the far county refers to the Cross. The return the celebration represent Christ’s ascension, while the robe, the ring, and the other gifts given to the returned son symbolize His restored position at the right hand of God and the redeemed saints.[7] 2) That the son is all people, since we are all God’s children, and the return to God, and the Father’s forgiveness, are simply evidence of God’s unconditional love for all of humanity, whether they are Christian or not. Needless to say not all the interpretations are right. There is a way, however, to challenge them based on a reading of the two other noteworthy phrases in the text.

The interpretation of the Son as a backslid believer fails to grapple with two key expressions in the text: “‘For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found.’ And they began to celebrate.” The two key expressions here “dead and alive” and “lost and found” are of great significance. Here we have two phrases that Jesus has used elsewhere to identify the spiritual state, not of believers, but of non-believers.

The beginning of the chapter, v. 1-2, identifies the context of the parable. Tax collectors and sinners are drawing near and the Pharisees and scribes are annoyed by this, they “grumble” about it. In light of their grumbling Jesus tells three parables, according to Luke. First, the Parable of the Lost Sheep, second the Parable of the Lost Coin, and then the Parable of the Prodigal Son. In light of the context there is reason to assume certain correlations between the parable and reality, such as: Father = God, Son = sinners coming to God, and the Older Brother = The Pharisees. It also seems logical to conclude that Jesus is referring to spiritual matters in the parable, not simply physical relation. Thus, when we apply a good hermeneutic to the parable we conclude that the Prodigal Son is, not a Christian who was spiritually dead and is now alive (or spiritually lost and now found), but a non-believer coming to God, whom the Father willing forgives and loves. This hermeneutic identifies the obvious connections in the text, maintains the focus of the parable, and adequately applies it to reality (i.e. God welcomes all sinners who repent and turn to Him).

Conclusion
The Prodigal Son is indeed the most beloved parable of the Bible. Yet love for this parable is most commonly connected to the wrong interpretation mentioned above. It seems to me, however, that the correct interpretation amplifies the attractiveness of this parable. It is not simply the Christian, the one who has repented and placed faith in Christ, whom God loves. It is also the wretch, the sinner, the vile “tax collector,” who comes covered in mud and pig filth that the Father loves. It is a testimony to the truth that the Father gladly welcomes all sinners who come to Him, no matter how “dirty” they are. The passage is not meant to tell us anything specific about salvation, but it clearly identifies the love and forgiveness of God in the event of conversion, and this is a truth that we can certainly love.


[1] The New Oxford Annotated Bible. 127, n. 15.
[2] Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology. vol. 3 (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1993). 384.
[3] This is not to say that the redeemed man never sins, nor that he always desires God and obeys Him. There is a distinction which the Bible makes between being Unregenerate, and still struggling with sin. Cf. Anthony Hoekema, Created in God’s Image. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986). 106-111.
[4] For further reading see John MacArthur, The Gospel According to the Apostles. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2005); The Gospel According to Jesus. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994); Ernest C. Reisinger, Lord & Christ: The Implications of Lordship for Faith and Life. (Philipsburg: P&R, 1994).
[5] Robert H. Stein, The Method and Message of Jesus’ Teachings. (Louisville: WJK, 1994). 45.
[6] Grant R. Osborne, The Hermeneutical Spiral: A Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. (Downers Grove: IVP, 1991). 237.
[7] This is an actual interpretation I read from one pastor. There are a number of theological difficulties with this interpretation, however, that go far beyond mere hermeneutics.