“The person who believes that he can obtain grace by doing what is in him adds sin to sin so that he becomes doubly guilty.”
On the basis of what has been said, the following is clear: While a person is doing what is in him, he sins and seeks himself in everything. But if he should suppose that through sin he would become worthy of or prepared for grace, he would add haughty arrogance to his sin and not believe that sin is sin and evil is evil, which is an exceedingly great sin. As Jer. 2[:13] says, “For my people have committed two evils: they have forsaken me, the fountain of living waters, and hewed out cisterns for themselves, broken cisterns, that can hold no water,” that is, through sin they are far from me and yet they presume to do good by their own ability.
Now you ask, “What then shall we do? Shall we go our way with indifference because we can do nothing but sin?” I would reply, By no means. But, having heard this, fall down and pray for grace and place your hope in Christ in whom is our salvation, life, and resurrection. For this reason we are so instructed—for this reason the law makes us aware of sin so that, having recognized our sin, we may seek and receive grace. Thus God “gives grace to the humble” [1 Pet. 5:5], and “whoever humbles himself will be exalted” [Matt. 23:12]. The law humbles, grace exalts. The law effects fear and wrath, grace effects hope and mercy. “Through the law comes knowledge of sin” [Rom. 3:20], through knowledge of sin, however, comes humility, and through humility grace is acquired. Thus an action which is alien to God’s nature results in a deed belonging to his very nature: he makes a person a sinner so that he may make him righteous. (LW 31:50)
In the previous thesis, Luther argued that even before the fall, the free will of human beings can do good only in its passive capacity. In order to explain the responsibility of human beings for the fall, Scholastic theologians emphasized the active capacity of free will before the fall. On the other hand, Luther argued that without the grace of God, human being even before the fall can’t do good works for the salvation.
In this Thesis, Luther once again criticized the phrase of the medieval Scholastics - facienti quod in se est, infallibiliter Deus infundit gratiam. In the late Middle age, the one of the representative scholastic theologians, Gabriel Biel holds this scholastic phrase.
In his book, Sententiarum libri quattror, Biel argued: “facienti quod in se est Deus non denegat gratiam (God will not deny his grace to anyone who does what lies within him)”
“he soul is able to merit the first grace de congruo by the removal of obstacles and by a good movement unto God produced by the free will. It is proved because God accepts the act of doing what is in oneself toward the granting of the first grace, not out of the debt of justice, but out of His liberality. But the soul by removing obstacles, by the ceasing from the act and consent to sin, and by producing a good movement unto God, just as in its beginning so in its end, does what is in itself. Therefore, God accepts the act of the removal of obstacles and the good movement unto God of His liberality toward the infusing of grace.” (Gabriel Biel, Collectorium ex occamo cira quattuor libros Sententiarum, II dist, 27. q. 1, a.3. dub. 4)
In this regard, Luther initially accepted Biel's argument about "doing what is in oneself" (facere quod in se est). As late as 1515, especially in his early lectures on Psalms and sermons, Luther was still subscribing to the necessity of doing one's best as a predisposition to the reception of divine grace.
"Hence, just as the law was a figure and preparation of the people for receiving Christ, so our doing what is in us (factio quantum in nobis est) disposes us to grace." (WA 4, 262)
The reference at Rom 4:7, where he criticized the scholastic implications of the synteresis was the last time Luther explicitly dealt with the synteresis in his Romans lectures. There are, to be sure, other occasions where he implicitly dealt with the topic and these are also places where he continued to develop a generally negative assessment of it. It was also in connection with Rom 4:7 7 that Luther attacked the assertion that “man can love God above all by his own powers” as the positions of “fools” and “pig-theologians”.
“For this reason it is sheer madness to say that man can love God above everything by his own powers11 and live up to the commandment in terms of the substance of the deed but not in terms of the intention of Him who gave it, because he does not do so in the state of grace. O you fools, you pig-theologians!” (WA 56, 274, 11-14)
In his Disputiatio contra scholasticam theologian, Luther clearly and openly attacked the medieval theological traditions as regards the facere quod in se est. For Luther, Aristotle was his real opponent, because Aristotle argued the positive role of human will:
“We do not become righteous by doing righteous deeds but, having been made righteous, we do righteous deeds. This in opposition to the philosophers. Virtually the entire Ethics of Aristotle is the worst enemy of grace. This in opposition to the scholastics. ”(Contra Scholarium, 40-41, LW 31, 12).
Luther, in this Thesis, returns to the attack on the idea that God will not fail to grant his grace to those who “do what is in them.” Luther’s proof for this thesis was forthright and direct, a concise summary of the argument of the Disputation to this point:
“While a person is doing what is in him, he sins and seeks himself in everything. But if he should suppose that through sin he would become worthy of or prepared for grace, he would add haughty arrogance to his sin and not believe that sin is sin and evil is evil, which is an exceedingly great sin. As Jer. 2[:13] says, “For my people have committed two evils: they have forsaken me, the fountain of living waters, and hewed out cisterns for themselves, broken cisterns, that can hold no water,” that is, through sin they are far from me and yet they presume to do good by their own ability.”(LW 31,50)
Thesis 16 is no doubt devastating to us. If we cannot be assured of grace by doing our best, and if our best only doubles sin, then what is the use? How shall we obtain grace at all? Luther’s next paragraph in his proof indicates that he was well aware of the question.
Now you ask, “What then shall we do? Shall we go our way with indifference because we can do nothing but sin?” I would reply, By no means. But, having heard this, fall down and pray for grace and place your hope in Christ in whom is our salvation, life, and resurrection. For this reason we are so instructed—for this reason the law makes us aware of sin so that, having recognized our sin, we may seek and receive grace.”(LW 31,50)
This is the Luther’s answer to the incessant question in the Disputation about how one obtains race. It is by humility. In other word, grace is acquired not by “doing what is in one.” It is acquired when we are so completely humbled by God’s alien work in law and wrath that we see how completely we are caught in the web of sin and turn to Christ as the only hope. “God gives grace to the humble” was a watchword of Lutheran Theology.
We cannot enter into all the ramifications of the complex debate for humility, but at least an important point ought to be stressed. The humility Luther has in mind is neither a human work, nor a theological concept. It is an honest confession of human being who experience his own existence before God. Luther argued that the true humility comes from God’s judgement and human self-reflection.
“Thus, whoever clings to Him by faith necessarily becomes vile and nothing, abominable and damnable, to himself. And that is true humility.” (LW 10:404)
In other word, for Luther, humility in this context means precisely for us to be reduced to the position where we claim absolutely nothing. Thesis 16 is talking about this “absolutely humility”.
The theologians who emphases the social responsibility and holy life as Christians may always come back with the following questions: Isn’t human responsibility as Christian weakened by Luther’s argument? Doesn’t theses negative view of human being give the only frustrations and disappointments to human being.
Luther answers these questions in the following thesis 17. Let us now turn to thesis 17.
Rev. Dr Jin O, Jeong serves as President and Professor of Systematic Theology and Church History at Reformed University. Prior to his service at Reformed University, Dr. Jeong served as President at Washington Theological Seminary. Tel: 618-920-9311 Email: jin.jeong@runiv.edu or korealuther92@gmail.com.
