The Use of Luther's Simul in the Context of Sanctification

This is somewhat of a pet peeve of mine. And yet, I think its more than that, I think it has affected our understanding of sanctification, and could affect our understanding of justification, that is, in adopting Luther's concept of simul iustus et peccator in our language concerning sanctification.

It is something that always bugged me, and yet I could never pin point why until I read a passage in Paul Althaus' The Ethics of Martin Luther. I never felt I understood the usefulness of utilizing this language in the context of sanctification, and then, I not only found that it was not useful, but actually incorrect. Here is what Althaus writes:

“This split [between flesh and spirit] is not to be confused with the twofold character of the Christian as simul justus et peccator, at one and the same time a righteous man and sinner. Luther uses simul justus et peccator to describe the whole man in the judgment of God at any given time: in and of myself I am and remain throughout my whole life a sinner before God; yet through God’s gracious act of justification, I, the sinner, am now righteous.” (The Ethics of Martin Luther, trans. Robert C. Schultz. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972, 19)

There are four ways in which I have found this phrase incorrectly used in the context of sanctification.

1) The first is what is explicitly addressed in Althaus' quote, that is, the simul should not be confused with spirit/flesh, old man/new, dialectics. The simul is an un-existential, forensic declaration of God concerning our standing Coram Deo. This error is especially found in the writings of LC-MS theologians. I don't think it is as much a theological mistake as terminological.

Examples:

"The Christian is simul justus et peccator, consisting both in the new man created by spiritual regeneration and in the old man of his fleshly birth." (Jonathan Lange, "Using the Third Use.
Logia 3, no.1 (1994), 19.)

"The object of sanctification is the Christian who is simul justus et peccator. Both natures [old man/new] are wrapped up in one person." (Lyle Lange, "Sanctification in the Lutheran Confessions." Lutheran Synod Quarterly 37, no. 2 (1997), 56.)

David Scaer also, quite often, uses Luther's simul to describe the old man/new, spirit/flesh dialectic. And the list goes on; it has become quite common.

This error can be detrimental exactly where it should be beneficial. That is, where the simul should give comfort-- that is, in spite of my understanding myself as a sinner, I am forgiven in the eyes of God-- this comfort can be taken away when the simul is understood as two conditional qualities within me.

This movement from the unconditional to the conditional and from the objective to the existential can rob people of comfort and is a confusion of law and gospel.

This first error has the least negative effect compared to the other three for a couple of reasons: 1) it is being tied to Scripturally based language and concepts (i.e old man/new, spirit/flesh), and because of this 2) it can be logically distinguished from the unconditional declaration of the forgiveness of sins.

2) This over-existentializing not only can occur through its confusion with flesh/spirit, etc., but also where we emphasize the Christian's experience of the simul. No doubt the Christian does experience the reality of the simul but we can never make one's conditional experience of the simul what the simul actually is, that is, an unconditional declaration. David Scaer writes:

"The contradiction [between law and gospel] can be resolved theoretically, but never really within human existence. The law and the gospel are simultaneous words of God to the Christian and not subsequent ones... Lutheran theology uses the Latin phrase simul iustus et peccator to express this existential dilemma." (David Scaer, "The Law and the Gospel in Lutheran Theology." Logia 3, no. 1 (1994), 28).

I take somewhat of an issue with this. While I agree the existential tension of law and gospel will not be personally resolved until our resurrection, we are responsible, as a church, to let our congregations know that the gospel is ultimately the solution to the law. Scaer calls this "theory," I call it hope, that is, what we are supposed to be doing when we preach law and gospel in the first place, and what the simul is all about. Devolving the simul into an "existential dilemma" robs us of our comfort. While I don't feel that Scaer is trying to do this, we need to, as a church, be emphasizing and keeping our declaration of the gospel as unconditional as possible. Only in this way can the gospel, both existentially and finally, overcome the terror of the law.

3) The third error is mostly found in the writing of the ELCA, and is the most dangerous. Far from just a misunderstanding and/or misuse of Luther's original intent of the phrase (namely the 1st error), it purposefully utilizes this phraseology to promote their understanding of sanctification. This understanding (possibly over simplified) is either an unintentional confusion of, or intentional fusion of justification and sanctification.

Those that promote this error emphasize the unconditional, total quality that the simul represents over sin, thus deemphasizing the conditional quality of the reborn's sin and sanctification, in time. Thus being able to equate or confuse justification and sanctification.

James Nestingen works his understanding of sanctification on the basis of this concept:

sanus perfecte est in spe, in re autem peccator, that is, "totally healthy in hope, but a sinner in fact."

He writes:

"For Luther the simul is both totius, totius, totally complete, and partim, partim, partial and awaiting completion. But the incompleteness does not, therefore, devolve to us, as though sanctification were something to be sought and achieved." (“Changing Definitions: The Law in Formula VI.” Concordia Theological Quarterly 69, no. 3-4 (2005), 266)

Under this logic, just as we are only righteous in spe, in Christ, and sinners in re, we do not try and overcome our present situation of unrighteousness by trying to obtain our salvation, which is in spe, in re. While this is certainly true as it pertains to justification, it is because of the confusion of justification and sanctification in much ELCA theology that makes them believe this pertains to sanctification as well.

This then becomes the argumentation (possibly put a little coarsely): "don't worry about your sanctification now because we cannot solve the partim thus look to the eschaton where it is fulfilled totius, in spe."

This emphasis on the eschaton is reflected in their writing. Directly after the previous quote, we continue with Nestingen's argumentation:

"Rather...what is now begun will be completed eschatologically, by the work of the Holy Spirit." (266)

Then comes the criticism of those who dedicate themselves to the will of God:

"The totius, totius of Luther's simul iustus et peccator has, in the overall argument of Article VI, for all practical purposes dissolved into the partim, partim." (268)

This type of argumentation, especially the unconditional, objective understanding has a further impact on their understanding of sanctification with its close connection with justification. Because justification does not admit levels of progress so too sanctification cannot admit levels of progress (correlated to Nestingen's partim, partim). Gerhard Forde writes:

"If justification by faith alone rejects all ordinary schemes of progress and renders us simultaneously just and sinners, we have to look at growth and progress in quite a different light." (“A Lutheran View of Sanctification.” In Christian Spirituality: Five Views of Sanctification, ed. Donald L. Alexander, Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1988, 27)

Likewise, we read from Carter Lindberg:

"The Christian life is not a progress from vice to virtue but continual starting anew by grace, simul iustus et peccator." (“Do Lutherans Shout Justification But Whisper Sanctification?” Lutheran Quarterly 13, no.1 (1999), 15).

4) The fourth error is probably the most pervasive among Lutherans, especially among laity. The argument goes something like this: "Because we will always be peccator, we shouldn't 'get all crazy' about sanctification." They would say, yes, go about your daily business, fulfill your vocation, help your neighbor once in a while. But would sneer and push up their noses at those who have dedicated their lives to fulfilling the commands of the Sermon on the Mount, claiming these attempts as mere self-justificatory pipedreams. Larry Vogel has an amusing assessment of this understanding of vocation:

"We Lutherans may be particularly vulnerable to see our new life as meaning something quite safe. After all, is that not the meaning of the doctrine of vocation? Is it not simply a kind of domesticated godliness that says: ‘Pay your taxes. Quit your vices. Go to work. Go to church. Go to the polls. But, don't get crazy about godliness. After all, those hard words of Jesus were only meant to get us to admit our guilt and give up on our own righteousness. They serve no other purpose.’” (“A Third Use of the Law: Is the Phrase Necessary?” Concordia Theological Quarterly 69, no. 3-4 (2005), 218)

Here is a common example of this being played out. It is an add for a "simul iustus et peccator" t-shirt:

"In a time when there is an increasing push for Christians to please God with their own works, this shirt helps push back in the understanding that Christians remain sinners, even in faith, and continue to need the perfect works of Jesus imputed to them since all our works will always be as "filthy rags" to God. The only thing that we have to offer to our salvation is our sin."

While nothing is inherently wrong in this statement, it reflects a pervading distaste in Lutheran circles to approach sanctification seriously. It is an attitude, not necessarily a teaching, and it goes something like this: "You'll never be able to get too far, so don't waste your energy." There is no "hunger and thirst after righteousness" (Matt. 5:6) The assumption is that any "push" to encourage sanctification is a push towards self-justificatory activity. This error is exactly the center of why we need to keep clear the distinction of justification and sanctification and why we need to keep the language of the simul out of our understanding of sanctification. When they are confused it is assumed that sanctification language is attacking simul language. I find it no surprise that this same company sells a "weak on sanctification" t-shirt. While they admit that it is "tongue-in-cheek" it reflects a pervasive preconceived attitude of distrust about sanctification language.

It is as if all Lutheran talk of sanctification needs a warning label before it to make sure it is not abused, while justification language is impossible to be abused. It begs the question: "What are we fighting against? And, what are we fighting for?" If all our language turns out to be fighting against misunderstanding sanctification and fighting for justification then we are not preaching the full council of Scripture. We need to be fighting against all error, and fighting, eagerly and zealously, for all upright teaching.