Luther’s Galatians is so refreshing.

“The point is that while sin remains, it no longer reigns in the Christian life.”

So if sin nremains how are we not simultaneously saint and sinner? Our theology affirms that sin no longer reigns. It is a mischaracterization of our position to say that because we affirm simul justus et peccator we deny that sin no longer reigns.

Secondly, this explanation embraces the point I originally made.

“and willful conscious sin is not inevitable for a Christian.”

The Biblical concept of sin is wider than what we willfully or knowingly participate in. We can commit sin unwillingly and with ignorance. To say otherwise would make something a sin or not based on our relation to it and not on God’s decree.

Again, I ask, do you know any Christians who commit absolutely no sin at all?

Lastly I disagree with the above quote in their assesment of Romans 7. I think theirs is the faulty interpretation. There is plenty of scholarship out there if you care to look. The denial of our continuing sinfulness is one of the main contributors to people walking way from the faith. This kind of theology doesn’t allow us to tell the truth about the Christian life and places impossible demands and unrealistic expectations on believers. Check out this chilling article about ministers who become atheists.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20071228-000003.xml

Make no mistake, a theology that denies our continuing sinfulness and the battle that entails, contribute to stuff like this.

The beauty of this post for me lies in the ‘mystery of faith’. Many refer to the eucharist or the trinity as mysteries but for me the big one is faith.

Was exactly is faith?
As best as I can understand it faith is a coin with two sides: believing on one side + doing on the other. One cannot only posess one and claim to be living by faith. We must posess both. The two in fact are inseperable. As James points out, it was not enough for Abraham to simply believe what God was telling him was truth, he had to do what God said. The statement that really makes me scratch my head is when James says that we are justified by what we do and not by believing alone (James 2:24).

Steve, this would be the only point I would disagree with you on. You stated that works are the outcome of faith. I would suggest that works (combined with belief) are faith itself, not the fruit (or the outworking) of faith.

Thus the ‘mystery’ factor comes in to play here for me. If faith is Believing + Doing, then God is giving us His gift of salvation by breathing His grace in us simultaneously through both believing and doing.

I would love everyone’s thoughts on this as I do not claim to be an expert on Luther.

Thanks for taking the time to respond, I appreciate it. However, it seems that the criticisms about the concept understand the things that you’ve mentioned. Here is one of the things I was referring to:

“Unfortunately simul justus et peccator is not good Pauline theology. It comes directly from Luther’s dependency on Augustine, and what can only be called a bad reading of Romans 7. Fortunately, many many scholars (including some Lutherans) are now making clear how false this theology is.

It is simply not true that a person can both be in the bondage to sin and at the same time be set free from the rule of sin and death by the Holy Spirit. If you read carefully Romans 7.5-6 and Romans 8.1-2 the description of the Christian life there is clear. We were in such a condition prior to conversion, and we are not in that condition now.

This is not to say that Christians do not have to wrestle with inclinations to give in to temptation. Paul describes the tug of war between the inclination to sin (called flesh) and the rule of the Spirit in the Christian life in Gal. 5.

The point is that while sin remains, it no longer reigns in the Christian life. The Christian is not in bondage to sin, and willful conscious sin is not inevitable for a Christian.

Indeed, Paul says in 1 Cor. 10 that no temptation has overcome us that is not commmon to humanity such that with the temptation God can provide a means of escape. This is certainly not a simul justus et peccator theology. It is a theology that says ‘greater is he who is in you, than the temptations that you face.’ If Jesus is Lord of your life, then sin is not. Period.”

I will not presume to speak for Mr.Spencer, but from the research and reading I have done, these critiques usually take one or both of the following paths.

1. They “de-fang the law, or water it down so it becomes doable. So failure to completely embody the Sermon on the Mount, is a matter of just”growing more in grace” The old “When Jesus said ‘Be Perfect..’ He didn’t mean REALLY perfect.” line that you hear. Or the sincere intent to live out the law makes up for our incomplete odedience.

2. The believer hasn’t really “committed” enough. In Holiness groups this becomes “entire sanctification” as a second work of grace, completeing what was left undone at conversion. (See Wesley’s idea of Christian Perfection)

If you take the words of Jesus at face value we are either simultaneously sinners and saints, or none of us is really Christian. Ask yourself the hard questions.

Some criticize the sinner/saint view on the grounds of Romans 7 being Paul before he was a Christrian. The problem with this view is that Paul uses the same language to describe the life of the believer in Gal.5:17.

What about the war going on in you right now concerning your pet sin, whatever it may be? You have three options;
a.You are really simultaneously sinner and saint, and you go back and forth fighting yourself over your sin.
b.You are really a “carnal Christian” and need to “re-dedicate” and truly mean it this time. (Note: This is a form of “simultaneously sinner and saint” too.)
c. You are not really a Christian, and your repeated defeat at the hands of this sin is proof you were never converted.

As for me and my house, we go for Romans 7 as indicative of the normal Christian life

Just out of curiosity, what is your view of Witherington’s (and many other scholar’s) critique of simul justus et peccator?

Luther called the book of James, “the epistle of straw”.

Not because he didn’t see any value in it but because the central message of Grace alone, through Faith alone took a backseat to our efforts.

Works are an outcome of Faith and not the other way around is something basic to the understanding of Luther.

That’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it!

Thanks for a wonderful post I.M.

‘Course, now you’ll have all the Professional Lutheran Apologists on your back.

Good to see the reference in there to Christ being “our Samaritan”. Recognising that the Samaritan in the parable is Christ and we are the man dying by the roadside is a transformative perspective on the parable. As a Lutheran pastor once put it to me, “Jesus never tells a parable in which the hearer is invited to see himself as the good guy!”

(For more on this interpretation of the parable, see this post on my blog, based on a sermon by that pastor.)

Michael, I had the exact same experience when I was an undergraduate (at a secular college). I was a history major, and for “Reformation History” we read a lot of Luther.

I remember reading his Commentary on Galatians. I had just received the Lord through a group of evangelicals preaching the gospel on campus. As I read Luther, it was indeed a mystical experience. Every word of his seemed to be shining with light. I was so aware of my sinful nature (having just started to overcome drug addictions), and of my own inability to heal myself. And I was daily experiencing what it was to be saved and freed. But Luther described it and explained it in a way that still fills me with joy when I reflect on that period of my life.

I remember highlighting and underlining so much of the Commentary that those things became superfluous. Everything was underlined and highlighted. I was a bit crazy with love for the Lord, so I wrote “Amen!” lots of times in the margins. Then a friend of mine in the same class, who didn’t know that I had become a Christian, borrowed my copy. Now that was funny. She was a bit wide-eyed.

No matter how many “deeper” things I’ve studied since then, concerning Biblical interpretations, Luther still trumps them all with his simultaneous depth and simplicity. I really owe the man, centuries after his existence. He helped me give myself to the Lord.