Newman and Luther on justification

Abstract

In my book, Newman on Justification, I wrote, or not Newman is to Luther himself [in singling out Luther for criticism in Lectures on Justification] is a point. (1) That, frankly, was an evasion, albeit legitimate, since a thorough study of Lectures on Justification would have taken me far beyond scope of what I had set out to do in that book. However, I still blush when I read that phrase, moot point. Whether system that John Henry Newman was refuting should be traced back to Martin Luther himself might be open to question, (2) but I think that anyone who compares what Newman said about Luther himself and his doctrine would have to agree that Newman was, in fact, definitely not entirely fair to Luther. (3) More recently, British historical theologian Alister B. McGrath has once again called attention to problem of misunderstanding of Martin Luther. (4) While referring to Lectures on Justification as easily most significant theological writing to emerge from Oxford Movement, McGrath maintained. that Newman's historico-theological analysis appears to be seriously and irredeemably inaccurate. (5) Every aspect of this analysis was faulty, said McGrath, with respect to the doctrines of justification associated with Luther (and to a much lesser extent, with Philip Melanchthon), with Roman Catholic theologians such as Bellarmine and Vasquez, and with Caroline Divines, but supremely in case of Luther himself. (6) Elsewhere he has also faulted Newman for neglecting Reformed tradition and especially his paucity of references to John Calvin, with whom he also shared some important insights. (7) I shall return to McGrath's critique when comparing ideas with those of Lut her. In a recent article in this journal John F. Perry maintained that Newman deconstructed a key text from Luther's Commentary on Galatians in his battle with Protestants of his own day and thereby seriously misrepresented Luther. (8) What I wish to maintain in this article is that, in actual fact, Luther's own doctrine had much in common with position that Newman was defending and that very heart of own doctrine is already found in Luther's writings. The ecumenical value of such a study should be clear from what Newman himself wrote in 1874 Advertisement to Third Edition of Lectures on Justification, namely, that they were intended to form part of a series of works that set forth the characteristic position of Anglican Church, as lying in a supposed Via Media, admitting much and excluding much of both Roman and of Protestant teaching. He continues: Their drift is to show that there is difference but what is in various views on justification, found whether among Catholic or Protestant divines; by Protestant being meant Lutheran, Calvinistic, and thirdly that dry anti-evangelical doctrine, which was dominant in Church of England during last century, and is best designated by name of Arminianism. (9) That Word Faith as Differently Understood Before looking at some striking examples of that little difference but what is verbal (however one may assess that statement), it is important to point out from outset that, though Newman and Luther both used word faith, meaning that each attached to word was quite different. Newman gave a fairly accurate account of Lutheran view of what faith is not, when in very first lecture he wrote: ... it is not unusual to explain that faith is not mere belief in being of a God, nor in historical fact that Christ has come on earth, suffered and ascended. Nor is it submission of reason to mysteries, nor sort of trust which is required for exercising gift of miracles. Nor, again, is it knowledge and acceptance of sacred truths of New Testament, even atonement, however accurate, however implicit. …