Summary on Luther’s counter on Sacrament of Penance

Concerning the remission of guilt, Luther excludes two possible fundaments for this
remission: (a) the contrition of the sinner and (b) the office of the priest (th. 8). (a) is the
position of Gabriel Biel. For him, “contrition” means regret and penitence based on the love
of God. According to the rule: To those who do what is in their powers God will not deny his
grace (facientibus quod in se est deus non denegat gratiam), God will react to such an act of
love of him by forgiving the sin which happens in giving his grace. Thus, if a truly repentant
persons comes to a priest asking for absolution, his or her sin is already forgiven by God, so
that the priest can only look for signs of repentance and then declare that the sin is (already)
forgiven. Going to the priest is a requirement for forgiveness – it humiliates the sinner –, but
in the absolution by the priest forgiveness of sins does not happen, rather it is the declaration
that this forgiveness by God has already taken place. (b) either refers to the requirement for
absolution that a contrite person is obliged to go to the priest for confession and absolution, or
that, like with Duns Scotus, the imperfect repentance based on the fear of God (attrition)
becomes a perfect contrition through the sacrament.
Luther argues that if understanding (a) would be true, Matthew 16:19 would have to read:
“Whatever is loosed in heaven you shall loose on earth,” whereas it reads: “Whatever you
loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” Therefore remission of guilt does not “consist in the
action […] of humans” (th. 11), but rather in the word of promise of God (th. 12). A promise
calls for faith as trusting in the promise. This is all the more true for the promises of God.
Thus, thesis 9 states that remission of guilt is based “on faith, which directs itself to the Word
of Christ, as he said: ‘Whatever you loose …’ etc.”.
“For it is true that it is not the sacrament of faith, but rather faith in the sacrament that justifies
(which means, not because the sacrament is performed, but rather because it is believed).” (th.
10) This thesis can easily be misunderstood. It should first be noted that originally the phrase
“a sacrament is effective because it is performed” has the meaning that the effect of a
sacrament is not dependent on the quality or dignity of the priest. Lutherans are in full
agreement with this understanding (Augsburg Confession, art. VIII). But Luther criticized that
the sacraments were seen as effective without faith. It was only required not to put an obstacle
(obex) against the effect of the sacrament (especially by the intention to repeat or continue the
sin or to commit another sin). He emphasized that sacraments as promises of God call for
faith since the unbelief of the recipients of the sacrament would deny the reality that the
sacrament creates.
Luther replaces the role of contrition in the sacrament of penance by faith. Both, contrition
and faith, could be regarded as certain human conditions, thus the difference may not seem to
be great. Nevertheless, there are at least two basic differences in the structures of both: (i)
Love of God and the subsequent contrition originate in the will of a person and can be
produced by the mere power of the human being. Faith, on the other hand, is created by the
word of promise: The priest, offering the word of Christ, “elicits at the same time the faith
through which the sinner is justified inwardly” (th. 32). “I believe that by my own
understanding or strength I cannot believe in Jesus Christ my LORD or come to him, instead
the Holy Spirit has called me through the gospel, enlightened me with gifts, made me holy
and kept me in the true faith […]” (Small Catechism [BC 355]; italics added). (ii) If someone
doubts whether he or she is rightly contrite he or she will turn on himself or herself in order to
deeper investigate one’s own inner situation. If someone doubts whether he or she truly
believes they will look away from themselves to the divine promise. “Our theology is certain
since it puts us outside of us” (theologia nostra certa est quia ponit nos extra nos). Faith is by
itself looking away from oneself and grounding one’s life in the promise of Christ.
“Those who base forgiveness on contrition build on sand (Matthew 7:26], which means, they
build trust in God on human work.” (th. 18) This is so because no one is able to love God with
his or her whole heart (Deuteronomy 6:5), and no one is able to have full insight whether his
repentance is actually determined by the love of God, or not (see 1 Cor 4: 4). Under such
conditions, salvation and assurance of salvation are impossible. If faith is focusing on Christ’s
promise alone it is in itself assurance of faith. “Not to believe in the absolution until the
contrition is certain” (th. 19) makes God a liar (th. 20) since this unbelief has the implication
that one – by his or her unbelief – states that God is not able to realize its promise because of
the lack of contrition in the human. “Despairing on account of all his other sins, he must
throw himself with confidence into the abyss of the mercy of God, who promises [mercy]
faithfully.” (th. 50)
The task of the priest according to Luther’s understanding of remission of guilt is not to ask
for signs of contrition and then declare that God has forgiven, rather priests have to serve the
word of promise in order to call for faith or to elicit it (th. 29). The “administration of the
word through the priest is necessary” for justifying faith. Every priest should be aware of this
basic task.
The activities of teaching or baptizing are performed by a priest, “and yet these are the works
of the internally operating Spirit alone” (th. 31). This is also true for the priest’s activity of
absolving people: It is intimately connected with the inward acting of the Holy Spirit, they are
even one act. In the acts of baptizing both human activity and dine activity form a unit. On the
one hand, this elevates the activity of the pastor very high: he or she is acting on behalf of
God, even in unity with God; on the other hand, it humiliates the priest: his or her activity is
nearly nothing since the only actor is the Holy Spirit, while the pastor is nothing more than an
instrument of God. The pastor’s activity does not rely on any dignity given to him (or her) in
consecration, rather he administers the word of promise referring back to command of Jesus
to perform a certain sacrament. In his or her ordination, the pastor is given the right and the
obligation to administer publicly the sacraments as bodily words; therefore he or she is called
and sent by laying on of hands and prayer. But in forgiving sins the pastor can only rely on
the word of God (promise and command).
Thus Luther speaks of the infallibility of the keys: “The power of the keys works a
dependable and infallible work through the word and command of God, as long as one
doesn’t willfully abuse it.” (th. 24)
It should be noted that Luther ends the series of theses “in summary” as follows: “The
righteous will not live from works of the law, and also not from the law, but from faith.
Romans 1 [:17; 3, 38].” In the Preface to his Latin Works (1545), Luther described his
reformation discovery as a new understanding of the phrase “righteousness of God” in
Romans 1:17. In his summary Luther refers to this verse even though the word “righteousness
of God” does not appear in the theses. Obviously he was convinced that the understanding of
the forgiveness of sins that he presented was an adequate application of his understanding of
Romans 1:17.