Newman and Luther on justification

In my book, Newman on Justification, I wrote, "Whether or not Newman is entirely fair to Luther himself [in singling out Luther for criticism in the Lectures on Justification] is a moot point." (1) That, frankly, was an evasion, albeit legitimate, since a thorough study of the Lectures on Justification would have taken me far beyond the scope of what I had set out to do in that book. However, I still blush when I read that phrase, "moot point." Whether the 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 the problem of Newman's misunderstanding of Martin Luther. (4) While referring to the Lectures on Justification as "easily the most significant theological writing to emerge from the 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 the Caroline Divines," but "supremely in the case of Luther himself." (6) Elsewhere he has also faulted Newman for neglecting the 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 Newman's 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 the 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 the position that Newman was defending and that the very heart of Newman's 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 the 1874 "Advertisement to the Third Edition" of the Lectures on Justification, namely, that they were intended to form part of a series of works that set forth "the characteristic position of the 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 little difference but what is verbal in the 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 the Church of England during the last century, and is best designated by the 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 the outset that, though Newman and Luther both used the word "faith," the meaning that each attached to the word was quite different. Newman gave a fairly accurate account of the Lutheran view of what faith is not, when in the very first lecture he wrote: ... it is not unusual to explain that faith is not mere belief in the being of a God, nor in the historical fact that Christ has come on earth, suffered and ascended. Nor is it the submission of the reason to mysteries, nor the sort of trust which is required for exercising the gift of miracles. Nor, again, is it the knowledge and acceptance of the sacred truths of the New Testament, even the atonement, however accurate, however implicit. …