Michael, would you actually like to know what Luther taught about justification?
Distinctions
As one of the commentators pointed out, Luther started out as a monk and his theology changed over time. So there are times we have to distinguish between...
- Early Luther and at the end of his life Luther. Early Luther may or may not be on track or in line with the Bible. His commentary on the Psalms is a good example of this.
- Official Luther and unofficial Luther. There are those who cite Luther's table talks as if they were useful. Luther's table talks were basically Luther having a few beers with friends and having students write it all down. It is Luther 'unfiltered.' That is completely different than Luther when he goes to other evangelical theologians and, together, they formulate confessions of faith after thoroughly searching through scripture. Examples of these official statements of faith are found in the Book of Concord.
I note this because you seemingly go out of your way to quote a translation of Luther from someone who had no editor to give his work a gut-check. Furthermore, you cite Luther, but not from any of the official confessions that he offically subscribed to.
In short, your work shows a lack of understanding of these distinctions.
What was Luther's view of Justification?
Despite the strangely accusational tone of your question, Luther did actually officially write words about Justification. And his theology isn't very difficult to find. Take, for example, The Apology to the Augsburg Confession.
The Apology to the Augsburg Confession
Consider these words from the Apology:
Finally, it was very foolish for the opponents to write that human
beings, guilty of eternal wrath, merit the forgiveness of sins through
an elicited act of love71 since it is impossible to love God until the
forgiveness of sins is first grasped by faith. For the heart that
truly believes that God is angry is unable to love God until he is
shown to be reconciled. For as long as he terrifies us and appears to
be casting us into eternal death, human nature cannot bring itself to
love such a wrathful, judging, and punishing God. It is easy for
complacent minds to fabricate some foolish dreams about love, namely,
that a person guilty of mortal sin can love God above all things,
because they themselves do not realize what the wrath or judgment of
God is. But in its agony and its battles72 the conscience experiences
the emptiness of such philosophical speculations. Paul says [Rom.
4:15]: “The law brings wrath.” He does not say that through the law
people merit the forgiveness of sins. For the law always accuses and
terrifies consciences. Therefore it does not justify since the
conscience that is terrified by the law flees the judgment of God.
They err, therefore, who trust that they merit the forgiveness of sins
through the law and through their own works. Enough has been said for
now about this righteousness of reason or of the law, which the
opponents teach. Later, when we set forth our position on the
righteousness of faith, the subject matter itself will compel us to
marshal more testimonies, which will also be useful for refuting those
errors of the opponents that we have considered to this point.
Therefore, because people cannot by their own powers live according to
the law of God and because all are under sin and guilty of eternal
wrath and death, we cannot be set free from sin and be justified
through the law. Instead, what has been given us is the promise of the
forgiveness of sins and justification on account of Christ, who was
given for us in order to make satisfaction for the sins of the world,
and who has been appointed as the mediator and propitiator.73 This
promise is not conditional upon our merits; it freely offers the
forgiveness of sins and justification, just as Paul says [Rom. 11:6]:
“If it is by works, it is no longer on the basis of grace.”74 And
elsewhere he says [Rom. 3:21]: “Apart from law, the righteousness of
God has been disclosed,” that is, the forgiveness of sins is offered
freely. Reconciliation does not depend upon our merits. But if the
forgiveness of sins depended upon our merits and reconciliation were
by the law, it would be useless. For since we do not keep the law, it
would also follow that the promise of reconciliation would never apply
to us. Thus Paul argues in Romans 4[:14]: “If it is the adherents of
the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is
void.” For if the promise required the law and condition of our
merits, it would follow that the promise is useless since we never
keep the law.
But since justification takes place through a free
promise, it follows that we cannot justify ourselves. Otherwise, why
would a promise be needed? And since the promise cannot be grasped in
any other way than by faith, the gospel (which is, strictly speaking,
the promise of the forgiveness of sins and justification on account of
Christ) proclaims the righteousness of faith in Christ, which the law
does not teach. Nor is this a righteousness of the law. For the law
requires of us our own works and our own perfection. But the promise
freely offers to us, who are oppressed by sin and death,
reconciliation on account of Christ, which is received not by works,
but by faith alone. This faith does not bring to God trust in our own
merits, but only trust in the promise or the mercy promised in Christ.
(Robert Kolb and Timothy J. Wengert, eds. The Book of Concord: The
Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Accordance electronic
ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000), 126-127.)
Notice how that contrasts with your own view of Luther. You write, " In other words, a person is declared righteous despite being a sinner, and remain an ungodly sinner, but God overlooks justice for him and let him go. Is it acceptable if we characterize this as a false justification or forged justification."
God doesn't overlook sin. Instead, as the Apology reminds us: "Instead, what has been given us is the promise of the forgiveness of sins and justification on account of Christ, who was given for us in order to make satisfaction for the sins of the world."
This is what Luther officially teaches.
But what about later on in his life? Consider Luther in his last years:
The Smalcald Articles
[13:] How a Person Is Justified and Concerning Good Works
[325.1] I cannot change at all what I have consistently taught about
this until now, namely, that “through faith” (as St. Peter says)166 we
receive a different, new, clean heart and that, for the sake of Christ
our mediator, God will and does regard us as completely righteous and
holy. Although sin in the flesh is still not completely gone or dead,
God will nevertheless not count it or consider it.
[325.2] Good works follow such faith, renewal, and forgiveness of sin,
and whatever in these works is still sinful or imperfect should not
even be counted as sin or imperfection, precisely for the sake of this
same Christ. Instead, the human creature should be called and should
be completely righteous and holy — according to both the person and
his or her works — by the pure grace and [325.3] mercy that have been
poured and spread over us in Christ. Therefore we cannot boast about
the great merit of our works, where they are viewed apart from grace
and mercy. Rather, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in
the Lord” [1 Cor. 1:31; 2 Cor. 10:17]. That is, if one has a gracious
God, then everything is good. Furthermore, we also say that if good
works do not follow, then faith is false and not true.
(Robert Kolb and Timothy J. Wengert, eds. The Book of Concord: The
Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Accordance electronic
ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000), 325.)
The Smalcald Articles have often been called Luther's "last will and testament." So in them we find both "late Luther" and "official Luther." Note how clear his words are: "for the sake of Christ, our mediator, God will and does regard us as completely righteous and holy."
Again, to Luther, this is not God overlooking sin. It is God paying for sin on the cross and as a result, as St. Paul says, God "justifies the wicked." (Rom. 4:5)
Forensic Justification in history
Michael, you write: "And what is the origin of this theological jargon called forensic justification, who came up with it? The false justification characterization fits well with Luther's own description."
Consider this quote from the Apology:
Paul discusses this topic especially in the Epistle to the Romans and
advances the thesis that we who believe that God is reconciled with us
on account of Christ are justified freely by faith. And in chapter
3[:28] he sets forth this proposition, which contains the essential
point of the entire discussion:106 “For we hold that a person is
justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the law.” The
opponents interpret this as referring to the Levitical ceremonies.107
But Paul is talking not only about the ceremonies, but about the
entire law. For later [Rom. 7:7] he quotes from the Decalogue: “Do not
covet.” If moral works merited the forgiveness of sins and
justification, there would be no need for Christ, and the promise and
everything that Paul says about the promise would be overthrown. He
would also be wrong when he writes to the Ephesians [2:8], “For by
grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own
doing; it is the gift of God.” Likewise, Paul refers to Abraham and
David who at least had a command from God regarding circumcision [Rom.
4:1–6]. Thus if any works did justify, surely these works (since they
had a command) would have had to justify. However, Augustine correctly
teaches in his lengthy argument in On the Spirit and the Letter that
Paul is talking about the entire law. He concludes, “Now that we have
considered these matters and treated them thoroughly according to the
abilities which the Lord sees fit to give us, we conclude that a
person is not justified by the precepts of a good life, but only
through faith in Jesus Christ.”108
(Robert Kolb and Timothy J. Wengert, eds. The Book of Concord: The
Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. Accordance electronic
ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000), 135-136.)
As the Apology notes, Augustine uses forensic language freely. This language was nothing new in either the Bible or church history.
I wonder how someone who, in other areas, seems to be diligent in doing the research about serious topics could be so lacking here. The first and most official place to go to find out what Luther taught is the Book of Concord. Only about 1/5 of Luther's works have been translated from the German into English. For many of them it takes a committee to work through the German and properly bring it into English. And even then, it's exceedingly easy to misunderstand the context of what Luther says even after it has been brought over into English. His Psalms commentaries are a good example of this.
Sermon: Our Blessed Hope
In the citation from the sermon you have provided it does not directly speak to the issue that you are addressing here. I'm assuming you are trying to make a point by quoting it. But there's nothing in that citation that proves that God "overlooks justice".
In fact, the verbiage that you do include here finds great correspondence to one of Luther's other writings. Here, in this sermon, he writes, "He calls to that which is nothing that it should become something." In the Heidelberg Disputations, he writes:
- God’s love does not find, but creates, that which is pleasing to it. Human love comes into being through that which is pleasing to it.
(The Roots of Reform, ed. Timothy J. Wengert, vol. 1 of The Annotated
Luther. Accordance electronic ed. (Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress,
2015), 85.)
In the tone of this sermon, there is much in common with his Heidelberg Disputations (especially in the context of warnings against exalting reason above its ministerial role in interpretation.
All of this I offer as a help to you so that you can begin to become acquainted with Luther and his writings. Simply put: His context in this sermon is somewhat different than the context you are thinking about and conceiving. He might be indirectly referring to Justification, but not clearly and directly. It's a much wiser path to go to the places where he clearly, directly, and officially writes about the topic.
I suggest that you thoroughly give Luther's Heidelberg Disputations a good read (even better would be buying the Annotated Luther to get the background notes) so that you can begin to absorb the context that Luther is speaking about and then ask the questions Luther is asking. From there, I recommend the same when it comes to the Augsburg Confessions (and the corresponding Apology). And finally, a thorough study of the Smalcald Articles would be a good place to start. For, as you frame your question here, it's quite apparent that you haven't done the proper homework to understand Luther in his context. And if a person does not understand the context in which a person is speaking it is easy to misquote that person.
