I submitted this paper for Theological Systems (TH 761) at Bob Jones University on November 8, 2004.
Introduction
The doctrine of justification has held a place of enduring prominence throughout the history of the Christian church. It is probably unrivaled by any other doctrine with reference to the fierceness of controversy which it has provoked.1 This is only to be expected since a proper understanding of justification is fundamental to the biblical gospel.2 The indispensability of this doctrine has made it a prime target for the assault of the demonic forces of evil. As would be expected, then, the church has not always been unified in affirming the biblical teaching.3 Various positions have developed during the last two millennia, and even today new ideas continue to arise. Surveying this material by theological position would be profitable.4 Such an approach, however, may be overly simplistic. What follows is an attempt to trace the doctrine of justification through the first three of five major stages of the history of the church,5 giving attention to the positions of Roman Catholicism and Protestantism.6
The Centrality of Justification
Justification was certainly an important doctrine for the apostle Paul. It was fundamental in his conflict with Judaism, to which its prominence in both Romans and Galatians attests.7 Theologians and historians dispute the early church’s opinion of justification. It is likely, however, that this doctrine held a prominent place in the early church as well.8 During the thousand years prior to the Reformation, the doctrine of justification was still present; but it took on a new shape in the hand of the scholastics.9 It was not until the Reformation that justification took the place of supreme prominence.10
Martin Luther
The importance of justification to Luther hardly needs addressing. The Augustinian monk was unshackled from his bondage when he understood that God’s righteousness was a free gift received through faith alone.11 Romans 1:17 had been for Luther a terrible statement. His conscience plagued him—no matter how hard he tried he could not meet God’s just demands. But God’s Word eventually became clear, and Luther and the world were forever changed. Luther expressed justification in terms of “the summary of all Christian doctrine,” and “the article by which the church stands or falls.”12 In Luther’s estimation it would be hard to overstate justification’s importance.
John Calvin
To Calvin justification was no less important.13 To most people predestination and John Calvin go hand in hand. Certainly Calvin was immensely influential with reference to the predestinarian emphasis in Reformed theology, but this was not his main emphasis.14 At the heart of Calvin’s theology was justification, a doctrine which he labeled “crucial” and “the main hinge on which religion turns.”15 An examination of his Institutes will demonstrate that for Calvin,16 like Luther, justification was the sin qua non of the Christian religion.
The Pre-Reformation Era
The pre-Reformation era is foundational for understanding the history of justification. The Reformation conflict between Protestants and Rome was certainly in one sense a commencement; but it was also at the same time the result of a long history of development. Two main periods emerged during this first millennium and a half, Augustine serving in some ways as the transition point.
The Patristic Era
The patristic writings have proven themselves to be incontrovertibly problematic. Scores of men from centuries of church history produced hundreds of volumes of theological and polemical material. The sheer volume of information coupled with its diversity, the scope of time that it spanned,17 and the challenge of understanding these ancient documents within their historical contexts is daunting. In addition, “many of the most important sources have remained untranslated into modern languages.”18 Consequently, the fathers have been ignored, especially in recent days; and the discussion that does take place is widely variegated and ill-founded.19
As one would expect, Roman Catholic scholars have typically denied the presence of the Protestant interpretation of justification in the patristic writings. Prior to Martin Luther’s invention of it, the view was unheard of.20 Roman Catholics attempt to find support for their view of justification in these early writings, especially Augustine.21
Many Protestants, especially those of recent days, basically agree to the absence of forensic justification by faith alone prior to Luther22—the reason for its absence being found in the fact that these men were taken up with the task of defending the deity and humanity of Christ and formulating proper expressions of Trinitarianism.23 Where justification was present, it was usually not properly understood.24 Soteriological discussions in theological literature normally begin in the 4th century with Augustine and Pelagius, glossing over the contributions of their predecessors.25
Not all Protestant interpreters have held this view. James Buchanan is a noteworthy exception. He sees significant evidence in the fathers for claiming that the Reformation was little more than a restoration of the patristic doctrine—a doctrine which had been handed down from the apostles themselves.
The Protestant doctrine of Justification was not a “novelty” introduced for the first time by Luther and Calvin…. It was held and taught, more or less explicitly, by some writers in every successive age…. There is no truth in the allegation that it had been unknown for fourteen hundred years before the Reformation.26
Far too often these early Christians have not received a proper hearing. While it is true that justification did not find the thorough systematization during this early period that it did during the Reformation, the testimony to justification by faith alone is unmistakable.27 A careful reading of the writings of these men will lead to some clear conclusions about patristic soteriology.28 In more recent days, Thomas Oden in his The Justification Reader has challenged the majority view of the modern day Protestant interpretation of the patristics, arguing that greater unity exists on the subject of justification than theologians commonly believe. He sees these early sources as nearly unanimously affirming sola gratia, sola fide, and sola scriptura.29
According to Buchanan the issue is not whether “all the Fathers taught invariably the same doctrine of Justification,” or whether “any one of the Fathers ever taught it in a state of perfect purity.”30 He is simply seeking to demonstrate that the biblical, Protestant doctrine has always been present throughout the history of the church, though at times only a few may have affirmed it.31
Oden wants to say more than this. The evidence does not just point to the fact that some affirmed justification by grace alone through faith alone, or that they implied it without explicit expression, or even that they affirmed a more simplified form of it. Rather, the church fathers, at least through the end of the 5th century, represent a “stable, explicit, consensual tradition of exegesis of Paul’s teaching of justification by grace alone through faith alone.”32 This point is an important one, and therefore it is necessary to demonstrate it with key citations from the fathers themselves.
From the both the Eastern and Western Churches, clear statements exist affirming the Pauline doctrine of justification and anticipating the Reformation formulation. Origen (ca. 185-ca. 254) sounds very close to the language of sola fide in these words:
If an example [of justification by faith] is required, I think it must suffice to mention the thief on the cross, who asked Christ to save him and was told: “Truly, this day you will be with me in paradise” (Luke 23:43)…. A man is justified by faith. The works of the law can make no contribution to this. Where there is no faith which might justify the believer, even if there are works of the law these are not based on the foundation of faith. Even if they are good in themselves they cannot justify the one who does them, because faith is lacking, and faith is the mark of those who are justified by God.33
John Chrysostom (ca. 347- ca. 407) could be mistaken for Calvin in his discussion of grace and faith:
So that you may not be elated by the magnitude of these benefits, see how Paul puts you in your place. For “by grace you are saved,” he says, “through faith.” Then, so as to do no injury to free will, he allots a role to us, then takes it away again, saying “and this not of ourselves.”… Even faith, he says, is not from us. For if the Lord had not come, if he had not called us, how should we have been able to believe? “For how,” [Paul] says, “shall they believe if they have not heard?” (Rom. 10:14). So even the act of faith is not self-initiated. It is, he says, “the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8c).34
Likewise, Theodoret of Cyrrhus (ca. 394-ca. 466), commenting on Ephesians 2:8, writes words that could have come from the quill of Luther himself:
All we bring to grace is our faith. But even in this faith, divine grace itself has become our enabler. For [Paul] adds, “And this is not of yourselves but it is a gift of God; not of works, lest anyone should boast (Eph. 2:8–9).” It is not of our own accord that we have believed, but we have come to belief after having been called; and even when we had come to believe, He did not require of us purity of life, but approving mere faith, God bestowed on us forgiveness of sins.35
The Western Church also bears testimony to justification by grace alone through faith alone. Clement of Rome (ca. 30-ca. 101) has a very mature statement of justification, avoiding both the error of legalism and that of antinomianism:
We, therefore, who have been called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, neither by our wisdom or understanding or piety, nor by the works we have wrought in holiness of heart, but by the faith by which almighty God has justified all men from the beginning, to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen. What, then, shall we do, brethren? Shall we cease from good works, and shall we put an end to love? May the Master forbid that such should ever happen among us; rather let us be eager to perform every good work earnestly and willingly.36
The Epistle of Diognetus, written around 140, has a brilliant expression of Protestant justification:
God gave His own Son the ransom for us: the holy, for the transgressors; the good, for the evil; the just, for the unjust; the incorruptible, for the corruptible; the immortal, for the mortal. For what, save His righteousness, could cover our sins? In whom was it possible that we, transgressors and ungodly as we were, could be justified, save in the Son of God alone? O sweet interchange! O unsearchable operation! O unexpected benefit! That the transgression of many should be hidden in One Righteous Person, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors.37
Prosper of Aquitaine (ca. 390-ca. 463) eloquently sets forth a view of justification that is utterly devoid of any human merit.
And just as there are no crimes so detestable that they can prevent the gift of grace, so too there can be no works so eminent that they are owed in condign judgement that which is given freely. Would it not be a debasement of redemption in Christ’s blood, and would not God’s mercy be made secondary to human works, if justification, which is through grace, were owed in view of preceding merits, so that it were not the gift of a Donor, but the wages of a laborer?38
These citations are just a sampling of what could easily be multiplied by the hundreds.39 The expression “faith alone” is strikingly pervasive.40 Luther’s “discovery” seems far less novel in the face of this consensus from the early fathers. If this is true, if the fathers did have a very Protestant doctrine of justification, what happened that made the Reformation view such a stark contrast from the view commonly held in Luther’s day? Some would suggest that the fault lies with the great Saint Augustine.
Augustine
Augustine is a particularly troublesome individual from a hermeneutical standpoint. Both Roman Catholics and Protestants claim him. It seems unquestionable that at least to some degree these appeals to Augustine have validity. The concern here is specifically with Augustinian justification. As one would expect, Rome argues that Augustine did not teach the Protestant view. What is interesting is that many Protestants assert the same thing. Berkhof is representative with these words:
Augustine does not seem to have had an accurate understanding of justification as a legal act, as distinguished from the moral process of sanctification, though it is quite evident from the whole tenor of his teachings and also from separate statements, that he regarded the grace of God in the redemption of sinners as free, sovereign, and efficacious, and in no way dependent on any merits of men.41
This is the most common charge laid against Augustine, that he confused justification with sanctification, including the latter as part of the former.42 But not all Protestants are as willing to affirm such a conclusion.
John Gerstner gives his opinion on the issue, maintaining that Augustine does not err by confusing the two:
Many cannot find the doctrine in Augustine. Many historical theologians interpret him as confusing justification with sanctification, of which justification is merely a part. This is not accurate, however. Though Augustine finds justification and sanctification inseparable, they are not indistinguishable. Augustinian justification leads into sanctification, but is not confused with it.43
Buchanan as well notes how Augustine “has been singled out… as the advocate of ‘moral,’ and the opponent of ‘forensic,’ Justification.”44 This charge is leveled against Augustine on the basis of his use of the terms “merit” and “justification.”45 Too quickly do interpreters read these terms in light of their Reformation usage. Such an approach is clearly anachronistically flawed. For Buchanan, the solution lies in a proper understanding of the historical and theological context within which Augustine functioned.46 Buchanan concludes that “there is no evidence to prove, either that he confounded these two blessings [justification and sanctification] of God’s grace, or that he made the one [sanctification] the ground or reason of the other [justification].”47
Augustine’s own words vindicate him:
All who are justified through Christ, are righteous, not in themselves, but in Him…. For by no precedent merits didst thou buy what thou hast received. The sinner, therefore, received this grace first, that his sins should be forgiven him…. Good works follow after a justified person, they do not go before, in order that he may be justified…. For man can work no righteousness, unless he be first justified…. Not good works, preceding Justification, show what man hath merited, but… good works, following after Justification, show what man hath received.48
Augustine was not without his problems. Nevertheless, he probably did have a better understanding of justification than most credit to him. It appears that justification remained essentially intact and in agreement with the Pauline doctrine up to this point in history. It was under the influence of scholasticism, which dominated the next one thousand years, that the view so different from the one Paul, the fathers, and the Reformers expressed was developed.
The Scholastic Era
It was during this period that the testimony of justification by grace alone through faith alone faded into the background. The church was not devoid of its faithful witnesses to the true gospel, but there was nothing close to the unanimity that existed during the previous stage. Buchanan notes that the scholastic period “forms the connecting link between Patristic Theology, on the one hand, and the fully developed doctrine of Rome, on the other; and it exercised an important influence in moulding the form, and corrupting the substance, of the Church’s creed, as it existed at the dawn of the Reformation.”49
Aristotelian philosophy prevailed in the church. It became the standard for judging the Word of God. It was this shift away from the supremacy of Scripture that resulted in the “substitution of the inherent righteousness of man, for the imputed righteousness of Christ, as the ground of Justification before God.”50 Buchanan summarizes the doctrinal perversions of the Dark Ages in three points: (1) the idea of the infusion of grace which gave the sinner the ability to overcome the power of sin replaced the notion of grace as the removal of the guilt of sin; (2) good works as meritorious and necessary preconditions to justification replaced sola fide, and works as the consequence of justification; and (3) the doctrine of supererogatory works which might be imputed to others replaced the imputed righteousness of Christ as the only righteousness that God accepts.51 Buchanan’s assessment is on target when he regards the Roman Catholic Church of Luther’s day as “Scholasticism developed and full-blown.”52
The Reformation Era
By this time a return to patristic justification was long overdue. Scholasticism was at its climax with the sale of indulgences. The Reformation was probably the most significant point in the history of justification in terms of the theological upheaval and controversy that ensued. The course of church history was influenced like never before, with the exception of the events surrounding Christ’s earthly ministry. Prior to the Reformation, Rome’s doctrine of justification was not thoroughly worked out. It was the objections of Luther and the other Reformers that were influential in the development of Rome’s position. The Reformers, then, were the first to systematically articulate justification in response to the corruptions that dominated the church.
The Protestant View
Justification by faith alone is common language for anyone remotely familiar with the Reformation and the great Reformers Martin Luther and John Calvin. This expression is as concise a summary as could be given for the Reformers’ “new” view. Luther and Calvin encapsulated the position better than any other, so a brief summary of their key emphases will follow.
Luther and Calvin were in agreement on the main point of their remonstration against Rome.53 Man’s will was completely in bondage to sin and incapable of cooperating with grace.54 God’s sovereign regeneration was the sole cause of the believer’s response of faith. In no way, however, was regeneration the basis for God’s declaration the sinner to be righteous. Moral transformation played no part in the righteousness of justification. Faith and works, justification and sanctification were inseparable but distinct.
Timothy George summarized Luther’s key emphases in terms of imputation, sola fide, and the phrase “at the same time a sinner and a righteous one.”55 The forensic aspect of justification was of utmost importance. It was in this context that Luther spoke of dual imputation: “Thou, Lord Jesus, art my righteousness and I am Thy sin; Thou hast taken on Thyself what Thou wast not, and hast given to me what I am not.”56 Justification was an instantaneous act of God. At the moment of faith, the alien righteousness of Christ became in its entirety the believer’s, who himself was still a sinner. For Luther the believer was both just and a sinner at the same time (simul iustus et peccator), a condition which would last his whole life (semper iustus et peccator). Luther made no attempt to excuse sin or carelessness toward obeying God. Rather, the believer has been freed to work as the expression of his living faith.
Calvin was a second generation Reformer, and in some ways he developed a more balanced, mature, and systematically cogent expression of justification. Calvin echoed most of the same points that Luther had made just years before. The most significant emphasis of Calvin lay in the doctrine of the believer’s union with Christ.57
The Roman Catholic View
The Roman Catholic position on justification finds its first systematic expression in the meetings of the Council of Trent. The council convened in three different stages, meeting a total of twenty-five times.58 During the sixth session, the council formulated its position on the doctrine of justification in sixteen chapters that set forth a positive expression of the doctrine followed by thirty-three canons anathematizing the Reformation’s deviation.
W. Robert Godfrey has summarized this view in six concise statements that encapsulate well the basic tenets of Roman Catholic justification.59 First, Godfrey argues that “the Christian is justified by grace, but human free will, although weakened by sin, can and must cooperate with grace.”60 Grace, although prior to man’s willing, merely enables him to perform meritorious actions that would make him worthy of justification. The second point Godfrey makes related to the nature of faith, which is “a matter of intellect, consisting of knowledge and assent to truth.”61 This “unformed” faith is not justifying faith. This is how Rome understood Luther’s expression “faith alone.” One must add love to faith so that it becomes “formed” and therefore justifying. The necessity for some kind of moral change prior to justification was indispensable to Trent.
Thirdly, Godfrey points out that “justification is not solely by the imputation or crediting of Christ’s righteousness to the Christian, but by the infusion of Christ’s righteousness into the Christian so that he actually becomes righteous.”62 This is the crux of the difference between Trent and the Reformers. Rome and the Reformers maintained that the sinner must have a moral transformation prior to justification, but Rome insisted that that transformation served as the basis for God’s declaring the sinner to be righteous.63 Godfrey’s fourth point is that “justification finally rests on the Christian [sic] acquiring and maintaining a certain level of sanctification.”64 This only logically follows from a denial of the sufficiency of Christ’s righteousness imputed to the believer’s account. Fifthly, Trent affirmed the Christian’s ability to “fulfill the commands of God.”65 Obedience being a vital part of justification necessitated the real possibility of perfect performance. Finally, “the Christian cannot be certain, except by special revelation, that he is presently in a state of grace, or that he is elect, or that he will finally persevere and be saved.”66 Assurance of salvation is arrogant presumption. Confidence in one’s salvation or belief in eternal security is dangerous and will only lead to moral laxity. Trent regarded insecurity as a necessary motivator to keep the Christian away from moral negligence.
Conclusion
The history of the church from the days of the apostles to the Protestant Reformation represents two main viewpoints on justification. The Protestant doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone finds overwhelming attestation during the patristic period. The Roman Catholic view of justification based on moral transformation developed during the scholastic era and culminates at the Council of Trent. Both viewpoints affirmed the need for prevenient grace and faith in Christ. The most fundamental issue—the great continental divide—for both the Reformers and the Roman Catholics was how God could justly declare a sinner to be righteous. Luther and Calvin asserted that the act of imputation Christ’s righteousness preceded and was the foundation for God’s declaration, and this transaction was received through the sole instrument of faith. For Rome, this was legal fiction; God would be a liar if He declared a man to be righteous who was not so in a real, moral sense. Faith then must be completed by works in order for justification to be true. Faith alone was insufficient. It was on this point that the church was and continues to be divided.
Armstrong, John H. “A Selected Annotated Bibliography.” Reformation and Revival 11:2 (Spring 2002): 155–57.
__________. “Final Thoughts.” Reformation and Revival 11:2 (Spring 2002): 182–90.
__________., ed. Roman Catholicism: Evangelical Protestants Analyze What Divides and Unites Us. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.
Beeke, Joel R. “Annotated Bibliography.” Reformation and Revival 6:4 (Fall 1997): 179–84.
Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology. Carlisle, PN: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1998.
Braaten, Carl E. Justification: The Article by Which the Church Stands or Falls. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990.
Buchanan, James. The Doctrine of Justification: An Outline in the Church and of Its Exposition from Scripture. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1955.
Carpenter, Craig B. “A Question of Union with Christ: Calvin and Trent on Justification.” Westminster Theological Journal 64:2 (Fall 2002): 363–86.
Carson, D. A., ed. Right with God: Justification in the Bible and the World. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992.
Catechism of the Catholic Church. Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference, 1994.
Demarest, Bruce. “The Lord Our Righteousness: The Doctrine of Justification.” The Cross and Salvation, 345–82. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1997.
Dyer, George J., ed. An American Catholic Catechism. New York: The Seabury Press, 1975.
George, Timothy. Theology of the Reformers. Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 1988.
Gerstner, John H. “A Primer on Justification.” Primitive Theology: The Collected Primers of John H. Gerstner, edited by Don Kistler, 263–90. Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1996.
Grudem, Wayne A. “Justification (Right Legal Standing before God).” Systematic Theology, 722–35. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.
Horton, Michael, ed. Christ the Lord: The Reformation and Lordship Salvation. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1995.
Karlberg, Mark W. “Justification in Redemptive History.” Westminster Theological Journal 43:2 (Spring 1981): 213–246.
Kistler, Don, ed. Justification by Faith Alone: Affirming the Doctrine by Which the Church and the Individual Stands or Falls. Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1996.
Küng, Hans. Justification: The Doctrine of Karl Barth and a Catholic Reflection, translated by Thomas Collins, Edmund E. Tolk, and David Granskou. New York: Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1964.
Logan, Samuel T., Jr. “The Doctrine of Justification in the Theology of Jonathan Edwards.” Westminster Theological Journal 46:1 (Spring 1984): 26–52.
McGrath, Alister E. Historical Theology: An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2000.
__________. Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification. Rev. ed. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
__________. Justification by Faith: What It Means for Us Today. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988.
Murray, John. “Justification.” Redemption Accomplished and Applied, 117–31. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955.
Oden, Thomas C. The Justification Reader. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.
Packer, J. I. “Justification.” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, edited by Walter A. Elwell, 593–97. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1984.
Piper, John. Counted Righteous in Christ. Should We Abandon the Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness? Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2002.
Reid, W. Stanford. “Justification by Faith according to John Calvin.” Westminster Theological Journal 42:2 (Spring 1980): 290–307.
Reymond, Robert L. A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1998.
__________. The Reformation’s Conflict with Rome: Why It Must Continue! Ross-shire, Great Britain: Christian Focus Publications, 2001.
Ridderbos, Herman N. Paul: An Outline of His Theology, translated by John Richard De Witt. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.
Robbins, John W. A Companion to the Current Justification Controversy. Unicoi, TN: The Trinity Foundation, 2004.
Robertson, O. Palmer. The Current Justification Controversy. Unicoi, TN: The Trinity Foundation, 2003.
Schwiebert, Ernest G. The Reformation. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996.
Seifrid, Mark A. Justification by Faith: The Origin and Development of a Central Pauline Theme. New York: E. J. Brill, 1992.
Shepherd, Norman. The Call of Grace: How the Covenant Illuminates Salvation and Evangelism. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 2000.
__________. “Justification by Faith Alone.” Reformation and Revival 11:2 (Spring 2002): 75–92.
Sproul, R. C. Faith Alone: The Evangelical Doctrine of Justification. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995.
__________. Getting the Gospel Right: The Tie That Binds Evangelicals Together. Grand Rapids, Baker, 1999.
Stuhlmacher, Peter. Revisiting Paul’s Doctrine of Justification: A Challenge to the New Perspective. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2001.
Sungenis, Robert A. Not by Faith Alone. Santa Barbara: Queenship Publishing, 1996.
White, James R. The God Who Justifies: The Doctrine of Justification. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2001.
Wilken, Bob. “Is Justification by Faith Alone?” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society 9:2 (Autumn 1996): 3–20.
Withrow, Brandon. “Jonathan Edwards and Justification by Faith.” Reformation and Revival 11:2 (Spring 2002): 93–110.
Wright, N. T. “Justification.” New Dictionary of Theology, edited by Sinclair B. Ferguson, David F. Wright, and J. I. Packer, 359–61. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1988.
__________. The Climax of the Covenant: Christ and the Law in Pauline Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991.
__________. What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.
Notes
1. Sproul states, “No doctrinal dispute has ever been contested more fiercely or with such long-term consequences as the one over justification. There were other ancillary issues debated in the sixteenth century, but none so central or so heated as justification.” R. C. Sproul, Faith Alone: The Evangelical Doctrine of Justification (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995), 18. ↩
2. There is no shortage of material emphasizing this point. Grudem asserts, “A right understanding of justification is absolutely crucial to the whole Christian faith.” Wayne A. Grudem, “Justification (Right Legal Standing before God),” Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 722. According to Carson, justification is “the most important thing we can pursue,” and it is “what the Bible is all about.” D. A. Carson, “Introduction,” Right with God: Justification in the Bible and the World, ed. D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 13. Reymond agrees: “The doctrine of justification is the heart and core of the gospel, the ‘good news’ that God by grace alone justifies sinners through faith alone in Christ alone apart from the works of the law.” Robert Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1998), 740. ↩
3. The two principal perversions of justification are legalism and antinomianism. Ironically, it has often been the reaction against one of these errors that has led to the espousal of the other. Both of these of distortions were already present during the days of the apostles. Paul was constantly combating the legalistic tendencies of the Jews of his day, while James was likely condemning a form of antinomianism—one that may have developed because of an abuse of or misunderstanding of justification by faith. For a discussion of these heresies, see Michael Horton, “Christ Crucified between Two Thieves,” Christ the Lord: The Reformation and Lordship Salvation, ed. Michael Horton (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1995), 129–147. ↩
4. For an example of this approach, see Bruce A. Demarest, “The Lord Our Righteousness: The Doctrine of Justification,” The Cross and Salvation (Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1997), 347–62. He gives six positions: (1) “the process of moral improvement (Pelagians and Liberals),” (2) “the infusion of righteousness (Roman Catholics),” (3) “restoration of the moral order of the universe (Remonstrants and many Arminians),” (4) “political and social emancipation (Liberation theologians),” (5) “God’s eternal verdict on mankind (Neoorthodox theologians),” and (6) “God’s legal declaration of righteousness (Reformers and many Evangelicals).” ↩
5. These three are (1) the patristic period, (2) the scholastic period, and (3) the Reformation. Post-Reformation and present day developments will be discussed in part two. ↩
6. The Orthodox Church would be included if it had any substantial contributions to make to the discussion. The doctrine of justification is curiously absent from Orthodox theology. David Beale comments, “Completely absent [from the Orthodox Church] is the doctrine of justification by faith alone. In its place is the mystical theology of apotheosis (apo = “complete;” theosis = divinization), the completion or deification of man, through a gradual and mystical process. Such communion and union with God comes not through reflection—not through any process of the intellect—but through the illumination and purification derived through the symbolism of Orthodox art.” David O. Beale, “The Attraction of Eastern Orthodoxy,” History of Doctrine: First Semester Course Syllabus, ed. Brian Hand (unpublished syllabus, Bob Jones Seminary, 2003), 89. ↩
7. Of the 222 occurrences of the δικαι& word group (δίκαιος, δικαιόω, δικαιοσύνη, δικαίωσις, and δικαίωμα), 63 occur in Romans and 13 in Galatians. This theme was clearly a favorite for Paul. Based on this terminology alone, one might think that justification was not important to the other writers of the New Testament, but such an assessment is misguided and superficial. Carson comments, “Unless we see the plot-line of the Bible on a large canvas now and then, we are tempted to get lost in myopic discussions, or to conclude, quite falsely, that ‘justification’ is largely restricted to the Epistles to the Galatians and the Romans, simply because certain technical vocabulary congregates there.” Carson, 13. ↩
8. Many have suggested that justification was ignored and misunderstood by the fathers. In recent theological discussion, this notion has been challenged. A more detailed analysis of the validity of this claim will follow. ↩
9. Buchanan argues that it was during this stage in the history of justification that the biblical doctrine was overshadowed by legalism. See James Buchanan, The Doctrine of Justification: An Outline in the Church and of Its Exposition from Scripture (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1955), 97–99. ↩
10. After the Reformation, justification remained an important doctrine in conservative circles with only minor fluctuation. In recent years, it has again risen to the surface of theological discussion, chiefly as a result of ecumenism and the “New Perspective” on Paul. ↩
11. For a helpful overview article see Timothy George, “Yearning for Grace: Martin Luther,” Theology of the Reformers (Nashville: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 1988), 51–107. ↩
12. George, 62. Herman Ridderbos commenting on Luther’s view of justification said, “To Luther, Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith in fact became the principium and criterium for his evaluation of the whole New Testament, as his criticism of the Epistle of James proves…. This [doctrine] furnished the key to understanding the whole of Paul.” Herman N. Ridderbos, “The Redemptive-Historical Character of Paul’s Preaching,” When the Time Had Fully Come: Studies in New Testament Theology (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2001), 45. ↩
13. For a helpful overview of Calvin’s life and theological impact see George, “Glory unto God: John Calvin,” 163–251. ↩
14. “As one works through his commentaries or surveys the Institutes of the Christian Religion, one finds that that [predestination] is not his most stressed doctrine. Indeed, it is not even mentioned in his catechism.” W. Stanford Reid, “Justification by Faith according to John Calvin,” Westminster Theological Journal 42:2 (Spring 1980): 291. ↩
15. Reid, 291. Ridderbos comments, “In Calvin and in the tradition proceeding from him these matters are probably more balanced [than in Luther]. All the same, here, too, justification by faith remains the main entrance.” Ridderbos, 45. ↩
16. “In the Institutes he devotes more space to justification by faith than to practically any other doctrine, stressing it over and over again as he attacks those who reject it. This doctrine, therefore, is absolutely central to Calvin’s whole theological system.” Reid, 291. ↩
17. Imagine attempting to summarize the last five hundred years of human history! Certainly there has been a greater number of books produced during the last half of this millennium than the first half of the previous one, but the difficulty is nonetheless enormous. ↩
18. Thomas C. Oden, The Justification Reader (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 18. ↩
19. Oden decries the removal of Latin and Greek from school curriculum, which he sees as a large reason for the neglect and ignorance of the fathers among Protestants (18). ↩
20. Buchanan mentions this point in his discussion of the “Patristic doctrine of justification,” which “has always been… a subject of controversy between Romanists and Protestants” (88). ↩
21. Even many Protestants see in Augustine the beginnings of Roman Catholic justification. Beale sees at least nine seeds of Romanism in Augustine, one of which is “his confusion of works and grace, and of sanctification and justification” (99). Some Protestants would disagree with this assessment, as the following discussion will demonstrate. ↩
22. This is most likely the majority position among Protestants. Buchanan refers to Protestants who “have affirmed that the doctrine of a forensic Justification, as taught by Luther and Calvin, was ‘a novelty’ which first obtained a place in Theology at the era of the Reformation, that it was unknown to the church for fourteen hundred years after the Apostolic age, and that it was at direct variance with the uniform and unanimous teaching of the Fathers, both of the Greek and Latin Church” (88). Thomas Thompson illustrates this position in his claim that “the doctrine of justification by faith alone was essentially not a concern of the church before the Reformation.” “The History of Justification by Faith Alone up to the Reformation,” available from http://members.truevine.net/shadrach/just.htm, accessed 7 November 2004. ↩
23. Bruce Demarest, along with Gordon Lewis, asserts: “The early fathers of the church, occupied with pressing Christological and Trinitarian controversies, did not explore in depth the doctrine of justification by faith. The first serious study of justification was undertaken by Augustine in the fourth century. Not until the personal discovery that Martin Luther made was the forensic interpretation of justification developed in detail.” Gordon R. Lewis and Bruce A. Demarest, Integrative Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 3:133–34. ↩
24. Berkhof states, “The doctrine of justification by faith was not always clearly understood. In fact, it did not find its classical expression until the days of the Reformation…. Some of the earliest Church Fathers already speak of justification by faith, but it is quite evident that they had no clear understanding of it and of its relation to faith.” Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1938), 511. John Gerstner’s view is a little more balanced: “One may say generally of the history of the doctrine of justification that solafideanism (justification-by-faith-alone-ism) was taught implicitly, but not explicitly, from the beginning of the church. This is, it was known in the early church that salvation was by faith alone, but not until the sixteenth century was the church called upon to define that teaching more precisely.” “History of the Doctrine of Justification,” available from http://www.apuritansmind.com/Justification/GerstnerJohnJustificationHistory.htm, accessed 7 November 2004. ↩
25. Demarest begins his historical sketch of justification with Augustine, referring to him as “the first post-biblical theologian to explore in depth the concept of justification.” “The Lord Our Righteousness: The Doctrine of Justification,” 351. McGrath’s monumental work on justification begins with Augustine as well, with only six pages dealing with the pre-Augustinian era. Alister McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, rev. ed. (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 17–23. In all fairness to these men, they are making a distinction between references to justification and justification as a developed system. Nevertheless, the point still stands that most Protestants ignore this early period, giving it little to no attention and too quickly assuming that there is not sufficient evidence for a more developed understanding. ↩
26. Buchanan, 79. ↩
27. Buchanan contends that “the doctrine of the forgiveness of sins, and of eternal life, by faith in a crucified, but risen and exalted Redeemer, pervades every part of their writings, and is evidently assumed and implied, where it is not formally or explicitly affirmed” (82). ↩
28. Thomas Oden asserts, “The idea that the ancient Christian fathers… all terribly misunderstood salvation by faith (the faith they were willing to die for) is itself an incorrect and mischievous modern misconception. The idea that in the long centuries between Paul and Luther no one but Protestants (and only a few of them) rightly understood justification is itself an intemperate idea, and neglectful, I think, of many ancient consensus-bearing texts” (15). ↩
29. Oden, 24–25, 28. He argues that the first five centuries of the history of the church are characterized by unity on the doctrine of justification: “Among patristic exegetes there were admittedly many differences…. But there is a remarkable level of general consensus precisely on justification by grace through faith” (24). ↩
30. Buchanan, 78. ↩
31. He contends, “The doctrine of Justification by grace, through faith in the merits of Christ, may… be traced in the writings of some witnesses for the truth, along the whole line of the Church’s history; and… some true believers were… nourished and refreshed by it, even in the darkest and most degenerate times” (79). ↩
32. Oden, 24. ↩
33. This statement comes from Origen’s Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. See Oden, 45. Buchanan cites Origen as well: “Through faith, without the works of the Law, I the thief was justified; because, for that purpose, the Lord inquired not what he had previously wrought, nor yet waited for his performance of some work after he would have believed; but, when about to enter into Paradise, He took him unto Himself for a companion, justified though his confession alone” (95). ↩
34. Oden, 44. ↩
35. This quotation is from his Interpretation of the Fourteen Epistles of Paul. See Oden, 44. ↩
36. Oden, 46. ↩
37. Buchanan, 85. ↩
38. Oden, 46. ↩
39. Oden does just that in his The Justification Reader—a fascinating and convincing read. Anyone questioning the validity of this conclusion should read it. Not all of the citations are as convincing as others, but the overwhelming sense that one is left with is that the patristic writings differ very little from the Reformation literature concerning the matter of justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. See also Buchanan’s The Doctrine of Justification, especially pages 77–99. ↩
40. Buchanan has several quotes that demonstrate this theme. Basil affirmed sola fide: “This is the true and perfect glorying in God, when a man is not lifted up on account of his own righteousness, but has known himself to be wanting in true righteousness, and to be justified by faith alone in Christ” (94). Ambrose as well testified to the singularity of faith as the instrument of justification: “Through faith alone, an ungodly man is justified with God” (94). Jerome speaks in Luther-like language as well in these words: “When an ungodly man is converted, God justifies him through faith alone, not on account of good works, which he possessed not” (95). ↩
41. Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Carlisle, PN: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1998), 512. ↩
42. Beale is another example. See fn. 21. ↩
43. Gerstner, “History of the Doctrine of Justification,” n.p. ↩
44. Buchanan, 88. ↩
45. “Augustine… used the term ‘Merits,” not to denote legal, or even moral deserts, properly so called, but to signify, either simply a means of obtaining some blessing, or, at the most, an action that is rewardable, not ‘of debt, but of grace.’ It was at a later period, and chiefly through the Scholastic Theology, that the doctrine of Merit, properly so called, was constructed; but, as used by the Fathers, the term had no such offensive meaning as was afterwards” (Buchanan, 90). Concerning justification, “there can be no doubt that he [Augustine] often employed it to denote the whole of that change which is wrought both on the state and character of a sinner” (91). This does not mean that he did not understand properly the forensic nature of initial justification. It simply used the term at times in a broader sense, which, Buchanan argues, is consistent with how it can etymologically function. ↩
46. Buchanan, 88–89. Augustine was battling the Pelagian heresy that called for a proper understanding of grace. It is in this light that he must be interpreted. ↩
47. Buchanan, 91. ↩
48. Buchanan, 95–96. ↩
49. Buchanan, 98. ↩
50. Buchanan, 98. ↩
51. Buchanan, 99. These doctrines “lay at the foundation of all the superstitions and corruptions of the Papal system.” ↩
52. Buchanan, 99. Gerstner refers both to Anselm (ca. 1033-ca. 1109) and Aquinas (ca. 1225-ca. 1274) as two noteworthy examples of an essentially Protestant view of justification. Gerstner refers in agreement to Harnack’s view that “if the medieval church had followed its favorite teacher, Thomas Aquinas, on justification, the Reformation would not have been necessary.” “History of the Doctrine of Justification,” n.p. For a thorough discussion and refutation of Gerstner’s view with reference to Aquinas see Robert L. Reymond, “John H. Gerstner on Thomas Aquinas as a Protestant,” The Trinity Review (May 2001). ↩
53. They did have their difference though, most notably on the Eucharist and the function of the law. Luther maintained a real physical presence of Christ in the sacraments, while Calvin argued that Christ was only spiritually present. For Luther there was a sharp dichotomy between law and gospel, leaving no place for the law in the life of the Christian. Calvin maintained a “third use of the law,” in which the law was a guide and revelation of what was morally acceptable and pleasing to God. ↩
54. Both Luther and Calvin wrote important works on the will. Luther’s treatise, The Bondage of the Will, trans. J. I. Packer and O. R. Johnston (Grand Rapids: Revell, 1999), was his most important work. Calvin’s is entitled The Bondage and Liberation of the Will: A Defense of the Orthodox Doctrine of Human Choice against Pighius, ed. A. N. S. Lane, trans. G. I. Davies (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996). ↩
55. George, 69. ↩
56. Preserved Smith, ed., Luther’s Correspondence and Other Contemporary Letters (Philadelphia: The Lutheran Publication Society, 1913), 1:34. See George, 70. ↩
57. Craig Carpenter argues that the main difference between Trent and Calvin was on this very issue: “To seemingly every objectionable point related to justification by Roman Catholics, from total depravity to the necessity of assurance, Calvin responds by developing his doctrine of union with Christ” (384). ↩
58. “The council met in three periods: 1545–47 (Sessions 1–10); 1551–52 (Sessions 11–16); and 1562–63 (Sessions 17–25).” Craig B. Carpenter, “A Question of Union with Christ: Calvin and Trent on Justification,” Westminster Theological Journal 64:2 (Fall 2002): 367. ↩
59. “Calvin and the Council of Trent,” Christ the Lord: The Reformation and Lordship Salvation, ed. Michael Horton (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1995), 119–128; see also Carpenter, 366–71. ↩
60. Godfrey, 121. ↩
61. Godfrey, 122. Canon 14 demonstrates the insufficiency of “faith alone”: “If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because that he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema. ↩
62. Godfrey, 122. Godfrey is slightly imprecise here in his description of the infusion of Christ’s righteousness as “actually becom[ing] righteous.” This is an important point because justification is not fiction. God does not declare what is not actually true. The imputed righteousness of Christ makes a sinner actually righteous no less than infused righteous does, just in a different sense. The distinction may be better expressed in terms of righteous in position versus righteous in practice or legal righteousness versus moral righteousness. Canon 24 states: “If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.” ↩
63. The moral transformation that the Reformers acknowledged was regeneration, which was only in seed form. No practical moral transformation was actually worked out in the believer’s life prior to faith. This would certainly be the fruit of justification. ↩
64. Godfrey, 123. ↩
65. Godfrey, 123. Canon 18 states, “If any one saith, that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to keep; let him be anathema.” ↩
66. Godfrey, 123. Canon 15 asserts, “If any one saith, that a man, who is born again and justified, is bound of faith to believe that he is assuredly in the number of the predestinate; let him be anathema.” ↩