Justification

There may be no doctrine more pivotal for church history than justification. The divergence of the Reformers from the RCC over this doctrine sealed the rift in the church for nearly five centuries. J. Pelikan calls justification “the chief doctrine of Christianity and the chief point of difference separating Protestantism and Roman Catholicism.”1 In our overview of this doctrine, we want to account for the primary schools of thought on the subject and what we understand to be the biblical teaching. Along the way, we want to address a number of thorny issues surrounding this doctrine.2   For example, is justification something that occurs instantaneously, or is it a process occurring over a period of time? Is this a divine act by which God “declares” a person righteous or a process by which He “makes” them righteous? These questions and many more need addressing. But first of all, let us examine the various major schools of thought.

Approaches

The Roman Catholic Church

Within sixty years of the death of Christ the church had been thoroughly Galatianized. Salvation by works was the prevailing doctrine of the day and remained so until Augustine. As we shall see, though he retained many of the doctrines of the traditional church  of his era (like infant baptism), he was unique in his battle for grace. And though he may have espoused teachings which might prove to be the enemy of grace, in his own mind he battled against any slight flavor of Pelagian doctrine.

Unfortunately, Augustine spoke with great authority without having any facility in the original languages.  His  native  tongue was Latin. The Koine Greek of the NT had been out of vogue for more than a century. When he tried to explain the meaning of the Greek verb dikaioō, he said it meant “to make righteous.”3 This understanding was incorporated into the doctrine of the RCC. The basic understanding was that justification was an act whereby God “infused” the character of Christ into the sinner at water baptism. However, the act was not completed at that point. “We are justified, but righteousness itself grows as we go forward.”4

Through this life-long process, Augustine thought God could transform the inner man from one of lust to one of love. He believed the good works of a person were meritorious, but like so many who admit to such a view, he taught at the same time that all meritorious works of man were the product of the grace of God (Phil. 2:13—God gives believer the desire and the power to do his will).5 He also believed that if the love of God were perfected in this life, a person would go directly to heaven without spending any time in purgatory. If such perfection were not reached, the sufferings of purgatory were necessary to prepare one for heaven.6

Under the umbrella of  justification,  Augustine  also  included the sub-doctrines of regeneration and sanctification.7  To  our way   of thinking, this system contains obvious contradictions, but it all made sense to Augustine. Of course, since one was not justified instantaneously, he could not know that he was justified until he died. Augustine distinguished between the “saved” and the “elect.” The saved are those who appear to have the fruits of the elect, but at some point before death, they fall away, thus proving they never were elect at all. And again, Augustine had the intellectual honesty to admit that such a system would not allow one to know he was elect until he died. The RCC adopted Augustine’s doctrine wholesale and has perpetuated it to the present day. At the strategic Council of Trent (1545-63), the RCC responded to the doctrines of the Reformers. And because this council defined justification as the process of becoming righteous, justification must be augmented if one wanted to get to heaven.8 A mortal sin could cancel out any accrued justification, but one could be restored through penance. And the RCC continued in Augustine’s belief that it is not possible to know if one is going to heaven before death: “No one can know with the certitude of faith, which cannot admit of any error, that he has obtained God’s grace.”9 The best one can attain to in this life is hope mixed with “fear and apprehension.” God rewards the good works of His saints, even though He is the power source behind these works, and these rewards help pry open the gates of heaven.10

The Council of Trent put a curse on anyone who asserted that justification is not fostered by good works.11 A further curse was  put on anyone who believed good works were not meritorious for entrance to heaven.12 The concept of “imputed” righteousness was believed to be a serious threat to moral effort. B. Demarest sums up the RCC approach when he says:

Traditional Roman Catholics, in other words, trust in God’s infusion of a new nature and plead the worth of their God-enabled works. Justification in Catholic theology is a comprehensive term that includes, among other things, what Protestants understand by regeneration and sanctification. For Rome, justification is not divine- wise an objective pronouncement of righteousness, but is human- wise a lifelong process of becoming righteous.13

Before leaving the views of the RCC, we would be remiss if we did not mention their claim that Mary the Blessed Virgin contributed “her share to the justification of the human race beginning with herself and extending to everyone ever justified.”14 Because she was the Mother of God, lived a holy life of good works, and also suffered at the cross, Mary accumulated a lot of extra merits with God which could be distributed to deserving saints to help them attain enough bonus points to enter heaven.

Pelagians (Liberals)

In our discussion of propitiation it was observed that many modern theologians object to an image of God as a wrathful, angry, jealous, vengeful God. The liberal theological view is that these OT concepts reflect a primitive, nomadic cult and that by NT times the concept of God had evolved to portray Him as merciful, forgiving, compassionate, and loving. God is, to them, not a stern law-giver and judge exacting the penal code, but a loving Father who awaits His prodigal children. They claim that the imputation of a righteousness totally foreign to a creature is absurd. Rather, righteousness is attained through moral improvement over time. All we need is to follow the example of Jesus and we too can fulfill the righteousness of the law. There is a little good in every man. All we have to do is fan the flame of this spark of good in order to build a fire of righteousness acceptable to God.

As explained earlier, Pelagius was the proponentof ananthropology that sees each person as Adam before the Fall. People can fulfill the law without God’s grace, but the gift of grace makes it easier. Remission of sins comes through water baptism. With the help of God’s grace post- baptismal people earn eternal life by being good.15

Albrecht Ritschl (d. 1889) is considered the father of modern liberalism. He saw God only in terms of love: “The conception of love is the only adequate conception of God.”16 The reason God became flesh was to overcome the fear and misconception mankind had of God as wrathful and vengeful. Imputed righteousness is “altogether false.”17 Forgiveness is something available to all men who will replicate the ethical life of Jesus.

This same song with some new verses (variations on a loving God) pops up in virtually all modern expressions of Pelagian doctrine.

Some Arminians

There are those among the Arminians who adhere to the gov- ernmental theory of atonement, which basically claims the death of Christ was a token payment by God for the sins of the world in order to uphold the moral order of the universe. They deny that justification imputes the righteousness of Christ to sinners. This understanding  is “fictional.”18 To credit a person with righteousness which did not belong to him would encourage license.

John Wesley’s view of  justification  included  the  forgiveness  of sins and removal of guilt, but it also presumed the reshaping of their morals. He could not avoid the assimilation of sanctification into his understanding of justification.19 He rejected the Lutheran concept of “simul iustus et peccator,” a sinner and a righteous person simultaneously:

Least of all does justification imply that God is deceived in those whom He justifies; that He thinks them to be what, in fact, they are not; that He  accounts them to be otherwise than they are. It  does  by no means imply that God . . . believes us righteous when we are unrighteous.20

And, according to most Arminians, justification is forfeited by willful sin. Therefore, assurance of ultimate justification is impossible in this life. This differs from Augustine in that he did not believe the elect could fall away, but rather that if one were to fall away, he was never elect from the beginning.21

Neoorthodox

Although there are many  proponents of the neoorthodox point  of view, we will look at it through the lenses of Karl Barth. He did not think justification was something we could experience. Rather it was a verdict on behalf of mankind in eternity past. God’s decision to justify mankind thus opened the door for all men to be reconciled, since all of mankind has been justified. Christ came into the world to reveal this gracious decision on God’s part to justify mankind and to remove the sin barrier blocking the covenant relationship between God and man.

So, according to Barth’s understanding, a man is justified before he ever believes. He does not explain justification in terms of imputed righteousness. Rather it is the restoration of the covenant relationship between God and man, a covenant which was broken by sin. Instead of responding to the gospel to be justified, men who are justified respond to this “good news” as they hear about it. Justification for them becomes an existential reality.22

Reformers

The post-apostolic church did not wrestle with the doctrine of justification until Augustine. But after Augustine, no one really engaged a detailed study of the subject until Martin Luther. In his study which led to his conversion, Luther disagreed with Augustine. Having much more facility with the original languages, he concluded that dikaioō does not mean to “make” righteous, but rather to “declare” righteous. He found the word in a courtroom setting. Its usage, he determined, was primarily forensic. Justification, as opposed to sanctification, was a change in standing, not a change in character. And this change in standing occurred instantaneously, as opposed to the process approach of Augustine. The requirement for justification was faith alone. In this forensic decision, God not only freely pardoned man’s sin, but He also imputed the righteousness of Christ to the believer’s account in heaven. This righteousness is “alien” because it comes from another and because no one could “earn” it.

Key to understanding Luther’s concept of justification is the phrase simul iustus et peccator,23 as previously mentioned. The believer is righteous in principle, but sinful in practice. This is what we call righteous in our position in Christ, but sinful in our condition on earth. He also taught that a believer could have assurance of his salvation,24 but as we shall see, his logic fails at this point for two reasons: 1) He thought a believer could lose his salvation; 2) he believed good works are the litmus test for justification.25

Philipp Melanchthon, who taught Luther Greek,  systematized the Lutheran wing of the Reformation. He flew right into the face  of the Augustinian teaching that justification is “making” righteous rather than “declaring” righteous. “All our righteousness is a gracious imputation of God.”26 He also concurred with Luther in making a distinction between justification and sanctification.

John Calvin fell right in line with this approach. And like Luther, he believed in assurance of salvation for the believer. Objective assurance came through the promises of God’s Word, while subjective assurance came through the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer. He did think there were degrees of assurance:

Surely, while we teach that faith ought to be certain and assured, we cannot imagine any certainty that is not tinged with doubt, or any assurance that is not assailed by some anxiety. On the other hand . . . we deny that, that in whatever way they are afflicted, believers fall away and depart from the certain assurance received from God’s mercy.27

Calvin was so strong on assurance that he believed those who lack a significant degree of assurance are not believers at all.

Calvin was even stronger on the distinction between justification and sanctification than Luther: “To be justified means something different from being made righteous.”28  However,  though he made   a distinction between the two Calvin did not want to separate justification and sanctification. The RCC accused the Reformers of teaching license with their forensic justification. So Calvin was careful to link internal and external righteousness. External righteousness emanates from internal righteousness like rays of light from the  sun: “You  cannot possess Christ without being made partaker in   his sanctification. . . . in our sharing in Christ, which justifies us, sanctification is just as much included as righteousness.”29

The Heidelberg Catechism (1563), The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646), and The Westminster Shorter Catechism (1647) affirm the above approach to justification with similar wording.30

Neo-Reformed

In the late 20th Century a resurgence in Reformed theology began under the influence of men like John MacArthur, R. C. Sproul, John Piper, Tim Keller, and Wayne Grudem. These men have all the trappings of orthodox Reformed theology (excepting MacArthur, who is a Five Point Calvinist and a Dispensationalist, a hybrid position with a multiplicity of built-in contradictions) with an open door to the charismatic movement.31

Since all these men subscribe to the fifth point of Dortian Calvinism, they must somehow harmonize faith with perseverance/ works. Writers like Alan Stanley use the standard Catholic formula when he says we will be justified by faith plus works. That is, he uses Philippians 2:12-13 to say we must work for our salvation, but the works we do are empowered and motivated by God. In other words, He gets the credit. So, Stanley differentiates between works done by the flesh, which will not adhere to faith any more than oil to water or clay to iron. Works done by the power of the Holy Spirit are  those that couple with faith to yield eternal life.32 Thomas Schreiner, who probably carries the flag of scholarship for the Neo-Reformed movement more than any other (especially since the passing of R. C. Sproul), combines faith and works in his salvation equation without apology:

Paul clearly argues that good works are necessary for eternal life. Only those who sow to the Spirit will enjoy eternal life, and those who practice evil will not inherit the kingdom. James also teaches that justification is by works. No one will be justified if he or she fails to do good works.33

John Piper plays a tune on his pipe that tries to harmonize faith and works. According to him:

Present justification is based on the substitutionary work of Christ alone, enjoyed in union with him through faith alone. Future justification is the open confirmation and declaration that in Christ Jesus we are perfectly blameless before God. This final judgment accords with our works. That is, the fruit of the Holy Spirit in our lives will be brought forward as the evidence and confirmation of true faith and union with Christ. Without that validating transformation, there will be no future salvation.34

How many problems leap out at the reader from such a statement? Apparently, based on the substitutionary work of Christ alone, one can be united with Christ based on faith alone. But the declaration that we are blameless before God is yet future— “future justification.” But this future justification only comes if our works portray a righteous transformation; without said works there is no salvation (justification).

In Piper’s vis à vis with N. T. Wright, Wright’s conclusion is not much different from Piper’s, although Wright is not part of the Neo- Reformed movement:

Present justification is the announcement issued on the basis of faith and faith alone of who is part of the covenant family of God. The present verdict gives the assurance that the verdict announced on the Last Day will match it; the Holy Spirit gives the power through which that future verdict, when given, will be seen to be in accordance with the life that the believer has then lived.35

How convoluted can we get? The “present verdict” (present justification) gives “assurance” that the “verdict announced on the Last Day” will be congruous with “present verdict,” but only if one’s life between the present verdict and the future verdict is righteous. But how is one to know today if one’s life will be righteous tomorrow? Once again, the future verdict, my ultimate justification, depends on my present life of good works (righteousness).

In both of these approaches, which are sisters in the same family of faith/works righteousness, our salvation is a question mark until the Final Day when our works will be put on display to determine if our lives have been a true reflection of Christ-like living. And how does this differ from Catholicism?

On a positive note, it must be observed that the Neo-Reformed do not go as far as Chris VanLandingham, who for all practical purposes eliminates grace from the salvation equation. He reacts to E.P. Sanders’s conclusion that we “are saved” by grace but maintain that salvation status through works.36 VanLandingham simply claims we are justified by our works.37 He arrives at this conclusion largely because he fails to see that “eternal life” includes a quality of life in the present at well as the future—“he who has the Son has life”—right now.

Summary

The approaches outlined above do not exhaust the various angles on understanding justification we find in the world today but are representative of the major groupings. The primary distinctions the student must keep in mind are: 1) “Made” righteous (infused) versus “declared” righteous (imputed); 2) Instantaneous versus a process; 3) Faith alone or faith plus meritorious works; and 4) Forensic versus existential. But after this brief overview of justification in history, it is time to look more closely at the Scriptures themselves.

1 J. Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, 5 vols. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971-89), 4:139.

2 For a complete summary of the various positions see, Justification: Five Views, eds. James Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2011). Also see N.T. Wright, Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press., 2009) and John Piper, The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2007).

3 Augustine, On the Spirit and the Letter, 45.

4 Idem, Sermon, 158.5.

5 Idem, Letter, 194.14. Modern theologians like Alan Stanley use Phil. 2:12-13 as their proof text to prove that works are a requirement for entrance to heaven, but they are not meritorious since God does these works through the believer. In fact, he separates between works done by the Spirit and works done by the flesh. The former are required for eternal life, but the latter are rejected. In Free Grace theology we would say works done by the Spirit will be rewarded, but those done by the flesh will not be rewarded. What we treat as a reward issue Stanley treats as an entrance to the kingdom of God issue (Alan P. Stanley, Salvation is More Complicated than You think: A Study on the Teachings of Jesus (Authentic, 2007), Location 835 of 2705 (Kindle).

6 Idem, City of God, XX.25; XXI.13, 16, 26.

7 A. E. McGrath, Iustitia Dei, 2 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986-87), 1:60; L. Berkhof, Christian Faith (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), 435.

8 Council of Trent, X.

9 Ibid., IX.

10 Ibid., XVI.

11  Ibid., Canon 24.

12  Ibid., Canon 32.

13 B. Demarest, The Cross and Salvation (Wheaton: Crossway, 1997), 350.

14 J. A. Hardon, The Catholic Catechism (New York: Doubleday, 1975) 169.

15 Demarest, Cross and Salvation, 348.

16 A. Ritschl, The Christian Doctrine of Justification and Reconciliation, H. R. Mackintosh and A. B. Macaulay, eds. (Clifton, NJ: Reference Book Publishers, 1966), 274.

17  Ibid., 70.

18 W. H. Taylor, “Justification,”  Beacon Dictionary of Theology, R. S Taylor,  ed. (Kansas City: Beacon Hill, 1984), 298. J. Wesley says, “We do not find it expressly affirmed in Scripture that God imputes the righteousness of Christ to any” (“Minutes of Some Late Conversations,” in The Works of John Wesley, 14 vols. [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1958], 8:277). Wesley did believe a sinner’s faith was reckoned for righteousness, but for him this meant the removal of guilt and sin rather than the crediting of righteousness.

19 Demarest, Cross and Salvation, 353.

20 Wesley, “Justification by Faith,” in Works, 5:57.

21 See Roger E. Olson, Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities (Downer Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006).

22 K. Barth, Church Dogmatics, G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance, eds. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1936-77), IV.1: 492.

23 Luther, Works, 26:232 and 25:260.

24 Ibid., 26:377-78.

25 Ibid., 34:183.

26 P. Melanchthon, “Baccalaureate Theses,” 10, in Melanchthon: Selected Writings, trans. C. H. Hill (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood 1978), 17.

27 Calvin, Institutes, III.2.17 and III.4.27.

28 Ibid., III.11.6.

29 Ibid., III.16.1; 11.1.

30 I am indebted to B. Demarest (Cross and Salvation, 345-62) for his basic outline of the historical review on the doctrine of justification.

31 Collin Hanson, Young, Restless, and Reformed: A Journalist’s Journey with the New Calvinists (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2008). Reformed theologians such as Wayne Grudem, John Piper and Sam Storms are also Charismatic.

32 Alan Stanley, Salvation is More Complicated than You Think: A Study on the Teachings of Jesus (e-book, Location 830-46).

33 Thomas R. Schreiner, “Justification Apart from and by Works: At the Final Judgment Works Will Confirm Justification,” in Four Views on the Role of Works at the Final Judgment (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2013), 91.

34 John Piper, “The Justification Debate: A Primer,” Christianity Today,

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/content/pdf/justification_june09.pdf, accessed January, 24, 2018.

35 N. T. Wright, Ibid.

Serving Him with you until He comes for us,
Fred Chay, PhD
Managing Editor, Grace Theology Press