The Justification Controversy

Preliminary Considerations

What is Justification?

ANSWER:

The Westminster Shorter Catechism Question 33

Justification is an act of God’ s free grace, wherein he pardoneth all our sins, (Rom. 3:24–25, Rom. 4:6–8) and accepteth us as righteous in his sight, (2 Cor. 5:19,21) only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, (Rom. 5:17–19) and received by faith alone. (Gal. 2:16, Phil. 3:9)

James Buchanan wrote:

Justification is a legal or forensic term, and is used in Scripture to denote the acceptance of any one as righteous in the sight of God. [James Buchanan, The Doctrine of Justification, 226]

John Fesko writes:

It is his obedience, his indefectible righteousness, that secures the eschatological declaration of righteousness before the throne of God. [John Fesko, Justification: Understanding The Classic Reformed Doctrine]

Justification involves forgiveness of sins, Imputation of righteousness, and it is by faith alone.

McGrath says that an astonishing diversity of views on justification were in circulation at the time the Reformation was starting.

Two views most closely approximating the soteriology eventually defined by Rome is that of the via antiqua, or “old way.” This is Thomas Aquinas’ ordo salutis:

God freely bestows grace on the individual.

The individual is empowered to cooperate with God’s grace.

This cooperation is meritorious, and combined with and made possible by grace, is rewarded with eternal life.

The via moderna, or “new way,” represented by William of Ockham and Gabriel Biel inserted a step at the beginning of the process stating that cooperation was possible apart from grace.

For Aquinas, the grace necessary in the process of justification was understood to be a quality created within or imparted to the individual. Peter Lombard thought that the gift that effects salvation is no acquired quality that an individual might then deem his own; it is the active presence of the Holy Spirit himself. Ockham, on the other hand, only affirmed that this is ordinarily the case, but that grace is not always necessary for one to cooperate with God grace.

The one aspect of justification that was agreed on by Medieval Theologians was that a person, in being justified was not just declared righteous, but that they actually to a degree, became righteous. Medieval theologians then did not distinguish between justification and sanctification. They also held to a form of progressive justification.

The Reformed Ordo Salutis:

Election

Atonement

Gospel Call

Gospel Call

Inward Call

Inward Call

Regeneration

Conversion (faith & repentance)

Justification

Adoption

Sanctification

Perseverance

Glorification

The justification of the ungodly includes both pardon and acceptance.

Romans 4:5 ESV

And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,

Romans 5:6 ESV

For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.

Dogmatic Theology Preliminary Considerations

Consequently, the justification of a sinner must not only deliver him from the penalty due to disobedience, but provide for him an equivalent to personal obedience. Whoever justifies the ungodly must lay a ground both for his delivery from hell and his entrance into heaven.

The Meaning of Justification: δικαιόω

δικαιόω is in the semantic domain of guide, discipline, follow and the sub-domain of obey, disobey. (1) It means to conform to righteous, just commands. BDAG says, to take up a legal cause, show justice, do justice, take up a cause (); (2) render a favorable verdict, vindicate(; ); (3) to cause someone to be released from personal or institutional claims that are no longer to be considered pertinent or valid, make free/pure (; ); (4) to demonstrate to be morally right, prove to be right.

This word appears 39x in the GNT. In 33 of those 39 times, it is translated justify in the ESV. The remaining occurences are translated; freed, just, free, acquitted, vindicated.

There are two kinds of righteousness

Legal righteousness which by way of the covenant of works. This is perfect personal conformity to the law.

Romans 2:13 ESV

For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.

Gratuitous or evangelical righteousness of that of the covenant of grace (the new covenant).

Romans 1:17 ESV

For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.”

Dogmatic Theology Preliminary Considerations

The “righteousness of God” is the active and passive obedience of incarnate God. It is Christ’s vicarious suffering of the penalty and vicarious obedience of the precept of the law which man has transgressed. It is Christ’s atoning for man’s sin and acquiring a title for him to eternal life. It is “gratuitous” righteousness, because it is something given to man outright, without any compensation or equivalent being required from him in return

Dogmatic Theology Preliminary Considerations

We have observed that in order that a person may be pronounced just, there must be a reason or ground for the verdict. Justification cannot be groundless and without a reason. The “righteousness of God” is the ground or basis upon which a believing sinner is pronounced to be righteous. Because Christ has suffered the penalty for him, he is pronounced righteous before the law in respect to its penalty and is p 796 entitled to release from punishment. Because Christ has perfectly obeyed the law for him, he is pronounced righteous before the law in respect to its precept and is entitled to the reward promised to perfect obedience. To pardon a believer and accept him as if he had rendered the sinless obedience which entitles to eternal reward is to impute “the righteousness of God” to him.

The Council of Trent

An important aspect of the response of Roman Catholicism to the Protestant doctrine of justification, is that the RCC wanted to refute the Protestants but in a way that distanced itself from Pelagianism.

Catholics claim to affirm that we are justified by faith and that no works preceding that justification merit the grace itself of justification.

However, we find Trent’s rejection of imputation in several places.

“Whence , man, through Jesus Christ, in whom he is engrafted, receives, in the said justification, together with the remission of sins, all these gifts infused at once, faith, hope, and charity.”

The key to understanding this statement is in the word, infused.

Council of Trent, Canon 11:

“If any one says, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the righteousness of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Spirit, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favor of God: let him be anathema.”

The real issue is what is the role of the individual in receiving the Holy Spirit. The individual must cooperate with the grace of God that pours forth the Holy Spirit. This places the individual in an active role of their own justification.

Trent argued that the believer’s justification was something that would be declared only of one who was actually and inherently righteous. Therefore, the believer’s justification was pronounced, not immediately upon a profession of faith in Christ, but at the conclusion of the believer’s life, when he would be inherently righteous.

Believers, through the observance of the commandments of God and of the Church, faith co-operating with good works, increase in righteousness which they have received through the grace of Christ and are still further justified.

“And for this cause, life eternal is to be proposed to those working well unto the end, and hoping in God, both as a grace mercifully promised to the sons of God through Jesus Christ, and as a reward which is according to the promise of God himself, to be faithfully rendered to their good works and merits.”

Eternal life is dependent on good works mixed with faith and as a result is becomes a thing of merit rather than the result of sola gratia.

The RCC insists upon a realistic-ontological understanding of justification while confessional Protestants insist upon a legal-forensic one.

There are at least five areas of doctrine that must be dealt with in the RCC and the confessional protestant church (CPC) can progress toward reconciliation: Imputation, Justification, Sola Fide, Solus Christus, and the Nature of the Church.

Imputation

The debate does not boil down to just those texts that require sound exegesis. It also involves treatment of man in his original state.

Medieval RCC theologians held that Adam required a donum superadditum, a superadded grace even in his original state. This is supposedly what Adam lost in the fall. And if Adam needed this in his original state, Christians need it today. This is what is restored in conversion according to the Catholics. Hence, we see the impact of Augustine’s inability, and later, Calvin’s doctrine of total depravity.

Justification: Confusing the Declarative and Transformative

This is to confuse justification with sanctification.

At the radix of the Roman Catholic understanding of justification is not simply the teaching of the early church, but ultimately, and once again, its conception of man’s original created state.

In Aquinas’ understanding of the donum superadditum, the lower powers of man, the powers of the intellect, were subject to reason. When man fell he lost the donum superadditum, or his inherent righteousness, but his lower powers, governed by reason, were not affected.

This is the rejection of Augustine’s view of total inability and Calvin’s view of total depravity. [it should be noted that Augustine was not entirely consistent here himself, affirming that grace was a quality.]

Aquinas essentially attempted to use Aristotelian ontology as his starting point for unpacking the doctrine of God.

By trying to wed the ontology of Aristotle and anthropology of Scripture, one tries to join scriptural revelation with a commitment to autonomous reason. [John Fesko, Justification, 374]

Either man is conceived of in terms of potentiality and actuality, which is a constant process, and hence justification is a process, or as a covenant-breaker, one in need of redemption, which has been definitively and decisively accomplished once and for all by Jesus Christ and is received by faith alone. [Van Til]

Sola Fide

The RCC misrepresents the PRC view on justification, claiming the the PRC view argues for justification to the exclusion of transformation. That is simply not the case. We are justified by faith alone but not by a faith that is alone.

Rather than concerning itself with justification is redemptive history, the once for all declarative act of God in Christ, the RCC sees justification only within the ordo salutis.

The justification is by a iustitua alieana, but once the believer is in union with Christ, the righteousness is no longer alien.

However, if one reads Vatican II, Muslims are part of the plan of salvation: “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, first among whom are the Muslims.

So, it can be argued that according to Vatican II, the RCC has adopted the Muslim understanding of justification, or, justification by works.

Lumen Genium, essentially affirms a doctrine of justification by works. This can be found in chapter two, section 16: But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things,(127) and as Saviour wills that all men be saved.(128) Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.

Solus Christus

Can the RCC really and truly maintain the solus Christus of justification if it confuses justification with sanctification, thus placing the believers works on the same plane as those of Christ, and if they affirm a justification by works for well-intentioned unbelievers who have never even heard the name of Christ? Absolutely not!

The RCC also believes in the Mary cult. Mary presented Christ to God in the temple, shared in his sufferings, and therefore, in a very special way, cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope, and burning charity in the work of the Savior. For this reason she is viewed as the mother to us in the order of grace.

The RCC church continues to claim that Mary continues to procure for us the gifts of eternal salvation. For these reasons, she invoked under the titles, advocate, helper, benefactress, and mediatrix.

The RCC still affirms the belief in purgatory. If a person dies before he is righteous, he must enter the purifying fires of purgatory until he is made righteous.

In light of the RCC view of justification by works, the role of Mary and other saints in atonement, the fires of purgatory, and indulgences, it seems obvious that the RCC could not in any meaningful way embrace the doctrine of solus Christus.

The Doctrine of the Church

The Lumen Gentium states that when the bishops are speaking in agreement with one another and the successor of Peter, infallibly, even if they are not gathered together in one place. This means that all previous councils, to include Trent, are irreformable since its pronouncements are considered infallible.

Lumen Gentium also states, “This sacred council accepts the loyally the venerable faith of our ancestors…and it reiterates the decrees of the Second Council of Nicea, the Council of Florence, and the Council of Trent.

Any attempt to reconcile the RCC with the PRC must deal with the doctrine of conciliar infallibility and try to argue that Trent is no longer relevant when the RCC still recognizes Trent’s validity and infallibility.

The second issue is how the PRC define the nature of the church versus the RCC. The gospel serves as the foundation for those who are included in the church and this involves the confession that one is justified by faith alone. The RCC on the other hand, claims that baptism is the instrumental means of justification. Moreover, within RCC, only the priest can administer the sacrament of baptism.

The RCC then may accept as Christian, protestants who have been baptized but it does not accept the PRC or any protestant organization as being part of the one body of Christ, the Church.

Justification either comes through the sacraments of baptism and penance, or it does not. If it does not, then the RCC would be dissolved. This would mean that justification could come through the proclamation of the gospel appropriated by faith alone.

Hence, the differences between the RCC and the PRC on the nature of the church are incompatible. The only way ecumenical reunion could take place between the RCC and the PRC is if one of them is willing to give up their doctrine of the church and of justification.

Anyone committed to a biblical understanding of justification must reject the Roman Catholic understanding.

Jacob Arminius said,

The Church of Rome, we declare that her doctrine stands directly opposed to that of the apostle.

Karl Barth wrote,

It is difficult to see in the Tridentine doctrine of justification anything better than what Paul meant by another gospel. It has no light from above.