Justification By Faith Alone: A History

[seer]

According to the Reformed scholar Alistair McGrath in his Iustitia Dei, Vol. 1

p. 182 "Although Luther regarded justification as an essentially unitary process, he nevertheless introduced a decisive break with the western theological tradition as a whole by insisting that, through his justification, man is intrinsically sinful yet extrinsically righteous."


p. 184 "The significance of the Protestant distinction between justification and regeneration is that a fundamental discontinuity has been introduced into the western theological tradition where none had existed before. Despite the astonishingly theological diversity of the late medieval period, a consensus relating to the nature of justification was maintained throughout. The Protestant understanding of the nature represents a theological novum, whereas its understanding of its mode does not."


p. 36 "Augustine demonstrates of iustitia, effected only through man's justification, demonstrates how the doctrine of justification encompasses the whole of Christian existence from the first moment of faith through the increase in righteousness before God and man, to the final perfection of that righteousness in the eschatological city. Justification is about being made just."


p. 185 "The medieval period was astonishingly faithful to the teaching of Augustine on the question of the nature of justification, where the reformers departed from it."


p. 186 "The essential feature of the Reformation doctrines of justification is that a deliberate and systematic distinction is made between justification and regeneration. Although it must be emphasized that this distinction is purely notional, in that it is impossible to separate the two within the context of the ordo sautis, THE ESSENTIAL POINT IS THAT A NOTIONAL DISTINCTION IS MADE WHERE NONE HAD BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE IN THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. A FUNDAMENTAL DISCONTINUITY WAS INTRODUCED INTO THE WESTERN THEOLOGICAL TRADITION WHERE NONE HAD EVER EXISTED, OR EVER BEEN CONTEMPLATED BEFORE. The Reformation understanding of the nature of justification - as opposed to its mode - must be regarded as a genuine theological novum."


p. 182 " Although Luther regarded justification as an essentially unitary process, he nevertheless introduced a decisive break with the western theological tradition as a whole by insisting that, through his justification, man is intrinsically sinful yet extrinsically righteous."

http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/page5.html

That justification as the Reformers saw it was truely a novel position in church history. That does not make them wrong, but one has to wonder why God withheld this central truth from His church both east and west for 1600 years...

[Kenite]

That justification as the Reformers saw it was truely a novel position in church history. That does not make them wrong, but one has to wonder why God withheld this central truth from His church both east and west for 1600 years...

Wyclif preached justification by faith long before Luther. It may have been held by individuals, despite the ravages and lies of Rome, continually from apostolic times. There is no way of telling. History is not what happened. History is very partial, in both senses of the word.

[James Peter]

Wycliff and Hus certainly foreshadowed Luther but Luther went further than either of them. 'Early Luther' was at home amongst those two and was strongly influenced by them but I doubt that 'Late Luther' would have been. Events shape us and Luther's final position (which Calvin etc took even further) was distinct from that which had gone before it. Ironically the position of Luther in the 1510s was very much 'Catholic' - the problem was that he attacked the revenue streams of the Church and that had to be stopped... But then it all became public because others wanted an excuse to stop german coin going to Rome and the situation escalated quite dramatically...

The fact is that the Jews never believed in 'justification by works' and neither did the early Church - but they also didn't believe in 'justification by faith alone' in the way that Luther understood the phrase. He kicked against something that was wrong (Indulgences) and lost his balance. A lot of what he argued was correct, a lot wasn't. There isn't really that much of a correlation between his position and those of the early church though - although he honestly believed there was. He was a result of his culture and education and did what he thought was best... But that doesn't mean he was right, just as Erasmus wasn't right just because he was doing what he thought was best and just as Cajetan wasn't right just because he was doing what he thought was best...

[seer]

Wycliff and Hus certainly foreshadowed Luther but Luther went further than either of them. 'Early Luther' was at home amongst those two and was strongly influenced by them but I doubt that 'Late Luther' would have been. Events shape us and Luther's final position (which Calvin etc took even further) was distinct from that which had gone before it. Ironically the position of Luther in the 1510s was very much 'Catholic' - the problem was that he attacked the revenue streams of the Church and that had to be stopped... But then it all became public because others wanted an excuse to stop german coin going to Rome and the situation escalated quite dramatically...

The fact is that the Jews never believed in 'justification by works' and neither did the early Church - but they also didn't believe in 'justification by faith alone' in the way that Luther understood the phrase. He kicked against something that was wrong (Indulgences) and lost his balance. A lot of what he argued was correct, a lot wasn't. There isn't really that much of a correlation between his position and those of the early church though - although he honestly believed there was. He was a result of his culture and education and did what he thought was best... But that doesn't mean he was right, just as Erasmus wasn't right just because he was doing what he thought was best and just as Cajetan wasn't right just because he was doing what he thought was best...

So how are we justified. Isn't this a most important consideration?

[James Peter]

It is the most important question that Theology asks. I'd suggest that different authors within Scripture would give different answers to that question (even within just the NT) and that there are different answers that continue to be offered. My point was merely that the position that Luther took in his early work was within the spectrum of orthodox Catholic belief.

If you want my own answer then I'll resort to distraction, because I haven't come to any firm conclusions about how the different threads of tradition should be related to each other (is one right and the others wrong? Are all partially right? Are some more right than others?) I think it is safe to say that we are rectified (I prefer that rendering to justified - we are made right rather than simply being counted right as many use justified to mean) by the act of God that was the Incarnation-Resurrection (i.e. the full ministry of Jesus from the incarnation through until the resurrection and in some ways beyond that in both directions) and that our belief (whatever exactly pistos is) is an essential part in the process. Reducing it to mechanical terms is, I think, doomed to failure. It is a mystery (in the positive sense) of God. What matters is its reality which should be tangibly experienced rather than merely intellectually accepted. My soteriology is in transition; the Cross is central and essential but not just as a historical revelation of God 1900 years ago but also as a personal revelation (think Barth's notion of revelation/Word) in our own lives. I don't have all the answers, I don't even have all the questions yet, but I think I know roughly where I'm heading and also (perhaps more easily known) what I'm heading away from.

[seer]

It is the most important question that Theology asks. I'd suggest that different authors within Scripture would give different answers to that question (even within just the NT) and that there are different answers that continue to be offered. My point was merely that the position that Luther took in his early work was within the spectrum of orthodox Catholic belief.

If you want my own answer then I'll resort to distraction, because I haven't come to any firm conclusions about how the different threads of tradition should be related to each other (is one right and the others wrong? Are all partially right? Are some more right than others?) I think it is safe to say that we are rectified (I prefer that rendering to justified - we are made right rather than simply being counted right as many use justified to mean) by the act of God that was the Incarnation-Resurrection (i.e. the full ministry of Jesus from the incarnation through until the resurrection and in some ways beyond that in both directions) and that our belief (whatever exactly pistos is) is an essential part in the process. Reducing it to mechanical terms is, I think, doomed to failure. It is a mystery (in the positive sense) of God. What matters is its reality which should be tangibly experienced rather than merely intellectually accepted. My soteriology is in transition; the Cross is central and essential but not just as a historical revelation of God 1900 years ago but also as a personal revelation (think Barth's notion of revelation/Word) in our own lives. I don't have all the answers, I don't even have all the questions yet, but I think I know roughly where I'm heading and also (perhaps more easily known) what I'm heading away from.

Great, we can't know then - for sure...

[Kenite]

Wycliff and Hus certainly foreshadowed Luther but Luther went further than either of them.

Many people think like that, but they don't know the facts. In Christ stilling the Storm Wyclif wrote: "If a man believe in Christ, and make a point of his belief, then the promise that God hath made to come into the land of light shall be given by virtue of Christ, to all men that make this the chief matter."

Luther tied up loose ends. Or tried to outflank the real reformation, depending on one's pov.

[GoBahnsen]

According to the Reformed scholar Alistair McGrath in his Iustitia Dei, Vol. 1




http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/page5.html

That justification as the Reformers saw it was truely a novel position in church history. That does not make them wrong, but one has to wonder why God withheld this central truth from His church both east and west for 1600 years...

I'm not claiming to be some expert on this. My Church history knowledge suffers. I hope to improve over time, as I think it's a very important subject.

That said, I understand that the Church in her 2000 year history hasn't always had it right or the best in her earliest years, after the passing of the Apostles. We have seen great developement in the understanding of the Atonement, long after the early Church. And we still haven't grasped the depths of that doctrine.

One hopes that the Reformers got their view from the Bible and not just some tinkering with Augustine. It appears from the Bible that justification is by faith alone. Paul labors to show that THAT has always been the case. With Abraham, before Moses, the man was justified by imputed righteousness, simply because he believed God.

James reminds "mental assenters" that it's a faith that works. Nevertheless, as Paul warned the Galatians, don't mix works with grace. But Romans is probably the premeir work on the important doctrine of justification and that by faith alone.

Rome had not only messed up by her corruption in gaining money to herself, but had also introduced the tradition of "works plus faith", in order to make one's self acceptable before God. Not a faith that works, but faith plus works...which finds the average Catholic trying to make sure he's got his bases covered by "doing enough" good deeds to avoid purgatory or at least get out quicker. What could be more of an assualt on Salvation by grace through faith alone?

The Reformers brought us back to sola Scriptura for our authority and delievered us from the false traditions which Rome accumulated to herself.

What you need to do seer, is show where the Reformers broke with Scripture, not the development of doctrine, as has always been going on and is still going on today within the Church. Because it seems that what you're suggesting is that salvation by faith alone is novel, when it hopefully is (or I'm in trouble) a return to the Bible, when Rome had gone astray.

[seer]

What you need to do seer, is show where the Reformers broke with Scripture, not the development of doctrine, as has always been going on and is still going on today within the Church. Because it seems that what you're suggesting is that salvation by faith alone is novel, when it hopefully is (or I'm in trouble) a return to the Bible, when Rome had gone astray.

What I think the Reformers do Gb, is to ignore certain texts in favor of others. For instance, justification is the forgivness of sin yet Christ says:

Matt.6:14,15

"For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you; but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses."

[Reader]

So how are we justified. Isn't this a most important consideration?

Sinners are justified before God by the cross work of Jesus Christ.

[GoBahnsen]

What I think the Reformers do Gb, is to ignore certain texts in favor of others. For instance, justification is the forgivness of sin yet Christ says:

Matt.6:14,15

"For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you; but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses."

In what way did the Reformers ignore this text? Where do you find the Reformers teaching that people who will not forgive those who trespass against them...still being saved by faith? If a person will not forgive after he/she has professed faith in Christ, they have demonstrated that they have no genuine faith.

[seer]

In what way did the Reformers ignore this text? Where do you find the Reformers teaching that people who will not forgive those who trespass against them...still being saved by faith? If a person will not forgive after he/she has professed faith in Christ, they have demonstrated that they have no genuine faith.

Really Gb? So it is impossible for a genuine Christian to be unforgiving at times?

[GoBahnsen]

Really Gb? So it is impossible for a genuine Christian to be unforgiving at times?

And not repent of it? Yes! I've been angry with you at times and felt a grudge in my heart. I repented because the Holy Spirit won't let me live that way. Christians sin, but they don't live in it. They don't practice sin as a way of life, lest they be found not knowing God (I John).

[seer]

And not repent of it? Yes! I've been angry with you at times and felt a grudge in my heart. I repented because the Holy Spirit won't let me live that way. Christians sin, but they don't live in it. They don't practice sin as a way of life, lest they be found not knowing God (I John).

You know Gb, there is a fine and subjective line between practicing sin and not... But the point is Gb, good Christians will not see this text as you do, and they have good reason not to. And it is these other texts that tie salvation directly into works (Strive to enter the narrow gate/Unless you pick up your cross/Etc...) that make some question this novel doctrine of the Reformers...

[GoBahnsen]

You know Gb, there is a fine and subjective line between practicing sin and not... But the point is Gb, good Christians will not see this text as you do, and they have good reason not to. And it is these other texts that tie salvation directly into works (Strive to enter the narrow gate/Unless you pick up your cross/Etc...) that make some question this novel doctrine of the Reformers...

Oh I don't doubt that many professed Christians question the Reformers, but I submit that in doing so, they most often (not always, for the Reformers are not the Bible) are also fighting against Paul...and that's a bad thing.

Paul says in Romans that believers are 'freely justified by His grace...". Free means that it's a gift. Grace means a gift to underserving people. Those who think that by picking up their cross or by denying themselves, that they have somehow earned the right to be forgiven are not following after Paul's Gospel of grace.

The Roman Catholics want to point to their baptism, their good deeds plus Jesus cross work and have that = salvation.

Tell me this seer, do you ever have the slightest feeling that grace is for those who do something to get it? Do you ever feel like "yeah sure...we've been pretty bad, but if we will just have faith, that God will then give us the grace that we deserve for being willing to believe Him?" Ever feel like faith is the bargaining chip for humans? "God, I'll give you my faith in exchange for your grace". Ever toy with that stuff?