|
In Christian theology, justification is God's act of making or declaring a sinner righteous before God. The extent, means, and scope of justification are of significant debate for all in the Western church. Justification was the fault line that divided Catholic from Protestant during the Reformation.
Justification, from the Greek δικαιωθηναι (dikaiōthēnai), "to be made/declared righteous", is a Scriptural term, occurring in the books of Romans, Galatians, Titus, and James; the root word righteous is ubiquitous in both Old and New Testaments. The concept of justification occurs also in many different Old and New Testament books. However, considerable sectarian controversy exists as to its meaning within Scripture. These controversies include:
- Whether justification occurs instantaneously or as an ongoing process;
- The relationship between justification and religious law: whether justification is "forensic", a legal declaration that a sinner is now righteous before God for Christ's sake, or "constitutive", an actual change in the sinner;
- Whether justification depends upon God's efforts only (monergism) or God's efforts combined with ours (synergism);
- Whether justification is permanent or can be lost;
- The relationship of justification to sanctification, the process whereby sinners become righteous and are enabled by the Holy Spirit to live lives pleasing to God; and
- The relationship of justification to atonement, the propitiation and expiation of sins.
Justification in the Early Church
The early church's understanding of justification was heavily influenced by the Old Testament, the gospel accounts, and the writings of the apostles.
The Old Testament stressed the need for righteousness and opened up the possibility of cleansing from sin. The early church saw the Mosaic Law as creating an impossibly high standard of righteousness which left the individual in need of cleansing. The prophets spoke of the need for cleansing from sin (Zech. 3; Ezek. 36:25-31). The sacrifices required in Leviticus 1 - 7 also spoke to the need for cleansing from sin. However, the prophets were clear that the sacrifices of themselves did not accomplish cleansing (Is. 1:11; Hos. 8:13). Hence, the early church understood the sacrifices to be figurative of the sacrifice of Jesus (Heb. 10).
The gospels do not give any extended discourse of Jesus on justification. He does mention the term once, in Luke 18:10-14, but assumes that his listeners know what it means to be "justified." However, justification is a very present sub-text of the gospel accounts. All four gospel writers portray his teaching, life, death, and resurrection through the lens of our need for righteousness, connected to our need for forgiveness of sins.
Concerning the need for righteousness, Jesus says "I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 5:20). Concerning his own death and speaking at the Last Supper, he says, ". . .this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins" (Matt. 26:28). (see also: Luke 2:76, 77; John 1:29; John 3). He also speaks often of forgiveness of sins (e.g., Luke 5:17-26).
It was Paul who developed the term justification in the theology of the church. Justification is a major theme of the epistles to the Romans and to the Galatians in the New Testament, and is also given treatment in many other epistles. For Paul, justification is the solution to God's just wrath at people's sin. Justification is what reconciles God and man (Romans 5; Gal. 3:10-29). Paul's writings include all of the elements that are discussed in later controversy. He discusses imputed righteousness (Rom. 5), justification through faith apart from works of the law (Rom. 4, Gal. 3), and intimates that those who are justified cannot be separated from God's love (Rom. 8).
The epistle to the Hebrews also takes up the theme of justification, declaring that Jesus' death is superior to the Old Testament sacrifices in that it takes away sin once for all (Heb. 10).
James discusses justification briefly but significantly, declaring that a faith that is apart from works cannot be a justifying faith (Jas. 2).
Justification as a concept is mentioned in the early church fathers (e.g., Clement to the Corinthians, 32.4 [2] and in the sermons of John Chrysostom), but it is not developed until Augustine's conflict with Pelagius.
Pelagius taught that one became righteous through the exertion of one's will to follow the example of Jesus's life. Over against this, Augustine taught that we are justified by God[3], as a work of His grace[4]. Augustine took great pains in his anti-Pelagian works[5] to refute the notion that our works could serve as the proper basis for our justification. The church affirmed most of Augustine's teachings and rejected all of those of Pelagius.
Hence, in the early church, justification was a work of God leading to righteousness, and saving us from God's wrath; but few of the controversial questions mentioned above were addressed in any detail, save that justification definitely requires the work of God in us. However, the language used in describing justification would encompass the modern terms of both "justification" and "sanctification" (thus Augustine, e.g. [6]).
Catholic views
After the East-West Schism in 1054, the doctrine of the atonement continued to develop in the West. The contributions of Anselm and Thomas Aquinas had a strong influence on the present-day Catholic doctrine of justification. To Catholics, justification is "a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Savior" (Council of Trent, Decree on Justification chapter 4 [7]), including the transforming of a sinner from the state of unrighteousness to the state of holiness. This transformation is made possible by accessing the merit of Christ, made available in the atonement, through faith and the sacraments (ibid, chap. 7).
In Catholic theology, all are born in a state of original sin, meaning that both the guilt and sin nature of Adam are inherited by all. Following Augustine, the Catholic church asserts that people are unable to make themselves righteous; instead, they require justification. (Council of Trent, Decree on Original Sin, ch. 1, 7, 8 [8]).
Catholic theology holds that God's righteousness is infused into the sinner when he or she partakes of the sacrament of baptism, combined with faith. This is termed inital justification (meaning, "being cleansed of sin"), the entrance into the Christian life.
As the individual then progresses in his Christian life, he continues to receive God's grace both directly through the Holy Spirit as well as through the sacraments. This has the effect of combatting sin in the individual's life, causing him to become more righteous both in heart and in action. This is progressive justification (meaning, "being made righteous"). It is also the case, according to Robert Sungenis, that God views those who are in the process of being justified through the lens of grace ("rose-colored glasses"), so that He sees them as beloved children despite their sin (Not by Faith Alone, pp. 75-80).
At the final judgment, the individual's works will then be evaluated (cf. Matt. 25). At that time, those who are righteous will be shown to be so. This is the final justification (meaning "vindication").
To summarize, the Catholic view of justification is:
- Ongoing
- Constitutive
- Based on a (somewhat precise) combination of God's efforts and our own
- Can be lost in the event of the commission of a mortal sin
- Occurs in combination with sanctification
- Based on a substitutionary atonement view: that Christ's death on the cross paid for the general penalty for people's sin, making grace available to all
While Catholics can and do use legal or "forensic" terms to describe justification, they do not think the legal terms encompass the whole reality. Catholics do believe that God "declares" people righteous, but do not think this language goes far enough. Catholics believe that God actually makes people righteous, infusing them with the righteousness of Christ, when he declares them righteous. Christians were once guilty, but now they are truly innocent.
In one phrase, justification for the Catholic depends upon infused righteousness.
Lutheran views
"This one and firm rock, which we call the doctrine of justification," insisted Martin Luther, "is the chief article of the whole Christian doctrine, which comprehends the understanding of all godliness."[1] Lutherans tend to follow Luther in this matter. For the Lutheran tradition, the doctrine of salvation by grace alone through faith alone for Christ's sake alone is the material principle upon which all other teachings rest.[2]
Luther came to understand justification as being entirely the work of God. Against the teaching of his day that the righteous acts of believers are done in cooperation with God, Luther asserted that Christians receive that righteousness entirely from outside themselves; that righteousness not only comes from Christ, it actually is the righteousness of Christ, imputed to us (rather than infused into us) through faith. "That is why faith alone makes someone just and fulfills the law," said Luther, "faith it is that which brings the Holy Spirit through the merits of Christ"[3]. Thus faith, for Luther, is a gift from God, and ". . .a living, bold trust in God's grace, so certain of God's favor that it would risk death a thousand times trusting in it."[3] It is this faith that grasps Christ's righteousness and appropriates it for itself in the believer's heart.
Traditionally, Lutherans have taught forensic (or legal) justification. This doctrine holds that God on His throne declares a sinner "not guilty" for Christ’s sake. Christians, who were once sinners are now righteous because Christ’s righteousness applies to them (i.e., it is imputed to them, or counter as their own). For Lutherans, it is necessary that justification is independent of and in no way depends upon works performed, thoughts had, or attitudes cultivated by believers. They believe sanctification occurs only after a person has been justified by faith.[4]
For Lutherans, justification provides the power by which Christians can grow in holiness. Such improvement comes only after one has been made new in Christ. Finally, while children of God do grow to become more and more like God, they never can entirely remove sin from their lives. Christians are always "saint and sinner at the same time" (simul iustus et peccator) — saints because they are holy in God's eyes, for Christ's sake, and do works that please Him; sinners because they continue to sin until death.
Justification for Lutherans is thus:
- Instantaneous (but perhaps the beginning of a process of theosis)
- Forensic or mystical, depending on the school of thought
- Based on an outside righteousness (Christ's), imputed to us
- Able to be lost
- Occurs independently of sanctification (but may be connected to it)
- Based on a substitutionary atonement view: that Christ's death on the cross paid the penalty for my sins; hence, no debt of sin is still accounted to the Christian (although some Lutherans believe in Christus Victor)
In one phrase, justification for Luther and all Protestants after him depends on imputed righteousness.
Reformed views
Calvin's understanding of justification was in substantial agreement with Luther's. However, he expanded it by emphasizing that justification is a part of one's union with Christ. His theological center was different from Luther's, and his terminology was more systematic. The center of Calvin's salvation theology was our Union with Christ (Inst., III.xi.10). For Calvin, one is united to Christ by faith, and all of the benefits of Christ come from being united to him. Therefore, anyone who is justified will also receive all of the benefits of salvation, including sanctification. Thus, while Calvin agreed in substance with the "simultaneously saint and sinner" formulation (Inst. III.xiii), he was more definite in asserting that the result of being justified is a consequent sanctification (III.xiv.19; III.xvi). Calvin also used more definite language than Luther, spelling out the exchange notion of imputation: that the good works that Jesus did in his life are imputed to his people, while their sins were imputed to him on the cross.
For Calvin, Adam and Jesus functioned as federal heads, or legal representatives, meaning that each one represented his people through his actions (II.i.8). When Adam sinned, all of Adam's people were accounted to have sinned at that moment. When Jesus achieved righteousness, all of his people were accounted to be righteous at that moment. In this way Calvin attempted to simultaneously solve the problems of original sin, justification, and atonement.
Some of the technical details of this union with Christ are tied into Calvin's understanding of the atonement and of predestination (q.v.).
One outcome of Calvin's change in center over against Luther was that he saw justification as a permanent feature of being connected to Christ: since, for Calvin, people are attached to Christ monergistically, it is therefore impossible for them to lose justification if indeed they were once justified. This idea was expressed by the Synod of Dort as the "perseverance of the saints."
In recent times, two controversies have arisen in the Reformed churches over justification. The first concerns the teaching of "final justification" by Norman Shepherd; the second is the exact relationship of justification, sanctification, and church membership, which is part of a larger controversy concerning the Federal Vision.
Justification for the Reformed is thus:
- Instantaneous
- Forensic
- Based on an outside righteousness (Christ's), imputed to us
- Not able to be lost
- not dependent on but always leading to sanctification
- Based on a substitutionary atonement view: that Christ's death on the cross paid the penalty for the sins of his people; hence, no debt of sin is still accounted to the redeemed sinner
Methodist views
Wesley was heavily influenced by the thoughts of Jacob Arminius and the Governmental theory of atonement. Hence, he held that God's work in us consisted of Prevenient grace, which undoes the effects of sin sufficiently that we may then freely choose to believe. An individual's act of faith then results in becoming part of the body of Christ, which allows one to appropriate Christ's atonement for oneself, erasing the guilt of sin.[9] However, once the individual has been so justified, one must then continue in the new life given; if one fails to persevere and in fact falls away from God in total unbelief, the attachment to Christ — and with it, justification — may be lost.[10]
Hence, justification for Wesley and the Wesleyans is:
- Instantaneous at the moment of faith
- Forensic
- Synergistic
- Able to be lost
- Dependent on continued sanctification and cooperation
- Connected to the Governmental theory of atonement
The Orthodox views
Eastern Christianity, including both Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy, tends to de-emphasize justification compared to Roman Catholicism or Protestantism — so much so that justification often has no separate treatment in Eastern theological works. The Greek term for justification (δικαιωσις, dikaiōsis) is not understood by most Eastern theologians to mean simply being pardoned of one's sins. This justice is understood as applying not only to justice, but also to the concepts of righteousness, virtue, and morality. In large part, this de-emphasis on justification is historical. First, the doctrine of the atonement developed differently in the East and the West. The Eastern church sees mankind as inheriting the disease of sin from Adam, but not his guilt; hence, there is no need in Eastern theology for any forensic justification.[11][12] Second, the Reformation was the catalyst for clear, precise notions of justification; however, the Eastern and Western churches had already divided long prior to that event.
The Orthodox see salvation as a process of theosis, in which the individual is united to Christ and the life of Christ is reproduced within him. Thus, in one sense, justification is an aspect of theosis. However, it is also the case that those who are baptized into the church and experience Chrismation are considered to be cleansed of sin [13]. Hence, it is difficult to map the Orthodox concept of justification to the Catholic and Protestant concepts. In the words of one Orthodox Bishop:
- Justification is a word used in the Scriptures to mean that in Christ we are forgiven and actually made righteous in our living. Justification is not a once-for-all, instantaneous pronouncement guaranteeing eternal salvation, regardless of how wickedly a person might live from that point on. Neither is it merely a legal declaration that an unrighteous person is righteous. Rather, justification is a living, dynamic, day-to-day reality for the one who follows Christ. The Christian actively pursues a righteous life in the grace and power of God granted to all who continue to believe in Him. [14]
In short, Orthodox justification is:
- Ongoing
- Connected to the observance of Christ's commands
- Synergistic
- Able to be lost in the case of apostasy [15].
- Intertwined with sanctification as an aspect of theosis
- Not tied to a substitutionary model of atonement, but rather to the victory of Christ over Satan
See also: Orthodox Christianity, Theosis
Other views
Universalism became a significant minority view in the 18th century, popularized by thinkers such as John Murray (not to be confused with John Murray the Scottish theologian). Universalism holds that Christ's death on the cross has entirely paid for the sin of mankind; hence, God's wrath is satisfied towards all. Different varieties of universalism then go in different directions. Unitarian Universalism holds that many different religions all lead to God. Others teach that God's love is sufficient to cover for sins, thus embracing some form of the Moral Influence theory of Abelard. For the universalist, justification is an event entirely in the past, accomplished on the cross; or else it is unnecessary altogether.
Interactions between various doctrines
sola fide
Luther's reformulation of justification introduced the phrase sola fide, or by faith alone. That phrase has been one of the uniting factors among various Protestant denominations; despite the wide variety of doctrines and practices amongst Protestants, they all agree that one is saved (often meaning "justified") by faith alone.
Catholics from the Diet of Worms and Council of Trent until the present day (e.g., Sungenis) have criticized this phrase on several grounds. First and foremost, it appears to them to indicate that one can be justified without any actual change of life. Hence the strong language of Trent: If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema [16].
Second, Catholics point out that the only use of the formula "faith alone" (sola fide) is in James 2:24, which appears to deny the sola fide concept: "You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone." Hence, they claim that Scripture upholds their rejection of sola fide justification.
Third, Catholics claim that the term sola fide has many different subtleties of meaning among different groups of Protestants. They maintain that these differences cast doubt on the coherence of the concept of sola fide.
Within Protestantism, there is debate as to how strongly sanctification is tied to justification. Thus, in modern times, the "Lordship Salvation" controversy between some faculty at Dallas Seminary (Charles Ryrie and Zane Hodges) and others (John MacArthur and R.C. Sproul) has resulted in serious thinking on this question: can one be justified without any evidence of sanctification whatsoever?
Looking at this controversy from the outside, Catholics claim that "justification by faith alone" does not have a coherent meaning.
Protestants meanwhile hold tenaciously to the sola fide formula, charging that without it, the Christian is led down a path that is inevitably Pelagian and Judaizing. They charge that the abuses Luther saw were a logical outworking of a Catholic system that includes good works as a necessary condition for justification. They respond to the argument from James 2:24 (above) by asserting that the passage in question refers to demonstrating one's justification before men, rather than achieving justification before God.
Despite these differences, some Catholics and Lutherans believe that they have found much agreement on the subject of justification (see "Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification" by the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church, also linked below). Other Lutherans, especially Confessional Lutherans, maintain that this agreement fails to properly define the meaning of faith, sin, and other essential terms and thus do not support the Lutheran World Federation's agreement.
Notes
- ^ Selected passages from Martin Luther, "Commentary on Galatians (1538)" as translated in Herbert J. A. Bouman, "The Doctrine of Justification in the Lutheran Confessions," Concordia Theological Monthly 26 (November 1955) No. 11:801.[1]
- ^ Herbert J. A. Bouman, ibid., 801-802.
- ^ a b Martin Luther's Definition of Faith
- ^ Herbert J. A. Bouman, ibid., 805.
Printed resources
External links
Ecumenical
Orthodox
Catholic
Arminian/Methodist
Calvinist
Lutheran
Sources
Essays
- Bouman, H. J. A. "The Doctrine of Justification in the Lutheran Confessions." [online]Concordia Theological Monthly 26 (1955) no. 11:801-819.[17]
- Klann, Richard. "Contemporary Lutheran Views of Justification" [online]Concordia Theological Quarterly 45 (1981) no. 4:281-296.[18]
- Martens, Gottfried. "Agreement and Disagreement on Justification by Faith Alone" [online]Concordia Theological Quarterly 65 (2001) no. 3:195-223.[19]
- Mueller, Theodore. "Justification: Basic Linguistic Aspects and the Art of Communicating It" [online]Concordia Theological Quarterly 46 (1982) no. 1:21-38.[20]
- Preus, Robert D. "Luther and the Doctrine of Justification" [online]Concordia Theological Quarterly 48 (1984) no. 1:1-15.[21]
- Warth, Martim C. "Justification through Faith in Article Four of the Apology" [online]Concordia Theological Quarterly 46 (1982) no. 2-3:105-126.[22].
Sources
This article incorporates text from the public-domain Catholic Encyclopedia.
|
This section is a . You can by 
