"On Justification" by Tom

The Catholic/Protestant disagreement on justification is in large part due to a misunderstanding of terms. Efforts such as the "Joint Declaration on Justification" by the Vatican and the World Lutheran Federation, as well as the statement of "Evangelicals and Catholics Together" (ECT) are encouraging signs that there is a significant amount of agreement in substance if not terminology. For example, the word "justification" itself has a broader meaning in Catholic theology than in Protestant theology. Protestants say that justification is the one point in time that an unjustified person is declared justified. Catholics affirm that as well, but also include under the term "justification" the ongoing life of faith thereafter; or what Protestants call sanctification. Thus, when Catholics say works are involved in justification, Protestants hear that an unjustified person is working to achieve justification; but this is not what the Catholic means. The Catholic Church has always condemned the idea that an unjustified person can earn justification; it is a free gift.

Consider the following analogy: Suppose I was a servant on a farm. I am not by nature a child of my master, but suppose that I wanted to be. I might say to myself, "I know, I’ll fulfill all of my duties perfectly; I’ll mow the grass, paint the house, do all my chores perfectly." Then I’ll be a son and not just a servant, right? Wrong! If I fulfill all my chores perfectly, I won’t be a son; I’ll just be a good slave. But suppose that the master (being all powerful) adopted me as a son and not just a slave. I will still have to do my chores, but I’m not doing them to earn a wage, but receive an inheritance. The Catholic doctrine of justification can be summarized as "Divine Sonship." God is a father who raises up children, for what? - to earn a wage? No! To grow up and mature and image their father.

So far, few Protestants would disagree with most of what I’ve said, but here’s where it gets sticky. Does God actually communicate His nature to His children and empower them to be in fact what He declares them to be, or does He bestow a title on us that does not correlate to what we are in substance? The Catholic position is that God communicates the divine life to His children so they might grow and mature and image Him. When all creation is consummated, we will discover that God did not gain one ounce of glory more than He would have had otherwise. If God didn’t create to get glory, He must have created to give it. This does not mean we become God. Human nature, even perfected, still remains human nature and is distinct from the divine. But the human shares in the furnace of the divine love of the Trinity. Doesn’t St. Paul tell us that we will judge the Angels (2 Corinthians 6:2-3). 2 Peter 1:3-4 tells us that we "participate in the divine nature." The NIV footnote states that we don’t become God, but that we are indwelt by the Holy Spirit. 1 John 3:1: "How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are!" John 1:12-13 "to become children of God" and "born of God." Galatians 2:20: "I no longer live, but Christ lives in me." Romans 8:14-17 "spirit of sonship" and "co-heirs with Christ." Many other examples could be given. If this is the case, then salvation is not just forgiveness, but empowerment, by God, to be instruments of redemption. Of course, all that we are is from start to finish the work of Christ in us (again, Galatians 2:20). It may be shocking to say that salvation is more than forgiveness, but let me give an example: recently, the teller at my bank shorted one of my account receipts. I found the error, and she apologized. I forgave her, but I didn’t adopt her. God forgives us, but he also empowers us to be his children and image him. Salvation is not a spectator sport.

The Protestant position on justification is somewhat more difficult to define. With all due respect to my Protestant friends and without any belligerence or malice, I respectfully submit that the Protestant position contradicts itself. While the Calvinist and Lutheran positions differ in detail, they both suffer from the same defect -- Calvinists and Lutherans both affirm that justification is a "forensic," "legal" imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the sinner who is not thereby interiorly transformed. But simultaneously both camps affirm regeneration prior to justification that does inwardly change the sinner. Protestants deny the Catholic position that works done in grace are meritorious but themselves say that works of sanctification are a result of regeneration. From here forward, I will focus on the Calvinist position.

From the time of the Reformation to the present, Protestants have been insistent that justification is declarative only:

"He also freely justifieth: not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous, not for anything wrought in them, . . . but for Christ’s sake alone." (Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 11)

"There is no doubt that it is entirely by the intervention of Christ’s righteousness that we obtain justification before God. This is equivalent to saying that man is not just in himself, but that the righteousness of Christ is communicated to him by imputation, when really he deserves punishment. So we can dismiss the absurd dogma that man is justified by faith because it brings him under the influence of God’s spirit, by whom the sinner is made righteous." (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 11, #23)

"It is one of the primary errors of the Romish Church that it regards justification as the infusion of grace, as renewal and sanctification whereby we are made holy . . . Justification does not mean to make holy or upright . . ." (John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied, Eerdmans 1955, pg. 118 and 119)

The difficulty that a Catholic has with understanding the Protestant position lies in the fact that after insisting on the legal imputation without inward change, the same authors say that the same justified sinner was already inwardly transformed in regeneration.

I. All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, He is pleased, in His appointed time, effectually to call, by His Word and Spirit, out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature to grace and salvation, by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God, taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and, by His almighty power, determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ: yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace. (Westminster Confession, Chapter X)

Since it were not sufficient duly to perform such acts, were not the mind and heart previously endued with sentiments of justice, judgment, and mercy this is done when the Holy Spirit, instilling his holiness into our souls, so inspired them with new thoughts and affections, that they may justly be regarded as new. (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 3, #8).

"It [regeneration] must cleanse from sin as well as recreate in righteousness . . . It is birth therefore of divine and supernatural character." (John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied, pg. 98)

". . . Regeneration is such a radical, pervasive, and efficacious transformation that it immediately registers itself in the conscious activity of the person . . . It is a stupendous change because it is God’s recreative act." (John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied, pg. 104 and 105)

Amazingly:

"We see therefore, that the emphasis which the scripture places upon faith as the condition of salvation is not to be construed as if faith were the only condition." (John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied, pg. 116)

"It would be a highly commendable thing if we could convert a wicked man and make him a righteous man. That is what God does when he regenerates a man." (John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied, pg. 120)

It is difficult to believe that the same author that said infused righteousness was the error of the Romish Church on page 118 writes the following on page 122:

"Justification means to declare or pronounce to be righteous. When equity is maintained such a declaration or pronouncement implies that the righteous state or standing declared to be presupposed in the declaration. . . . The declaration of the fact presupposes the fact which is declared to be." (John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied, pg. 122)

"In God’s justification of sinners there is no deviation from the rule that what is declared to be is presupposed to be. God’s judgment is according to truth here as elsewhere. The peculiarity of God’s action consists in this that he causes to be righteous state or relation which is declared to be. . . . He constitutes the ungodly righteous, and consequently can declare them to be righteous. In the justification of sinners there is a constitutive act as well as a declarative. Or, if we will, we may say that the declarative act of God in the justification of the ungodly is constitutive. In this consists its incomparable character. . . . It is clear that the justification which is unto eternal life Paul regards as consisting in our being constituted righteous, in our receiving righteousness as a free gift, and this righteousness is none other than the righteousness of the one man Jesus Christ." (John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied, pg. 123)

"Justification is both a declarative and constitutive act of God’s free grace. It is constitutive in order that it may be truly declarative. God must constitute the new relationship as well as declare it to be." (John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied, pgs. 124 and 125)

In his chapter on adoption, I read the following points:

"Adoption is, like justification, a judicial act. In other words, it is the bestowal of a status, or standing, not the generating within us of a new nature or character. It concerns a relationship and not the attitude or disposition which enables us to recognize and cultivate that relationship."

Amazingly, on the same page, the author writes:

"When God adopts men and women into his family he insures that not only may they have the rights and privileges of his sons and daughters but also the nature or disposition consonant with such a status. This he does by regeneration - he renews them after his image in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness. God never has in his family those who are alien to its atmosphere and spirit and station." (John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied, pg. 133)

Examples could be multiplied from several authors. Reformed theologian R.C. Sproul seems to recognize this anomaly when he writes:

"It is not the change in our nature wrought by regeneration or even the faith that flows from it that is the ground of our justification. That remains solely the imputed righteousness of Christ." (R.C. Sproul, Faith Alone, Baker 1995, pg. 111)

What I don’t understand is if regeneration is "God’s work within us," "divine begetting," "remaking in his image," etc., etc., why is it an insufficient "ground for our justification"? Is there something insufficient about the work of God? Isn’t this just doing semantic gymnastics in order to find an excuse to disagree with the Catholic Church?

An extensive examination of the teaching of Scripture on the subject is not possible here, and there are many excellent works on the subject from more competent writers than I. However, a few points must be briefly made. St. Paul writes "Man is justified by faith apart from observing the law." (Romans 3:28). The context is circumcision and the Jewish ceremonial law (Romans 4:9-12). When James says "a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone" (James 2:24), the context is works of charity: clothing the naked and feeding the hungry (verses 15 and 16), showing mercy (verse 13). Of course, this is the work of Christ in us ("it is not I who live but Christ lives in me." Galatians 2:20). When God crowns our righteousness, He is crowning His own work within us; a Father loving His children not a judge pardoning guilty criminals. If the Bible never says we’re justified by "faith alone" and the only time the words "faith" and "alone" appear together is when it is rejected as a description of justification (James 2:24), why do Protestants use a description for justification that the Bible doesn’t use?

In the "Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification," the signing Lutherans affirmed that the reformation slogan "Simul iustus et peccator" does not deny that the sinner is actually inwardly renewed but that the justified person is still inclined to sin. If, however, Calvinists were to accept this understanding, would it not cause grave problems for the "perseverance" aspect of Calvinist T.U.L.I.P.? And how could T.U.L.I.P. be true when 2 Peter 2:1 tells us that some who were bought by the Lord brought destruction on themselves?

It is encouraging to see efforts such as the Joint Declaration that clarify what each side means by certain terms and formulations, and demonstrates that there is a high degree of agreement in substance. But I must assert that it is very confusing to read Protestant works that vehemently assert that inward transformation is a "Romish error."

Most Protestants mischaracterize the Catholic position of justification as "works righteousness." It simply is not true.

"If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law, without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema."(Council of Trent, Session 6, Cannon 1)

The Council of Trent defined justification thus:

". . . a translation from that state in which 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 Saviour." (Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter IV)

The relation between faith and justification was explained by Trent as follows:

"But when the Apostle says that man is justified by faith and freely, these words are to be understood in that sense in which the uninterrupted unanimity of the Catholic Church has held and expressed them, namely, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and to come to the fellowship of His sons; and we are therefore said to be justified gratuitously, because none of those things that precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification. For, if by grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the Apostle says, grace is no more grace." (Council of Trent, Chapter VIII, Session 6)

Unknowingly, many Protestants agree with the Catholic position. For example, J.I. Packer’s widely read book, Knowing God, in chapter 19, "Sons of God," states the following:

"But in the New Testament we find that things have changed . . . A new factor has come in. New Testament believers deal with God as their Father." (page 203)

"For God intends the lives of believers to be a reflection and reproduction of Jesus’ own fellowship with himself." (page 204)

"As God exalted Jesus, so he exalts Jesus’ followers, as brothers in the one family." (page 205)

"Our first point about adoption is that it is the highest privilege that the gospel offers: higher even than justification." (page 206)

". . . the entire Christian life has to be understood in terms of it [adoption]. Sonship must be the controlling thought - the normative category, if you like - at every point." (page 209)

Notice the similarity between Trent’s definition of justification above, and John Murray’s description of adoption:

"Adoption, as the term clearly implies, is an act of transfer from an alien family into the family of God himself." (John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied, pg. 134)

On the relationship between faith and works, consider the similarity between Packer and the Council of Trent:

"What is the reply? It is this: that, while it is certainly true that justification frees one forever from the need to keep the law, or try to, as the means of earning life, it is equally true that adoption lays on one the abiding obligation to keep the law, as the means of pleasing one’s newfound Father. Law-keeping is the family likeness of God’s children; Jesus fulfilled all righteousness, and God calls us to do likewise. Adoption puts law-keeping on a new footing: as children of God, we acknowledge the law’s authority as a rule for our lives, because we know that this is what our Father wants." (J.I. Packer, Knowing God, page 223)

"For they who are the sons of God love Christ, but they who love Him, keep His commandments, as He Himself testifies; which, indeed, with the divine help they can do." (Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter XI)

"For since Christ Jesus Himself, as the head into the members and the vine into the branches, continually infuses strength into those justified, which strength always precedes, accompanies and follows their good works, and without which they could not in any manner be pleasing and meritorious before God . . . Thus, neither is our own justice established as our own from ourselves, nor is the justice of God ignored or repudiated, for that justice which is called ours, because we are justified by its inherence in us, that same is [the justice] of God, because it is infused into us by God through the merit of Christ . . . far be it that a Christian should either trust or glory in himself and not in the Lord, whose bounty toward all men is so great that He wishes the things that are His gifts to be their merits." (Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter XVI)

A useful analogy is as follows: A mother is baking a cake. Her little daughter comes in and wants to help mommy make the cake. The mother accepts her help and tells her how much flour to put in, when to put in the eggs, and holds her hand when she is mixing the ingredients, etc. In the analogy, God is the mother and we are the little girl.

Is the mother dependent on the girl’s help? No. Is the mother completely sufficient to the task? Yes. Is the daughter’s addition a real addition? Yes.

If the mother is completely sufficient to the task and doesn’t depend on the girl’s help, why does she accept it? Because love receives. The mother wants the daughter to grow up and mature, and image her example. God loves us as we are; but He loves us too much to let us stay that way.

In other words, Packer and the Council of Trent are saying: When God crowns our merits, He’s crowning His own work within us. God is not paying slaves; He’s granting an inheritance to sons and daughters.

Packer begins this chapter by saying:

". . . you sum up the whole of New Testament religion if you describe it as the knowledge of God as one’s holy Father. If you want to judge how well a person understands Christianity, find out how much he makes of the thought of being God’s child, and having God as his Father." (Packer, Knowing God, page 201)

He ends the chapter thus:

"It is a strange fact that the truth of adoption has been little regarded in Christian history." (I would correct Packer by saying Protestant history) ". . . there is no evangelical writing on it, nor has there been at any time since the Reformation, any more than there was before Luther’s grasp of adoption which was as strong and clear as his grasp of justification, but his disciples held to the latter and made nothing of the former." (Packer, Knowing God, page 228)

Packer is dismayed by the lack of Protestant writing on the subject of sonship. I would suggest that that is because it is the Catholic definition of justification.

CHURCH BELIEFS & ISSUES

WHAT THE EARLY CHURCH BELIEVED

Biblical quotations on this web site are either from the King James Version or the Douay-Rheims Version of the Bible.

©1997-2005 Chris Tesch.  This Web site first loaded on July 10, 1997.
Domain name - www.catholic-defense.com secured April 5, 1999.
Written permission is needed to copy any portion of this web site.  All rights reserved.