Justification¹

1. From the Fathers to the Reformation

We are familiar with the concise, scriptural definition of The Shorter Catechism: “Justification is an act of God’s free grace, wherein He pardoneth all our sins, and accepteth us as righteous in His sight, only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and received by faith alone” (Ans 33). James Buchanan explains the term as meaning “man’s acceptance with God, or his being regarded and treated as righteous in His sight – as the object of His favour and not of His wrath, of His blessing and not of His curse”.²

Accordingly this is not man’s inward righteousness, his sanctification; it is his legal standing before God. The question is: Does God now accept the sinner, or does he still stand condemned before his holy Judge? Louis Berkhof brings out this point clearly with his definition: “Justification is a judicial act of God, in which He declares, on the basis of the righteousness of Jesus Christ, that all the claims of the law are satisfied with respect to the sinner”.³ Justification is not the infusing of righteousness into a sinner; it is appropriate to use these words in describing regeneration and sanctification but not justification. In the same category as justification is condemnation; they are opposites, but they are both legal concepts. So John Owen points out that “condemnation is not the infusing a sentence upon a man with respect unto his wickedness”. Then he comes to his main point: “No more is justification the change of a person from inherent unrighteousness unto righteousness by the infusion of a principle of grace”, but the passing of a sentence declaring “him to be righteous”.⁴

It is vitally important, as we will see, to keep this distinction between justification and sanctification very clearly in view; in God’s revelation of religious truth in Scripture these are distinct ideas. The Westminster Confession stresses that sinners are justified, “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, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone” (11:1). Much of the doctrinal confusion that has plagued the Christian era has arisen through a failure to keep distinct the two ideas of justification and sanctification.

One other general point at this stage: Buchanan notes what is “charac-

¹The first part of a paper given by the Editor at the 2009 Theological Conference.

²Buchanan, Justification, Banner of Truth Trust reprint, 1961, p 31.

³Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, Banner of Truth, 1974, p 513.

⁴The Works of John Owen, Goold edition, 1851, vol 5, p 135.

teristic of all human systems as distinguished from the divine method of justification”; it is “self-righteousness or self-sufficiency in one or other of its manifold forms, which are all, more or less, opposed to dependence on the grace of God”. This error, he says, is universal, and manifests itself in human beings in three distinct ways: (1) “in reliance on the general goodness of their character and moral conduct”, (2) “in their observance of religious forms and ceremonies, as a compensation for any shortcoming in moral obedience”, (3) “in their possession of peculiar privileges, viewed as special tokens of God’s favour”.⁵

With these points in mind, let us now proceed to consider how the doctrine of justification has fared at the hands of the Church – and, in particular, its theologians – in the period since the Apostles. The Fathers, the Church leaders during the centuries immediately following the Apostles, do not provide an elaborate exposition of the doctrine of justification. But in their writings we find indications of what they believed on the subject. For instance, in the Epistle to Diognetus, we read: “In whom was it possible that we, transgressors and ungodly as we were, could be justified, save in the Son of God alone? O sweet interchange, O unsearchable operation, O unexpected benefit, that the transgression of many should be hidden in one righteous Person and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors!”⁶

However, after Constantine established Christianity as the religion of the Roman Empire, persecution became a thing of the past and professing Christians began to lose their sense of sin. Accordingly they no longer felt their need of an effective remedy; they lost sight of the significance of the blood of Christ and turned their backs on the doctrine of justification by faith.

There can be no doubt that the unscriptural teachings of Romanism on this subject can in part be traced back to the writings of Augustine of Hippo (354-430); he was the greatest of the Fathers and did much to oppose the teachings of Pelagius – the British monk who denied original sin and maintained that man has power to save himself. However, Buchanan argues that, while Augustine’s use of the term justification included the idea of sanctification, he did not confound the two ideas. Augustine’s “was not a mind”, Buchanan insists, “that could confound things so different as the guilt of sin and its defilement, the remission of sin and the renewal of the sinner, a man’s external relation to God and his inherent spiritual character. And . . . there is no evidence to show that he made a sinner’s forgiveness and acceptance with God to rest on his own inherent righteousness as its procuring cause.”⁷

⁵ Justification, p 79.

⁶ Quoted in Buchanan, Justification, p 99 (the writer of the Epistle is unknown).

⁷ Justification, pp 105-6.

Buchanan describes the views of Anselm on this subject (died 1109) as “thoroughly Protestant” and quotes Bernard of Clairvaux (died 1115) saying, “The Apostle says, ‘If one died for all, then were all dead,’ meaning thereby to intimate that the satisfaction made by One should be imputed to all, even as One conversely bore the sins of all”.⁸ The most prominent of mediaeval theologians was Thomas Aquinas (died 1274), whose massive writings have been fundamental for later Roman Catholic thinking. His idea of justification included three components: the forgiveness of sin, the infusion of grace, and the turning of the will to God. And in the theology of the Middle Ages the justification of a sinner became dependent on the grace that is infused into him; further, the good works which result from the infused grace have merit before God. It is that merit which leads to pardon and acceptance with God. There was even a kind of merit in doing one’s best; what it amounted to was that people could have some claim on God for spiritual blessings on the basis of their good works.

And in baptism, it was said, God first renews the soul and then forgives, completely removing all the effects of original sin – though, if the Baptism is to be thus effective in adults, they must be properly prepared by exercising the seven virtues of faith, fear, hope, love, penitence, with a purpose to receive the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, and a purpose to lead a new and obedient life – a whole series of good works. We may note the form in which the Roman teaching on Baptism is put in the present-day Catechism of the Catholic Church: “By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin”; and, further: “Baptism not only purifies from all sins, but also makes the neophyte [that is, the one who has just been baptized] ‘a new creature’, an adopted son of God, who has become a ‘partaker of the divine nature’, member of Christ and co-heir with Him, and a temple of the Holy Spirit”.⁹ This is what is claimed to take place merely as a result of the priest taking some water, sprinkling it on the person and repeating the requisite words.

It was in such a climate that the sale of indulgences flourished in the early sixteenth century – people were given the impression that a monetary contribution would lead to the forgiveness of their sins; it was even possible for them to deliver themselves from the agonies of purgatory on account of sins they had not yet committed. And it was when these indulgences began to be sold among his own people that Martin Luther prepared the 95 theses that he nailed to the door of the Wittenberg church, which was effectively the beginning of the Reformation.

⁸Justification, pp 110-11.

⁹Catechism of the Catholic Church, Geoffrey Chapman, 1994, paras 1263,1265.

Luther had previously come to realise, through painful personal experience, that the way of salvation which God has provided for sinners, is by faith in Jesus Christ, not through the ceremonies of the Church. He had suffered terribly at the thought of the righteousness of God, which he had understood as God dealing righteously with the sinner – which for him could imply nothing else but God’s inflexible severity in punishing sin.

But Luther relates his deliverance: “At last I came to apprehend it thus: through the gospel is revealed the righteousness which avails with God, a righteousness by which God, in His mercy and compassion, justifies us, as it is written: ‘The just shall live by faith’. Straightway I felt as if I were born anew; it was as if I had found the door of paradise thrown wide open. The expression, ‘the righteousness of God’, which I so much hated before became now dear and precious. . . . I see the Father – inflexible in justice, yet delighting in mercy – ‘just’ beyond all my terrified conscience could picture Him; He ‘justifies’ me a sinner.”¹⁰ God had showed the future Reformer – with whom the idea of justification by faith is so closely associated – that sinners are saved by faith alone, not by their good works.

So during the winter of 1515-16 Luther, lecturing on Romans 3:28, was declaring to his students: “We hold, recognise and affirm, we conclude from what is said that a man is justified, reckoned righteous before God, whether Greek or Jew, by faith, apart from the works of the law, without the help and necessity of the works of the law”.¹¹ The Lord had led him to a thorough understanding of the doctrine of justification, which William Cunningham describes as “the great fundamental distinguishing doctrine of the Reformation . . . regarded by all the Reformers as of primary and paramount importance. The leading charge which they adduced against the Church of Rome was that she had corrupted and perverted the doctrine of Scripture upon this subject in a way that was dangerous to the souls of men; and it was mainly by the exposition, enforcement and application of the true doctrine of God’s Word in regard to it that they assailed and overturned the leading doctrines and practices of the papal system.”¹²

Thomas M’Crie was impressed by two particular points in the writings of the Reformers: “The first is the exact conformity between the doctrine maintained by them respecting the justification of sinners and that of the Apostles. The second is the surprising harmony which subsisted among them on this important doctrine. On some questions respecting the sacraments and the external government and discipline of the church, they differed; but on

¹⁰Quoted in Buchanan, Justification, p 428.

¹¹Quoted in J V Fesko, Justification, P & R Publishing, 2008, p 20.

¹²Historical Theology, Banner of Truth reprint, 1969, vol 2, p 1.

the article of free justification, Luther and Zwingli, Melancthon and Calvin, Cranmer and Knox spoke the very same language. This was not owing to their having read each other’s writings, but because they copied from the same divine original . . . . Some of their successors, by giving way to speculation, gradually lost sight of this distinguishing badge of the Reformation and landed at last in Arminianism, which is nothing else but the popish doctrine in a Protestant dress.”¹³