Don Garlington is Asking, What's It All About?

Don Garlington is asking, "What's it all about" when a group of people articulate similar views on 1) the relationship between faith to obedience (Rom. 1:5) and 2) the necessity of works during the final judgment (Rom. 2:13) but some get attacked because of these views but others don't.

Garlington states:

"I ask again, What's it all about? If the likes of Bucer, Schreiner, Candeay, Seifrid, Dunn, Wright, Bird, Mounce, Shepherd, and others of us, are in essential accord as to Rom 1:5; 2:13 (and other texts), then why does there continue to be internecine warfare among believers of the same stripe? Or, more pointedly, why is there a persistent double standard imposed on those who are more alike than different?"

Through my reading of things on Paul and justification,I have asked the same question. But it appears to me that the major reason why some people get attacked and other don't is because one group affirms the Westminster Confession view of Christ's imputation with it's underlying notion of the "covenant of works" (Scheriner, Seifrid, and Bird), while others don't (Wright, Garlington and Shepherd) [1]


[1] I am not sure about Candeay's, Bucer's, Mounce's, or Dunn's views on imputation.

"Reconciling James and Paul": Thoughts on James 2:14:26 Part 3

So how does James' thought on justification by faith and works (v.24) relate to Paul's thought on justification by faith (Rom. 4 and Gal. 2)? I think James' thought can be harmonizes with Paul's, but I also think it's important to note that James' main point is to stress that good works is important for salvation and not to give a dissertation on how faith, works, and justification (salvation) are related.

Differences in Paul and James


I think the best way to harmonies Paul and James is to note the following differences:


1. Paul and James appears to have different definitions of faith.

Robert Stein notes that "the faith of James's opponent involves merely intellectual assent to propositions such as "God is one." It is a belief that certain propositions are true. Paul's use of the words "faith" and "believe" involves faith in God and his Son. It is not merely propositional, although that element is present. It is also relational! Faith for Paul involves a relationship of grace and love toward God that results in a transformed life" [1]


2. In Romans and Gal, Paul's tension is between faith and "works of the law" (Mosaic law) and not "good works" in general.


Richard Bauckham writes " When Paul refers to "works of the law" (a phrase not used by James) it is with special, though not exclusive, reference to boundary markers, such circumcision and food laws, which symbolized Jewish exclusivity. James, on the other hand, is entirely oblivious to the question of Gentile believers in Christ, and the works he has in mind are acts of neighborly love." [2]


3. Paul seems to have a more realized understanding of justification while James has a more futuristic (eschatological) one. [3]


Conclusion


With these points in mind, I believe James is stressing the importance of the final judgment in accordance with works (Romans 2:), while Paul is stressing the importance of initial or realized justification by faith alone over and against those who are obedient to the Mosaic law [4]


[1] pg 6 of "Saved by Faith [Alone]" in Paul "Not Saved faith Alone" in James by Robert Stein.


[2] pg 1488 of Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible.


[3] See Gathercole on pg 234 in "Justification in Perspective" (McCormack), M. Seifrid on pg 182 in "Christ, our Righteousness", and pg 13 and 14 of R. Stein's article mentioned above.


[4] Even though James states a person is "justified by works" and not "will be justified by works". I think James is using proleptic language (bringing in the future verdict into present) to stress the importance of having good works in the present because the final verdict is in accordance with it.

Doug Moo: Fresh Thoughts on Justifcation in Paul and James

A couple weeks ago, Doug Moo gave a lecture at Denver Seminary on justification entitled "Fresh Thoughts on Justification in Paul and James" by which he tries to deal with the tension between justification by faith and final judgment according to works.

I found it interesting to hear Moo's changing view of justification, having an "already and not yet" aspect by which the "not yet" includes a direct judgment based on our faith. This moves Moo away from the traditional reformed-view (i.e. John Piper) by which our works or faith are only evidences that we are truly in Christ rather then having any direct connection in God's judgment. On the other hand, Moo's changing view moves him closer to people like Mark Seifrid or Simon Gathercole, who see a direct relationship to human subjectivity (faith or good works) and God's judgment with the differences being that Moo doesn't believe that we are evaluated based on our works but only through our faith.

I also found it interesting to hear a seasoned Pauline scholar say that he is still refining his thoughts justification.

Garlington Reviews Piper's Book

Don Garlington has written a review of John Piper's book The Future of Justification: Response to N.T. Wright. Garlington concludes his review with this:

"In sum, Piper’s response to Tom Wright is worth reading for those interested in the seemingly never ending debate over justification. On the couple of issues noted above, I should think that Piper has the better of the argument. But for the most part, he has failed to demonstrate that Wright is wrong. The claim that the latter’s paradigm for justification “leaves many ordinary folk not with the rewarding ‘ah-ha’ experience of illumination, but with a paralyzing sense of perplexity” (24) is simply too subjective to be a useful criterion. In a nutshell, this book is mostly a defense of traditional doctrines, with a minimum of persuasive exegesis and a heavy reliance on confessionalism.

As a pastor, it is understandable that Piper has a pastoral concern. But is Wright’s theology of justification so dire that it is apt to result in Piper’s “double tragedy?” I think not, especially given Piper’s concessions as indicated above. In my estimation, Wright is the one who has “delivered the goods” when it comes to penetrating exegesis and, dare one say, fresh insight into the letters of Paul. It is also understandable that Piper would want to allay the “confusion” he senses on the part of his church members. However, I must say that such “laypersons” would have to be theologically literate indeed to tackle this book, not least its microscopic footnotes. Otherwise, the confusion is liable to remain!

As much as anything, this book is flawed by its near phobia of anything that smacks of newness and freshness, which, for Piper, must be suspect by definition. This is why we are exhorted to be suspicious of “our love of novelty” and eager to test biblical interpretations by “the wisdom of the centuries” (38). Agreed, but surely “the wisdom of the centuries” includes our own century. Wright is precisely correct: we are “to think new thoughts arising of the text and to dare to try them out in word and deed” (quoted on 37, italics added). Dr. Piper would do well to remember Matthew 13:52: “And he said to them, ‘Therefore every scribe who has been trained for the kingdom of heaven is like a householder who brings out of his treasure things new and old’.” I would say the appropriate response to matters “new” and “fresh” is not skepticism but the Beroean spirit of searching the Scriptures to see if these things are so (Acts 17:11). "

Final Thoughts on Piper, Wright, and Justification Part 4

In conclusion:

1. Piper’s book, “The Future of Justification”, is a great example how to engage in theological debates.

2. Piper’s and Wright’s views of justification differs mainly in that Piper believes in imputation and Wright doesn’t

3. Piper believes Wright's view of justification won't give 1) Christ sufficient glory and 2)provide Christians adequate assurance for salvation (I disagree) .

4. I wished Piper's new book would have engaged more with the thoughts of Don Garlington in order to establish his idea of imputation- the idea that we need more than forgiveness from the cross to satisfy God’s holiness and perfection.

5. Piper is concerned with Wright's view of the final justification because goods works are directly connected to it and not because works are earning our salvation.

6. Wright's view of works and the final justification appears to be close to Simon Gathercole's views although he believes in imputation

7. The exegetical basis for the doctrine of Christ's imputation is very complex (See Simon Gathercole's quote)

With that, I glad to say I am done with this topic. In the end, I think both Piper with his "Christian Hedonism" and Wright with his "creation/Israel/Christ" story approach, are tremendous blessings to the church. So go read and enjoy both of them!!!

Final Thoughts on Piper, Wright, and Justification Part 3

Before the book, I thought Piper was critical of Wright's view of the final justification because he thought Wright was advocating a view of “merit-based” salvation by which our good works earns God's final verdict. But this isn't the case for Piper clearly states that this is not his problem with Wright’s view. Piper, reciting Wright's understanding of the final judgment, states:


"In other words, Paul believes that all men will face a final judgment (law-court) in which people will "be vindicated, resurrected, shown to be the covenant people"- this is, justified by works. When he says "by works," he does not mean by legalism or by merit or by earning, but by the obedience of our lives that is produced by the Holy Spirit through" (pg.104)


So, what is Piper's problem with Wright's view of the final judgment? I believe Piper doesn't want good works to have a direct connection (basis) with our final vindication, which he believes will prevent the" double tragedy" of not glorifying Christ properly and hindering assurance of salvation (pg.186 -187) [1]. For Piper sees good works as having an indirect connection with our final vindication, that is he sees "the necessity of obedience not as any part of the basis of our justification, but strictly as the evidence and confirmation of our faith in Christ whose blood and righteousness is the sole basis of our justification" (pg. 110). A diagram of Piper's view would look like this:

WORKS --->(evidences of being in Christ) --->CHRIST--->(basis of final justification)--->FINAL JUSTIFICATION

And Piper believes that Wright seems to be advocating a view of good works that have a direct connection (basis) for our final vindication (pg. 125-128). A diagram of Wright's view would look like this:

WORKS---> FINAL JUSTIFICATION

(I know this linear diagram above is too simplistic, and it doesn't take into account other elements of Wright's thought so to do some justice to him, it's important to note 3 things that relate to his view of the final justification: 1) Christians are connected to Christ's death and resurrection which provide forgiveness of sins and new life. 2) Christians are given the Holy Spirit to change their hearts so that we can have faith and good works 3) A Christian's future justification is based on the pattern of one's life is certain because of present justification by faith (Assurance of Salvation)) [2].

Again, it's important to note that Piper problem with Wright isn't that obedience is "earning" our final vindication (pg.104), but his direct connection between good works and the final justification- in Piper's view good works are only evidence that we are in Christ, who God looks at for our final justification.

My personally thoughts on this matter is that both these options are acceptable. For no one is saying that our works are meriting or earning our salvation and both seem to believe in 1) unconditional election 2) substitutional atonement and 3) perseverance of the saints.

But what about the direct connection with good works and the final justification? This issue must ultimately be addressed exegetically, but for now I take some comfort, knowing that conservatives like Simon Gathercole, who believes in imputation, appears to see a direct connection between goods works and the final vindication. And it also seems that Piper's indirect view of works just pushes forward the process of God's examining our good works, which in his case, is to see if we are in Christ which then allows us to be justified on the basis of him rather than Wright's view of works directly effecting our final justification (Again, the issue involved isn't related to merit).

Finally, what about imputation? This is a difficult issue and once again I receive more comfort from Gathercole, who states:

"A statement by Robert Gundry on the (non) imputation of Christ's righteousness in particular has sparked a response by John Piper, and Gundry and Don Carson have also entered the same debate from different stances. It is not my purpose here to enter this debate. But it should be said that there is clearly a great deal of diversity of opinion on the matter. This is, of course, not sufficient in itself to let discretion take the better part of valor. But in case, the diversity seems to arise out of the complexity of the New Testament evidence, not because one side is particularly hidebound to tradition and the other wallowing in the desire for novelty or for doctrine that is more amendable to culture. I would not myself deny this traditional understanding of imputation. Still, because of the complexity of the issue, I would propose that the requirement that is is specifically Christ's righteousness that is imputed to believers should not feature on evangelical statement of faith. To make such a finely balanced point an article of faith seems a dangerous strategy. Nonetheless, it is very clear that justification is still Christological through and through. Both the cross and the present action of Christ are the vital grounds of justification."

[1] See my pervious post on my thoughts on Piper's "double tragedy"
[2] See Wright's "The Shape of Justification" and "Justification, "The Bibical Basis and it's Relevance for Contemporay Evangelicalism".
[3] pg 223 of "Justification in Perspective: Historical Development and Contemporary Challenges", edited by Bruce McCormack

Final Thoughts on Piper, Wright, and Justification Part 2

With this being said, I still don't think Wright's view of future justification is as dangerous as Piper thinks. Piper articulates his two main concerns (" the double tragedy") at the end of his book (pg.186 -187):

1. The lack of imputation of Christ’s active obedience will lead to good works "nullify the very beauty of Christ and his designed to display (pg. 187)" because it might try to add to "the perfection and beauty and all sufficiency of Christ's obedience in securing the reality that God is for us" (pg 187) Basically, Piper is saying that Christ will not be glorified if we deny imputation. I won't comment too much on this, but I find Piper's statement to be” out of bounds” for this type of conversation because both Piper and Wright want to glorify Christ in their thinking but differ on their interpretation on how God seeks to glorify Christ. One could (wrongly) say that Piper is dishonoring Christ by attributing him with something he didn't do like give us his perfect obedience. I don't find these kinds of statements very helpful in these type of theological discussions.

2. The lack of imputation of Christ’s active obedience will lead to the works of love to be "severed from their root in the Christ-secured assurance that God is totally for us" (pg.187), that is Piper believes it will lead to the lack of Christian assurance of salvation. Two things in response to Piper's statement, first, Wright articulates a view of how to obtain assurance that is practically similar to Piper, that is, they both say people should look to Christ not their good works for confidence in their salvation. Second, Wright's view of justification seems to be inadequate for assurance only because Piper believes that God demands for perfect obedience must be satisfied by two things: 1) Christ's death, bring forgiveness and 2) Christ's perfect obedience imputing righteousness to believers. But I don't think Piper has decisively established the latter point- the need for more than forgiveness to satisfy God’s holiness and perfection, even though his current book wasn’t aimed to rehash all of the arguments he made in his previous book, “Counted Righteous in Christ” which seeks to establish the doctrine of imputation. I would have like to see Piper more engaged in Don Garlington’s criticisms [1]. I thought it was interesting that Garlington is not cited once in Piper’s new book.

[1] See Garlington’s articles entitled: 1) Imputation or Union with Christ? A Response to John Piper 2) Imputation or Union with Christ? A Rejoinder to John Piper

[2] See Piper’s brief response to Garlington’s first article here.

Final Thoughts on Piper, Wright, and Justification Part 1

I was going to write a long review on Piper's new book, The Future of Justification: A Response to N.T. Wright, so that I could lay my previous thoughts on these issues to rest:

1. "The Doer of the Law Who Will be Justified": Romans 2:13

2. Piper and Wright on “Future Grace”

3. FAKE Interview with John Piper and N.T. Wright Part 1

4. FAKE Interview with John Piper and N.T. Wright Part 2

5. Piper, Wright, and Justification Part 1

But I didn't write anything because I figured Wright would probably respond in his own words.

Recently, a commenter asked me if I felt that "Piper's depiction of Wright's view was correct in Chapter 8, which is entitled ""Does Wright say with Different Words What the Reformed Tradition means by "Imputed Righteousness"? So I figured I would share a little bit more of my thoughts on Piper's book, particularly as it relates to the question above. My short answer is "yes", Piper correctly shows that Wright doesn't believe in the traditional idea of imputation.

Piper summarizes the traditional Reformed of imputation on pages 124:

"In historic Reformed exegesis, (1) a person is union with Christ by faith alone. In this union, (2) the believer is identified with Christ in his (a) wrath-absorbing death, (b) his perfect obedience to the Father, and (c) his vindication- securing resurrection. All of these are reckoned-that is, imputed- to the believer in Christ. On this basis, (3) the "dead," "righteous,'" raised” believer is accepted and assured of final vindication and eternal fellowship with God.

Then Piper correctly a point out that (2b) is missing from Wright's theology, the belief that Christ's perfect obedience is imputed to believers (pg 125). From this, Piper believes that Wright seems to be closer to the idea of impartation (inner transformation) rather than (Christ's) imputation as the basis for our final vindication (pg. 125-128)

I believe all this is correct. In my reading of Wright, he doesn't appear to believe the idea of Christ's perfect obedience to the law being imputed to believer, this is plainly seen in Piper citation of Wright's lecture "Paul in Different Perspectives: Lecture 1" on pages 121- 123.

Gathercole and Justification Part 3

Simon Gathercole has an interesting view on God's final judgment. First, Gathercole believes that Paul’s Jewish contemporaries anticipated in a final judgment based on works.

“[T]he function of works, then, is, for Paul’s Jewish contemporaries, not primarily to mark them out as distinct from Gentiles but to secure vindication at the eschatological judgment. This is what is most immediately in view in Romans 3:19-10: Paul is opposing the idea that his Jewish contemporaries will be vindicated by God at the final judgment on the basis of a wholehearted obedience to the law. [pg. 239]

Secondly, Gathercole thinks Paul's principal disagreement with his Jewish contemporaries is the idea that sinful man (the flesh) can’t receive “God’s transforming grace” not that the final judgment is based on works.

“Paul particular complaint is that this impossible for the flesh, for the sinful person who has not received God’s transforming grace in Christ. Paul is not opposed in principle to the idea of final vindication on the basis of obedience; in this respect he agrees with his Jewish interlocutor (Rom. 2:7-10) What he disputes is the ability of the flesh to obey sufficiently to attain this justification (Rom. 8:3,7) [pg.239]

“In the light of this, then, Paul can be seen to be opposing the confidence of Jews in final vindication on the basis of obedience to the law. Again, this is not because he disagrees with the eschatological framework of his Jewish contemporaries or because he thinks obedience is unimportant but, rather, because he views obedience to Torah as impossible without the transforming power of Christ and the Spirit. [pg.240]

Lastly, Gathercole has some interesting thoughts on the relationship between “initial justification” and “the final judgment”, with the link being perseverance.

“Can this diversity, even within Paul himself, be accounted for? If can as long as we do not have a monolithic conception of justification whereby it only ever refers in the New Testament to the justification of the ungodly. A particularly important clue comes in the Jesus tradition from Matthew 12. The New Testament does not offer two ways of salvation, one by faith and one by works. Rather, the category of those who are justified by faith is coextensive with those will be justified on the final day after a whole life of perseverance. The two groups are identical; there are none who begin in faith but, as a result of not obeying, are not vindicated. Similarly, for Paul, it does not make sense to speak those who have somehow managed to obey outside faith. Obedience is the “the obedience of faith” (Rom. 1:5, etc.). [pg.235]



[1] These quotes are taken from the book "Justification in Perspectives: Historical Developments and Contemporary Challenges" edited by Bruce McCormack

Gathercole and Justification Part 2

In my opinion, Gathercole has a unique view of how God justifies the ungodly. Normally, I think of justification as occurring after regeneration and faith, but Gathercole seems to have justification as creating the latter two.

Gathercole, speaking on the “potential dangerous” of Protestant view, writes:

“The principal trouble is if one supposes that God can declare something to be the case (namely, that the sinner is righteous) but that in reality the opposite state of affairs persists: in God’s eyes, that believer is justus (“righteous”), but his or her real being is fundamentally as peccator (“sinner”). We should more properly consider that God’s “speech-acts” are what determine reality; they do not merely create an alternative, Platonic reality. If God declares a sinner to be righteous, then he or she really is righteous. Reality at the forensic level (justus) is no less real then the reality made up of human actions (peccator).” [pg. 226]

Later Gathercole writes:

“In the light of the explanation of justification as a declaration with creative power, it is proper to see it as constituting a true definition of the being of the believer. The believer has not had an infusion of moral righteousness but is determined by God- in the cross- to be righteous. The righteousness here should not be understood either as an infused moral power or as covenant membership (as we will see in discussion with Wright below). According to Paul, when we are reckoned righteous, it is not that we have done what God requires, such that he is recognizing the status quo. Rather, even as we are ungodly, he declares us righteous. By God’s creative word, then, we stand as embodying everything that God requires. In our identity and being we have been determined righteous by God”. [pg 227].

Towards the end of the Gathercole’s essay, he states that “God’s creative word” gives faith in order to allow Christians to meet God’s entire requirement:

“Paul says “yes” to the alternative “instrumental cause” of faith, which he understands as trusting God’s promise. By divine decision, this reckoned as righteousness. That is to say, the believer is reckoned as having accomplished all that God requires. Justification then is not merely a reckoning as being in covenant membership. It is something bigger- God’s creative act whereby, through divine determination, the believer has done everything that God requires. [pg 240]

Seifrid and Alien Righteousness

"Faith spans the gap between the present and the day of judgment. It is the true worship, which sets the believer in constant movement forwards, and which counts as righteousness before God (Phil. 3 verses 3, 9). Paul has it as his aim 'that I might be found in him not having my own righteousness which is from the law, but the righteousness which through "the faith of Christ", the righteousness from God on the basis of faith' (verse 9). Here he has in view the day when God will examine him, and hopes to meet that judgment with the 'righteousness of faith'. The righteousness Paul desires come from God, 'on the basis of faith'. Faith, not the righteousness from the law, constitutes piety before God. Yet this righteousness accorded to faith is an 'alien righteousness', which does not belong to Paul as his righteousness from the law once did. Faith and its righteousness from the law once did. Faith and its righteousness are present only "in Christ'. The 'faith of Christ' is faith which has its source in him, in his death and resurrection (verse 9). Paul's thought here is very close to his discussion of Abraham's faith in Romans 4. The 'righteousness from God on the basis faith' is at once absolute gift and recompense of obedience. "

- from Mark Seifrid's book "Christ, our Righteousness" pg. 90

Gathercole and Justification Part 1

In Simon Gathercole’s essay “The Doctrine of Justification in Paul and Beyond” [1], he describes a view of the righteous that is “found in Christ”and how it relates to justification that is different to what I am accustomed to. Normally, I am use to hearing Christ’s fulfilling all of the law in order to earn salvation (Christ’s active obedience) [2].

In Gathercole’s “Forgiveness and Justification” selection, his view of how righteous relates to justification becomes clearer through his equating the term “righteous” with “forgiveness”. He writes while commenting on Romans 4:1-5:

“Despite numerous attempts by a wide variety of very different interpreters to avoid the face, Paul seems here to be defining the reckoning of righteousness as forgiveness of wrongs, covering sins, and not reckoning sin.” [pg 224].

From there, Gathercole explains why defining “righteousness” as “forgiveness” is tough for some people to do.

“The reason for the difficulty that interpreters have with this idea stems, it seems, from understanding forgiveness in too minimalistic terms. It is sometimes regarded merely as wiping the slate clean, which leaves us at zero-where we have no record of sin against us but no positive righteousness either. Paul, however, combines forgiveness with blessed and justification (Rom. 4:6-8) and also with reconciliation and justification (2 Cor. 5:18-21). Forgiveness appears, then not merely as a clearing of the account; it has (and there is a thoroughly Pauline mixing of metaphors) relational contours as well. Justification is not forgiveness in the sense of forgiveness of a debt in abstraction from a relationship (e.g. a waiver of a debt to a bank). Rather, it is forgiveness of a personal wrong (disobedience and offense against God’s glory), such that forgiveness of the personal wrong means restoration of the relationship. And restoration of the relationship is tantamount to talking of divine acceptance, since the initiative needs to come from the divine side. There has perhaps been too much separation of images such as justification, forgiveness, and reconciliation when such a separation does not really seem to work with Paul: for him, one image often suggests another (Rom.3:24-26;5:8-9; 2 Cor.5:17-21)” [pg 225]

[1] This essay is found in the book "Justification in Perspectives: Historical Developments and Contemporary Challenges" edited by Bruce McCormack

[2] Gathercole in discussing the current debates surrounding imputation states plainly that he holds to traditional view of imputation of Christ’s righteousness. See pg 223

Iustitia Dei Part 6: Protestant's View of Justification (1530-1730)

1. Justification is defined as the forensic declaration that believers are righteous, rather than the process by which they are made righteous, involving a change in their status rather than in their nature.

2. A delibrate and systematic distinction is made between justification (the external act by which God declares the sinner to be righteous) and sanctification or regeneration (the internal process of renewal within humans). Although the two are treated as inseparable, a notional distinction is thus drawn where none was conceded before.

3. Justifying righteousness, or the formal cause of justification,is defined as the alien rightousness of Christ, external to humans and imputed to them, rather than a righteousness which is inherent to them, located within them, or which ins any sense may be said to belong to them. God's judgement in justification is therefore synthetic rather than analytic, in that there is no righteousness, within humans which can be considered to be the basis of the divine verdict of justification; the righteousness upon which such a judgement is necessarily based ins external to humans.

[1] pg 212-213

Iustitia Dei Part 5: Justification and the Sacraments

"In conclusion, it may be stated that the medieval period saw that justification of the sinner firmly linked to the sacramental life of the church, a sound theological link having been established between justification and the sacraments. This linking of justification to the sacramental system of the church has profound theological and pastoral consequences, of which the most important is the tendency to assert iustificatio extra ecclesiam non est. Although the theologians of the medieval period were aware that God was not bound by the sacraments, the tendency to emphasise the reliablity of the established order of salvation, of which the sacramental system is part, can only have served to convey the impression that the sinner who wishes to be reconciled God must, de facto, seek the assistance of a priest"

- Alister McGrath pg. 127 of Iustifitia Dei

Active and Passive Justification

In the past, Reformed theologians made a distinction between active and passive justification according to McGarth's book,IUSTITIA DEI. McGrath commenting on both: "The distinction refers to the act of God by which the sinner is justified (active justification), and the subjective feelings of grace subsequently evoked in the conscience of the justified sinner(passive). God acts to justify and humanity is passive in receiving this justification. The importance of the distinction lies in the fact that God's act of justification, in which the sinner is declared righteous, is perfect, accomplished once and for all, whereas the realisation by humans of this state of justifcation is imperfect, in so far as it is based upon the feeling of grace evoked in this conscience" (pg. 271)

Therefore, it seems that Reformed theologians believed that regeneration (if I can safely say faith comes from "regeneration") came both prior and posterior to justification with the "divine/objective" justification coming before regeneration. McGrath states: "the Reformed theologians were able to state that faith was posterior to objective, and prior to subjective justification" )pg. 272)

Bruce McCormack and Calvin

In Bruce McCormack’s article “What’s at Stake in Current Debates over Justification?” the author notes that the (Reformer’s view of justification) "break with Medieval Catholicism was actually less than complete due to a residual commitment to Medieval Catholic understandings of regeneration and a shaky grasp of the relationship of justification and regeneration.”(pg. 84) based on the Reformer’s failure to directly engage in ontological issues.

McCormack cites that both Luther (pg.94) and Calvin failed in this regard. What is particularly interesting is to hear Calvin articulate a relationship between justification and regeneration that has the latter FOLLOWING the former (I always thought Calvin believed regeneration came first).

McCormack writes “Calvin makes justification to be logically prior to-and the foundation of – that bestowal of the sort of adoption by means of which the believer is regenerated. On this view, regeneration would have to be seen as the logical consequence of the divine verdict registered in justification. In sum, Calvin’s understanding of justification is strictly forensic or judicial in character. It is a matter of a divine judgment, a verdict of acquittal. And the means by which it is accomplished is imputation”.

Even though Calvin’s states this plainly, McCormack later notes that Calvin became less clear of the relationship of justification before regeneration in his other writings on soteriology (pg 101 -103) and Eucharistic feeding (pg.104). McCormack notes that lack of clarity was a result of Calvin refusing to engage in ontological questions (pg .105).

Iustitia Dei Part 4: Gabriel Biel and Pactum

I wonder if Gabriel Biel is the first covenant theologian?


"Gabriel Biel's doctrine of justification is based upon the concept of a pactum (covenant) between God and humanity which defines the conditions which humans must meet if they are to be justified, as well as emphasising the divine reliability. The present order of salvation, although radically contingent, is nevertheless totally reliable and strictly immutable. Thus God, having freely and of his liberalitas determined to enter into such a binding contract with humanity, is now obliged to respect the terms of that covenant. God gives grace to those who 'do their best', precisely because of God's decision and promise to behave in this way."

pg 87 of Iustitia Dei by Alister McGrath

Iustitia Dei Part 3: Medieval Period

"From its beginning to its end, the medieval period saw justification as involving a real change in the sinner - an understanding which precludes any distinction between iustification and regeneratio. The processus iustificationis includes regeneration or renewal as one of its integral elements, making any such distinction intensely problematic. The notional distinciton that came to emerge in the sixteenth century between iustificatio and regeneratio (or sanctificatio) provides one of the best ways of distingushing between Catholic and Protestant understanding of jusification, making the Reformers' discontinunity with the earlier western theological tradition."

-pg 71-72 Iustiitia Dei by Alister McGrath

Iustitia Dei Part 2

Augustine of Hippo view of justification:

"Justification is therefore essentially a "making right", a restoration of every facet of the relationship between God and humanity, the rectitude of which constitues iustitia. Iustitia is not conceived primarily in legal or forensic categories, but transcends them, encompassing the 'right-wissing' of the God-human relationship in its many aspects: the relationship of God to humankind, of humans to their fellows, and of humans to their environment. Justification is about 'making just'-establishing the recitiude of the created order to according to the divine intention. Although it is clear that justification has legal and moral ramifications, given the wide scope o f Augustine's concept of iustitia, it is not primarily a legal or moral concept" [1]

[1] pg 51 of Iustitia Dei by Alister McGrath

Iustitia Dei Part 1

"For the first 350 years of the history of the church, its teaching on justification was inchoate and ill-defined. There had never been a serious controversy over the matter, such as those which had so stimulated the development of Christology over the period. The patristic inexactiude and occassional apparent naivety on the question merely reflects the absence of a controversy which would force more precise definition of the terms used. If the first centuries of the western theological tradition appear be characterised by a "work-righteousness' approach to justification, it must be emphasised that this was quite innocent of the overtones which would later be associated with it" [1]

[1] pg 38 of "Iustitia Dei" by Alister McGrath