Justification Controversy
New Testament Synthesis
By: Bruce Landry
I. What is the Controversy over Justification Page 1
II. The Biblical Texts of this Controversy Page 5
III. Conclusion Page 11
Justification Controversy
By: Bruce Landry
I. What is the Controversy over Justification
I had no idea at the beginning of this research that there was such a diversion of thought on the idea of Justification by faith alone. Some believe that justification or the removal of sin in our lives is simply accomplished in the accepting of Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. Others believe that we are only justified by faith and work. We will hopefully look at some of the differing views and allow you to draw a valid conclusion from this presentation.
Martin Luther recognized this controversial premise, while professor of sacred theology at the University of Wittenberg. Luther began to study the Epistle to the Romans in order to expound it to his students. This was the beginning of this controversy in the Churches who call themselves Christian today.
Soon a great change came over his thinking. He later wrote regarding these events:
I grasped the truth that the righteousness of God is that righteousness whereby, through grace and sheer mercy, He justifies us by faith. Thereupon I felt myself to be reborn and to have gone through open doors into paradise. The whole of Scripture took on a new meaning, and whereas before “the righteousness of God” had filled me with hate, now it became unto me inexpressively sweet in greater love. This passage of Paul became to me a gateway to heaven.
With this discovery the Reformation began and centuries of darkness began to roll away. The evangelical doctrine swept through nation after nation. In a short space of time much of Europe had been won to the Reformation and the greatest revival since Pentecost, both in scope and importance, had taken place. But what was proposed would never be forgotten if true and is at the center of this great movement and this controversy between orthodox Catholicism, Russian Orthodoxy, or Greek Orthodoxy and Reformed believers. This was the truth that sinful man, apart from his own works and by simple trust in Christ alone, could obtain pardon for his sins and acceptance with his God. This doctrine is called justification by faith or justification by faith alone. However, this great doctrine, once the battle cry of the Reformation, has become sadly neglected over the past one hundred years or so, and needs to be examined afresh and made prominent in the Christian’s proclamation and witness.
The opponents of the doctrine contained in this passage distort the whole plan of salvation.
Against Rome’s doctrine of justification as a medical process, by way of sanctification or good works, Luther writes: “One is justified not by doing what is right; but he who is justified, does what is right” (W 2, 492. Seeberg, 298. Non iusta faciendo, iustus fit, sed factus iustus, iustus facit iusta). Again: “Divine grace does so much that we are fully and wholly declared righteous before God…it receives us altogether into the favor [of God] for the sake of Christ, our Intercessor and Mediator” (E 63, 124. Seeberg, 301). To say that God justifies the sinner means, according to Luther, that “He forgives us our sins for the sake of Christ in whom we believe” (ibid). Luther often quotes the statement of St. Augustine as a “beautiful saying”: “In Baptism there is remitted all our sin, not as if it no longer existed, but that it is not imputed” (W 7, 344. Seeberg, 306f). That “sin is not imputed” is for Luther the essence of justification.
They deny that there is any indissoluble connection between those successive steps of grace, which are here united by the Apostle, and that these different expressions relate to the same individuals. They suppose that God may have foreknown and predestinated to life some whom He does not call, and that He effectually calls some whom He does not justify, and that He justifies others whom He does not glorify. This contradicts the express language of this passage, which declares that those whom He foreknew He predestinated, that those whom He predestinated them He also called, that those whom He called them He also justified, and that those whom He justified them He also glorified. It is impossible to find words that could more forcibly and precisely express the indissoluble connection that subsists between all the parts of this series, or show that they are the same individuals that are spoken of throughout.... In the passage before us, we see that all the links of that chain by which man is drawn up to heaven, are inseparable. In the whole of it there is nothing but grace, whether we contemplate its beginning, its middle, or its end.”
Martin Luther and the Orthodox Roman, Russian and Greek views stand solidly in opposition to one another and there has been little to change these views.
Another interesting view came from looking into Emanuel Swedenborg of the New
Jerusalem Church. Swedenborg shot some of his sharpest arrows at the Reformation
doctrine of justification by faith only.
He evidently never understood this doctrine; his mind was not deep enough to grasp its forensical or judicial aspect; faith he took as fides implicita, a blind faith of the church, and he always seemed to think that the doctrine of justification by faith only was a contempt of good works and a teaching that good works were not necessary at all. He did not understand that man is not saved by works, nor by faith and works, but by a faith with works, a faith that includes and leads to good works. He never seems to have read Rom 4:5, where we read: “Now to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” Swedenborg says in his work on Divine Providence: “I have heard Luther, with whom I have sometimes conversed in the spiritual world, curse Solifidianism, and say that, when he established it, he was warned by an angel of the Lord not to do it.” This sentence contains four untruths: He never conversed with Luther, but he thought he did; Luther never cursed in heaven; Luther never cursed the doctrine of justification by faith only, for that is clearly taught in the Word; and no angel ever warned Luther not to teach justification by faith only.
II. The Biblical Texts of this Controversy
We will now look at the biblical text that is the key points of this controversy.
Romans Chapter 3
21But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; 22Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: 23For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 24Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 25Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; 26To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. 27Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. 28Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law. 29Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also: 30Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. 31Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
Chapter 4
1What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? 2For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. 3For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. 4Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. 5But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. 6Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, 7Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. 8Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
9Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. 10How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. 11And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: 12And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised. 13For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. 14For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect: 15Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression. 16Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
17(As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were. 18Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be. 19And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sara’s womb: 20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; 21And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. 22And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.
23Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; 24But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; 25Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.
Chapter 5
1Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: 2By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. 3And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience; 4And patience, experience; and experience, hope: 5And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.
6For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. 7For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. 8But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. 9Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. 10For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. 11And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.
In the above chapters Paul starts by stating that we are justified through our faith or belief on Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior (v.21-22). Paul states we are justified freely, without any payment or works required too obtain salvation through Jesus Christ (v. 23-24). God himself sent himself in the person of Jesus Christ to be the satisfaction or propitiation for the sins of those who would believe on Jesus Christ. This allowed God to be just and the justifier of those who believe on Jesus Christ (v.25-27). Paul concludes in v. 28 that all believers are justified or declared righteous by faith completely apart from works or deeds.
Paul continues his discourse by showing that Abraham was justified by faith in the promise of God. If Abraham’s work had justified him, then he would have truly had something to boast about. Paul then goes on to give us the reason that anyone who has been blessed by the graciousness of God should strive to do His will. That is because of the great debt we owed that was forgiven through God’s grace alone. In chapter 5 Paul answers two questions with which he was often confronted as he preached on grace, the first had to do with habitual sin in the Christian life ( v. 1), the second less frequent, occasional acts of sin (v. 15).
The words “What shall we say then?” in Chapter 6:1, takes the reader back to 5:20–21: “Where sin abounded, grace abounded more, in order that as sin reigned, thus also the aforementioned grace might reign through righteousness, resulting in eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Paul’s audience, not understanding grace, reacts to the above with the question, “Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?” The reference is to the “sin” mentioned in Chapter 5:21 which, is said to reign as a king. Here sin is personified as a king, and viewed as indwelling sin, also know as the sinful nature.
It would seem from the argument of Romans then, that what Paul had in mind was a general reference to propitiation or satisfaction by the death of Christ rather than to a place in which propitiation was accomplished by any means of work or accomplishments on our parts.
An alternative view of a place however, such as work, has continued to intrigue modern scholars and is supported by frequent usages in the Septuagint of the word for the golden top of the mercy seat. Numbered among the adherents of this view are such writers as C. I. Scofield, T. W. Manson, and Karl Barth.
The expression made “in his blood” which immediately follows the reference to propitiation would seem, to favor the concept that Christ is here referred to as the means of propitiation rather than the place of propitiation. The resulting idea in either case, however, is that of substitution and sacrifice, the shedding of blood accomplishing the satisfaction of the divine righteousness of God.
A number of Orthodox Catholic and Jewish leaders hold to a belief that conceptually Paul was misunderstood in his presentation in Romans 3-5. They would offer the following:
The basic problem that all interpreters of Romans must wrestle with is how to integrate the straightforward sense of purpose that Paul exhibited in 1:1–16 and 15:14–16:27 with the body of the epistle, which seems to be heading in another direction. Most writers virtually ignore the introductory and closing purpose statements and focus on the theological exposition of the letter’s body. Of the four commentators mentioned earlier, Murray comes closest to lapsing into this approach. A few hardy souls have gone to the other extreme, weighted Paul’s purpose statements at the beginning and end of the epistle, and then downplayed the significance of Paul’s exposition of the gospel in Romans 1–8. This usually results in a counterbalancing emphasis on Romans 9–11 or Romans 12–15. None of the four exegetes has done this. Rather, they have sought to integrate the introductory and closing purpose statements with the body of the epistle as a coherent whole, discussing the same core: Paul’s orderly summary of justification by faith. In attempting to integrate Paul’s constant reference to the Jew/Gentile issue, however, this core proves insufficient.
The relationship of Jews and Gentiles is a major issue in Romans—especially in chapters 1–3, 9–11, and 14–15. This can be seen vividly in the fact that Paul’s usage of the term “Jews” in Romans almost equals the number of times he used it in all the rest of his epistles. Also his usage of “Gentiles” (e[qnh) is greater in Romans than in the combined remainder of his corpus. Commentators struggle less with this issue in chapters 1–3 and 14–15 because it can be explained as a bifurcated view of humanity in the former and a racially dichotomized view of the church in the latter. However, in Romans 9–11 the weeds get taller and the brambles get thicker.
Referring to Romans 9–11, Käsemann has said, “Probably no larger portion of Paul’s writings can be said to have had a history of exposition which [has suffered more] misunderstanding.” He also writes, “The basic question today is still that of the relation between the doctrine of justification and salvation history…. God’s word…manifests itself in time and space.”
Barrett concurs with this basic linkage between Romans 1–8 and 9–11 and adds that “chs. i-viii are not so much concerned with an ‘experience of salvation’ as with the character and deeds of God who is the source of salvation, and chs. ix-xi are not at all concerned with Paul’s patriotic sentiments but with the character and deeds of God who elected the Jews and now calls the Gentiles.” He adds, “In the second as in the first half of the epistle Paul writes about God and his strange mercy in offering to men justification on the basis of faith alone, but his portrayal of divine freedom and grace is determined by somewhat different sets of circumstances [i.e., Israel’s rejection of the gospel].”
Murray sees Romans 9–11 in the same sense: an explanation of the Jewish response to justification by faith, plus the climactic vindication of the thesis stated in 1:16–17. Cranfield agrees with this connective and observes, “If the epistle did not present a serious answer to the question of the Jews, it certainly could not be that key to the true understanding of the Old Testament which Luther claimed that it was.”
In summary these four commentators are consistent in coherently relating Romans 9–11 to the rest of the epistle. They avoid the “compendium of theology” approach to the structure of the book that has been prominent since the Reformation. Instead they view Paul’s discussion of the Jew/Gentile issue as a continuation of his exposition of the gospel in chapters 1–8. All four subsume the Jew/Gentile issue under the topic of justification by faith. By doing so, they follow the vast majority of post-Reformation interpreters.
This view is that all of Paul’s exposition is related to God’s justification and allowing non-Jewish believers to worship with the Jewish believers and that it was required to properly interpret the Old Testament. They would suggest the following:
The difficulty for Westerners in accepting Stendahl’s insights is that it almost demands that they step outside their culture to critique this deeply ingrained tendency. This is a significant indication that they are laboring in this area under a culture-bound lens that is limiting and distorting their reading of Paul. Stendahl traces the history of the formation of this lens rooted in the Greco-Roman legal mindset, formulated for the church by Tertullian, popularized by Augustine, inherited by the Roman Catholic Church, promulgated in Western Europe, and only modified by the Reformers. Stendahl notes the nature of the Reformers’ interaction with their culture’s perspective in this area:
The problem we are trying to isolate could be expressed in hermeneutical terms somewhat like this: The Reformers’ interpretation of Paul rests on an analogism when Pauline statements about Faith and Works, Law and Gospel, Jews and Gentiles are read in the framework of late medieval piety. The Law, the Torah, with its specific requirements of circumcision and food restrictions becomes a general principle of “legalism” in religious matters. Where Paul was concerned about the possibility for Gentiles to be included in the messianic community, his statements are now read as answers to the quest for assurance about man’s salvation out of a common human predicament.
II. Conclusion
I really enjoyed reading all of the information and the differing views on salvation and what some people feel additionally was needed for salvation. I know that for 28 years of my life I labored under what I feel to be a man made decision to stand on an unfounded basis. I was a member of an orthodox religion and held a true belief that I was here to perform a work for God and that my salvation was in part determined by my fulfillment of this work. Many members of my family are still laboring in sin filled lives in part due to this requirement of work and not having the means within themselves to accomplish this work. I know in myself through the unction of the Holy Spirit that resides in my heart that Martin Luther’s understanding of Justification by faith alone is what I am lead to believe.
Any great revival that has ever happened, people coming to Christ on their own as much as that is possible has happened under the work of Jesus Christ. His redemption and work that allows people who come forward and believe on Jesus Christ to freely be treated to the unlimited grace of God. Have their sins forgiven and washed away and held as far as the east is from the west, is a blessing and grace that can only be bestowed of God. This justification through the reconciliatory work of Jesus Christ is lifted up by the Old Testament description of Abraham being saved by faith in God’s promise alone. That promise would come to man in the embodiment of Jesus Christ. As was found by Luther so the Holy Spirit speaks to me today.
By 1519 Luther came to see clearly that salvation faith was not a work, but a gift of the Holy Spirit in the same way he understood the origin and nature of righteousness. Yet the clear demarcation of faith and works in justification was particularly troublesome in light of James 2:24, “a man is justified by works.”
Luther, as well as most of the Reformers, did not fault the Roman Church for requiring works by those who would be saved but in attributing to works the ability to satisfy God for sin. Works were the result of justification (caused not by the believer but by God in every object of His redemptive mercies), never the cause of justification (it is by faith alone). The relationship of faith and works required constant clarification in that day and this.
Faith is the ground of works. And works were just as important to Luther as mercies of God as presented by or freely offered in Christ. Faith does not justify, if it is understood as a perceptive or receptive function; the faith that justifies is faith in Christ who makes Himself present in the believer through faith. Althaus writes:
Thus the righteousness granted to the sinner is not his own produced to the Roman system that he strenuously opposed, though for a diametrically opposite reason. He is explicit that works are the necessary result of the mercies of God bestowed in His gracious, immediate justification (thesis 29). If good works do not follow faith, it is a clear evidence that the kind of faith exercised was merely historic (i.e., self-exertion) not the faith wherein a merciful God is presented in the death of the gratuitous Redeemer (theses 30–33). If works are the result of a gracious, progressive infusing of virtuous abilities, it is the faith of the demons and the condemned. On the other hand, if one has a faith that does not occasion moral, external reclamation and amendment, it is not the kind of faith that apprehends Christ and is vain, worthless, and empty. In the Formula of Concord, the classic statement on Lutheran orthodoxy, the following notion is condemned, thus establishing the proposition that true faith necessitates a change of lifestyle: “That faith is…confidence in the obedience of Christ as can abide and have a being even in that man who is void of true repentance, and in whom it is not followed by charity, but who contrary to conscience perseveres in sins.”
The Formula of Concord positively asserts:
That good works must certainly and without all doubt follow a true faith (provided only it to be not a dead but a living faith), as fruits of a good tree…. the liberated spirit of man does good works, not as a slave, from fear of punishment, but from love of righteousness, such as is the obedience which children are want to render…. We believe, moreover, teach, and confess that faith and salvation are preserved or retained in us not by works and by faith (by which merely, salvation is guarded), and that good works are a testimony that the Holy Spirit is present and dwells in us.
In this final section, Luther seems to gather up some of the salient points of the previous theses. First, the ground of rightness with God is through the mercy and righteousness of God, not because of man’s efforts (thesis 62). Luther was here differentiating his view from that of the medieval Romish theology he espoused before 1519. Salvation is not the result of the gracious infusion of enablement resulting in the virtues of faith, hope, and charity, but simply and totally of grace. Forstman captures a glimpse of Luther’s point: “Luther’s discovery of ‘the merciful God’ was the conviction that it is the character of God’s justice to give what he requires without regard to a man’s worth.” It is not a process of gradual renovation, a process of becoming righteous, but the bestowal of righteousness by imputation.
Second, if a person has historic faith (a mere knowledge of the Gospel narratives) though he be holy, wise, and just, he remains under the wrath of God, being no higher in faith than demons (thesis 63). The kind of faith that saves is the type that links itself to trust. True faith combines at once notitia and fudicia (facts and commitment). Salvation is not, as it were, a morality play; rather it is an imputation that results in righteous living.
Third, the necessity of rebirth, a work of God (thesis 65). makes justification through works (even works resulting from a gracious infusion) impossible (thesis 67). Roth makes the same point by asking a question: “Is it true that Luther would have us understand alien righteousness as a creative transformation of the heart by the Holy Spirit?”
Fourth, to say that righteousness is by works, even those works awakened by infused grace, is blasphemous (thesis 68) for two reasons: it is a perversion, a misuse of Scripture (it makes the Scriptures assert what they deny), and it is a foolish statement (theses 70–71). It is as intelligent to say that man is saved by works as it is to believe that man is good.
Luther’s remarks are as valid today as the day they were penned. I pray that you understand the foundational basis of salvation by faith through grace and have accepted salvation under it. It is the utmost desire of my heart that you make your decision based on the total amount of information given in this brief paper. To justify this fully would require a lot more writing as the material on this subject is extremely vast. That the Orthodox Catholic, Russian, and Greek religious views are contrary to the Evangelical view herein contained goes without saying. A simple search of the inter-net under “Justification by Faith” will bring forth more Orthodox views than Evangelicals. I would only ask one additional question—When have you ever heard of a revival in the Orthodox Catholic, Russian or Greek communities? Continue to strive.
