Justification and Church History

[MichaelLofton]

Hello Everyone,

I have done a little bit of studying on the topic of Justification in church history. I have found some quotes prior to the reformation that seem to agree with the protestant view of justification. Yet there seems to be an overwhelming amount of quotes in church history prior to the reformation that would seem to favor the Roman Catholic view of justification. Here are a few questions I have and have been wrestling with for a while:

1. If justification is the article upon which the church stands or falls, were the vast majority of churches prior to the reformation apostate? If not, how is justification the article upon which the church stands or falls?

2. If a particular patristic taught doctrine that was contrary to the protestant understanding of justification, does that mean they were not truly saved? The few people that have answered this question usually say something like "a person is not justified by believing in the doctrine of justification by faith alone" but to me that doesn't answer the question because it doesn't make sense that a person can be justified and truly trusting in Christ as their righteousness, while at the same time affirming that their own merit plays a part in their own justification. This doesn't seem to be truly trusting in Christ. In light of this, can a person who is not trusting in Christ alone be justified by Christ alone?

I do not have an in-depth understanding of church history nor theology in order to sufficiently answer these questions myself so any answers or comments that one wishes to offer would be greatly appreciated.

 

[louis_jp]

If a particular patristic taught doctrine that was contrary to the protestant understanding of justification

I don't know how thorough your research has been, but I'd be careful about judging a particular ECF's doctrine by various "quotes." One can find quotes in the bible itself that seem to suggest justification by works, but we know the bible doesn't teach that. Unless you've got a systematic teaching on justification from some ECF, I wouldn't be too ready to conclude that they "favor the Roman Catholic view."

It's also important to note that the RC view doesn't stop with what we normally think of as "works righteousness." To be, and remain, justified in the RC you also have to go through the whole sacramental system, not to mention purgatory to work off your remaining sin, and the recognition of the role of Mary in salvation, etc. I guarantee you there is no ECF that subscribes to that whole system of nonsense. Therefore, any question about where the true believers were for most of church history would apply with more force to the church of Rome than it would to the Reformation.

 

[MichaelLofton]

If a particular patristic taught doctrine that was contrary to the protestant understanding of justification

I don't know how thorough your research has been, but I'd be careful about judging a particular ECF's doctrine by various "quotes." One can find quotes in the bible itself that seem to suggest justification by works, but we know the bible doesn't teach that. Unless you've got a systematic teaching on justification from some ECF, I wouldn't be too ready to conclude that they "favor the Roman Catholic view."

It's also important to note that the RC view doesn't stop with what we normally think of as "works righteousness." To be, and remain, justified in the RC you also have to go through the whole sacramental system, not to mention purgatory to work off your remaining sin, and the recognition of the role of Mary in salvation, etc. I guarantee you there is no ECF that subscribes to that whole system of nonsense. Therefore, any question about where the true believers were for most of church history would apply with more force to the church of Rome than it would to the Reformation.

Good point. I should probably be more specific in my language than just saying an ECF seems to agree more with Rome on justification. They don't seem to be in lock step with Rome when you consider the entire system and I have noted differences in say Tertullian and his view of penance and the modern Roman Catholic Church's view of penance. I suppose I meant that Rome's view of combining grace and works done in grace seems to occur in many people's theology prior to the reformation and in that sense I mean they seem to usually side with Rome's view rather than the protestant view. I could be wrong and I have a great deal of more studying I need to do to make any kind of definitive decision on the matter.

 

[Philip]

If justification is the article upon which the church stands or falls, were the vast majority of churches prior to the reformation apostate? If not, how is justification the article upon which the church stands or falls?

Michael, what you are wrestling with here is the fact that the early church just wasn't all that interested in soteriology. You find the ECFs all over the map on this point because they were still struggling to define and defend even more basic doctrines such as the trinity, the incarnation, the hypostatic union, and the atonement. It wasn't until the 11th century that Anselm finally put the pieces together in order to argue for penal substitution as the primary way to understand the atonement (and unless we accept this doctrine, there's no point in talking about sola fide at all).

The way I see it, the Church had to ask the theological questions in a particular order:

1) Who is Jesus?
2) Is Jesus fully human?
3) Is Jesus fully Divine?
4) Is Christ a unified person?
5) Is there a distinction between the two natures?
6) Why did God have to become man?
7) How is God's becoming man necessary for atonement to take place?

Only after the Church had asked all of these questions and wrestled with them would the questions of how the benefits of atonement are received make sense. Even the Augustine/Pelagius dispute was premature: there were too many open debates about atonement at the time for there to be a clear resolution.

 

[MichaelLofton]

If justification is the article upon which the church stands or falls, were the vast majority of churches prior to the reformation apostate? If not, how is justification the article upon which the church stands or falls?

Michael, what you are wrestling with here is the fact that the early church just wasn't all that interested in soteriology. You find the ECFs all over the map on this point because they were still struggling to define and defend even more basic doctrines such as the trinity, the incarnation, the hypostatic union, and the atonement. It wasn't until the 11th century that Anselm finally put the pieces together in order to argue for penal substitution as the primary way to understand the atonement (and unless we accept this doctrine, there's no point in talking about sola fide at all).

The way I see it, the Church had to ask the theological questions in a particular order:

1) Who is Jesus?
2) Is Jesus fully human?
3) Is Jesus fully Divine?
4) Is Christ a unified person?
5) Is there a distinction between the two natures?
6) Why did God have to become man?
7) How is God's becoming man necessary for atonement to take place?

Only after the Church had asked all of these questions and wrestled with them would the questions of how the benefits of atonement are received make sense. Even the Augustine/Pelagius dispute was premature: there were too many open debates about atonement at the time for there to be a clear resolution.

Very helpful stuff. Do you have anything you could recommend where I could read more about this?

 

[TimV]

In light of this, can a person who is not trusting in Christ alone be justified by Christ alone?

That would narrow it down!

I suppose I meant that Rome's view of combining grace and works done in grace seems to occur in many people's theology prior to the reformation and in that sense I mean they seem to usually side with Rome's view rather than the protestant view.

But what percentage of Protestants have believed in grace alone? 3%? Outside of a few Reformed, Baptist, etc.. denominations and churches the great majority of Protestants today and for some time believe that a person's act of will is necessary for salvation, and how that really differs from, say, seeing Mary as a co-redeemer isn't that clear. To most Protestants the person's decision (free will) making also makes one a co-redeemer.

So, I wouldn't go with numbers on that one, even within Protestantism, and I'd be careful to make the kinds of conditions you're playing with, as in the first statement I quoted you on, that someone needs a perfect theology to be saved. Many of your FV friends (that you quoted on the last post I read by you here) would say that the act of baptising a child is indistinguishable from what baptism signifies, and that's another example of works added to grace, but is a 19 year old model son or daughter of one of those families necessarily incapable of being justified due to something stupid they've picked up from their dad?

 

[MichaelLofton]

In light of this, can a person who is not trusting in Christ alone be justified by Christ alone?

That would narrow it down!

I suppose I meant that Rome's view of combining grace and works done in grace seems to occur in many people's theology prior to the reformation and in that sense I mean they seem to usually side with Rome's view rather than the protestant view.

But what percentage of Protestants have believed in grace alone? 3%? Outside of a few Reformed, Baptist, etc.. denominations and churches the great majority of Protestants today and for some time believe that a person's act of will is necessary for salvation, and how that really differs from, say, seeing Mary as a co-redeemer isn't that clear. To most Protestants the person's decision (free will) making also makes one a co-redeemer.

So, I wouldn't go with numbers on that one, even within Protestantism, and I'd be careful to make the kinds of conditions you're playing with, as in the first statement I quoted you on, that someone needs a perfect theology to be saved. Many of your FV friends (that you quoted on the last post I read by you here) would say that the act of baptising a child is indistinguishable from what baptism signifies, and that's another example of works added to grace, but is a 19 year old model son or daughter of one of those families necessarily incapable of being justified due to something stupid they've picked up from their dad?

I don't see how this is really relevant to what I asked given that I don't have any "fv friends" and I don't defend their views on baptism. I have not quoted any Federal Visions guys so your comment that I quoted a Federal Vision "friend" the last post you read by me cannot be substantiated. Furthermore, I have never suggested that "someone needs a perfect theology to be saved" and I am appalled at the assumptions you have made about my theology. Is there a reason why you have presumed to speculate about what I believe?

In response to your comment about Arminians, there is a difference between an Arminian and a Roman Catholic because an Arminian actually believes they are trusting in Christ alone (even though they don't seem to be when you consider their theology of free will) and a Roman Catholic will explicitly say they trust in Christ and their own merit. In light of this, I don't think you really answered the question.

 

[Philip]

Very helpful stuff. Do you have anything you could recommend where I could read more about this?

I'd recommend just reading the fathers themselves. I often find the church fathers to be more concise and accessible than many ancient writers.

 

[MichaelLofton]

Very helpful stuff. Do you have anything you could recommend where I could read more about this?

I'd recommend just reading the fathers themselves. I often find the church fathers to be more concise and accessible than many ancient writers.

You are probably right. Though I have noted a great deal of quotes from the fathers that completely undermine Rome's system of salvation, I have also found a number of things in their writings that undermine the protestant view as well (even Jaraslov Pelikan, back when he was a Lutheran, noted this in his book The Riddle of Roman Catholicism). Just thinking of Augustine's On the Creed where he talks about baptism makes me cringe. Ignatius in his Epistle to the Romans, who almost seemed to equate martyrdom with the completion of his salvation, is a big turn off as well. Tertullian's view of penance in On Repentance is not protestant, nor is it Biblical. John of Damascus' The Orthodox Faith was extremely disappointing when it comes to salvation. However, there are some fathers I have read so far that seem to side with the protestant view of salvation. Clement of Rome is a breath of fresh air and the Epistle to Diognetus chapter nine is one of the best chapters I have ever read on salvation. Marcius Victorinus' commentary on Galatians is filled with "faith alone" theology. So I do see some protestant theology in the fathers, but it seems to be the minority position. Maybe as I continue to read the fathers my perspective will change.