Five Views On Justification: Thoughts

I mentioned this book on justification  a while back, saying that as soon as I got some cash I would pick it up. Well, Cathy has been reading my blog, and she picked it up for me for Christmas. A funny thing happened, though. There was confusion in the handing out of presents on Christmas and my 13-year-old daughter, who was receiving a similarly shaped book, was accidentally handed my present. Upon opening it she expressed a certain confusion, while still attempting to keep a good face on it in case it really was for her and she could pull off pretending she was happy for the gift. Her first thought was that it was related to her interest in being a lawyer. Once things were cleared up, though, she expressed her relief.

The trials of having a theological father.

Irrelevant introductions aside, it’s a been a great read. Here are some randomish thoughts:

1. If we look at all the traditions of the church, there is one major issue regarding justification that has divided and still divides: is justification the mere declaration by God that believers are righteous (because of faith) or is it both the declaration and the actual becoming righteous? The Reformation is famous for it’s very clear stand on this: justification is the courtroom declaration; actual in-life righteousness is viewed as sanctification and is a different but inseparable issue (defended here by Michael Horton). This is key because it separates absolutely salvation from works, which is arguably the single idea that most drives Protestant distinctives.   But as both Michael Bird (progressive reformed) and James Dunn (New Perspective on Paul) point out, there are some fairly clear places in Paul’s writing where justification includes in-life righteousness and seems to clearly mean more that the mere declaration of being righteous (see for example Gal 5:5, 1 Cor 1:30, Rom 5:19). This confirms my slight discomfort with the traditional reformed view (thought I agree with the substance) and its tendency to “be more logical than Paul” as Dunn puts it. Let’s not be too eager to conscript Paul as a supporter for our ideas, even if they seem crucial.

2. A bit of a hot potato these days is the question of imputation of righteousness, or “double imputation.” The idea here, again represented in the traditional reformed view, is that in justification two things happen: sinners are declared innocent and they are also imputed Christ’s righteousness. So justification is seen not only equivalent to forgiveness, but a positive gifting of righteousness. Not, as the popular saying goes “just as if I had never sinned” but “just as if I had done all the good works that Jesus did.” Personally, I think this is a bit of a rabbit trail. Honestly, does it make that much difference whether we are talking about forgiveness or imputation? I think not. Further as both Dunn and Bird again note, the idea is difficult to show exegetically. And further, is it not a bit of a carry over from medieval notions of imputation of righteousness (the saints were thought to have extra merit that they could pass on to the rest of us) – perhaps.

3. Well, enough beating up on the traditional reformed exposition of justification, which in any case is essentially where I’m coming from myself. Dunn’s chapter was probably my favorite with Bird a close second. Both of these guys speak my language in that they are squarely focused on discerning the biblical, Pauline teaching about justification in the light both literary and cultural context. Dunn insists that the “new perspective on Paul” is not a replacement for the traditional reformed doctrine, but that it highlights a wholly compatible but neglected part of Paul’s justification. The missing key is that justification is not just about the salvation of individuals. It is about the composition of the church as well. This is because in Romans Paul is intent on showing that both Jews and non-Jews have access to the same God through the same means:

“I am not ashamed of the gospel for it is the power of God for salvation for everyone who believes, to the Jew first but also to the gentiles” (Romans 1:17)

and “There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus” (Rom. 3:22-24).

Paul is defending his view of the church as a community of faith which in Christ is made of all human beings who believe in Jesus Christ for salvation – regardless  of race! What a tremendous insight. I cannot for the life of me understand why so many people see this as a threat to their understanding of justification. It is good news indeed, and it is highly relevant to the fractured society in which we live.

4. Karkkainen’s exposition was all news to me. He describes the “Finnish school” of thinkers who, in dialogue with the Orthodox tradition (remember, Finland borders on Russia), argue that Luther’s view of justification actually shares a lot with in common with the Orthodox view of justification as “theosis.”  Theosis is the idea that salvation is about sharing in the deity of God. I’m no Luther expert, but beings as Luther is one of the most researched individuals in history, this sort of late hour revelation strikes me as unlikely. Still, I probably shouldn’t say much since I speak whereof I know not. I was also a bit mystified by Karkkainen’s method. In the first three chapters I knew where I stood: a biblicaly focused discussion about Paul’s doctrine of justification. Karkkainen, being more of a systematician, operates in a kind of parallel universe, it seems. He definitely pays homage to Dunn’s work and the new perspective and values exegesis. But the ultimate construction of the doctrine of justification is for him the task of systematics. This seems to be informed as much by scripture as by the need for ecumenical dialogue and even inter-religious harmonization. I also though it amusing that that he was presenting the “Finnish Lutheran view of justification as theosis” and he’s neither Lutheran nor Orthodox, though he is Finish. Still, he is an engaging writer with and very positive in his exposition. A final thought from Rafferty, one of the Catholic representatives, if I may be allowed to paraphrase: Who cares what Luther believed about this? Ok, ok. We do care. But a new discovery about an unnoticed emphasis in Luther is not likely to make a difference in the current debate. The current positions are much more complex than that, and Luther is not a canonical source.

5. The chapter on the Roman Catholic view was very informative. In fact for some time now I have wanted to get a clear idea of the Catholic doctrine of justification, and now I have it. The essence of the doctrine is this: Catholics think of justification as both the legal declaration of righteousness and a renewed life of good works. But there’s a key point that has to be appreciated. In the Catholic view there is no doubt about where the good works come from: it is only by the grace of God that believers can perform the good works that are necessary for justification.  And this seems to be a deeply set Catholic theme, going well back into the early middle ages. The insistence of good works for salvation appears to have always been done with the understanding that these good works are not “boastable” – they are the work of God which the individual has merely participated in. Agree or not, I think this is an important distinction because we cannot flatly accuse the Catholic position of being “salvation by works.” In this matter I do believe the Catholic version of Justification falls within the pale of biblical options. I felt like Bird fell off the wagon here in a typically Protestant way when he laid down the following challenge:

Catholic teaching, as Rafferty [the Catholic author in the book] expresses it, affirms that the believers can fulfill requisite moral imperatives and cooperate with God’s grace and thus contribute to their own justification. To that the Reformers say “no,” … the Bible does not give us a God who says he wants to help us help ourselves.

But this does not seem like a fair explanation, even of Rafferty’s exposition. Clearly, the full Catholic position is that, first, no one is saved by works. This is very clear in Rafferty. On the other hand, the accompanying works or “merits” are necessary for salvation, but (here’s the crucial distinction), “when God crowns our merits, he does nothing else but crown his gifts.” I’m not saying I agree, but let’s be fair to the complete exposition.

You can see why this issue is so important. It’s at the center of some of the most important opinions Christians hold today regarding the meaning and nature of salvation. My own view on this matter is, I’m with Paul.