Seeds Of The Reformation

Abbreviations

BOP = Jacques Le Goff, The Birth Of Purgatory (Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1986)

COR = Thomas Scheck, Origen: Commentary On The Epistle To The Romans, Books 1-5 (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University Of America Press, 2001)

ECD = J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978)

EVT = D.H. Williams, Evangelicals And Tradition (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2005)

JBF = H. George Anderson, et al., edd., Justification By Faith (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Augsburg Publishing House, 1985)

JIP = Bruce McCormack, ed., Justification In Perspective (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2006)

JPJ = Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary On Scripture: New Testament XI: James, 1-2 Peter, 1-3 John, Jude (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2000)

RRC = Jaroslav Pelikan, The Riddle Of Roman Catholicism (Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon Press, 1959)

RTS = Leonard Verduin, The Reformers And Their Stepchildren (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1964)



Catholics often claim that nobody advocated justification through faith alone between the time of the apostles and the Reformation. Recently, a Catholic poster here, by the screen name of Sean and Stephanie, wrote:

Ah, so that is how you define 'Christian.'

Apparently there were no Christians before Luther nor is Christianity taught in the bible.

He made those comments in response to something Gene Bridges had said concerning Calvinist and Arminian agreement about justification through faith alone. Thus, Sean and Stephanie was suggesting that both Calvinist and Arminian understandings of sola fide are absent from pre-Reformation church history and the Bible. Later, Sean and Stephanie added "Lutheran soteriology" to the list. He also criticized the view that one can be "justified, but not sanctified". And he tried to shift the topic of discussion by bringing up the subject of imputed righteousness. He cited a passage from a book by Alister McGrath, a passage frequently mentioned by Catholics, and said:

Alistair McGrath's findings are a big problem for the Protestant position although his findings are not unique.

Notice what we have, then. We have a Catholic suggesting that Calvinist, Arminian, Lutheran, and antinomian understandings of sola fide are absent from the Bible and pre-Reformation church history, accompanied by an appeal to the scholarship of Alister McGrath.

Those of you who have followed Catholic apologetics closely in recent years should recognize Sean and Stephanie's approach. It's common. Some Catholics are knowledgeable enough to avoid some of Sean and Stephanie's missteps, but his approach probably represents the large majority of those who are active in Catholic apologetics today.

Is it true that nobody advocated justification through faith alone between the time of the apostles and the Reformation?


The Bible


This post is primarily about sola fide in sources between the apostles and the Reformation. For those who are interested, we have many posts in our archives addressing the Biblical evidence for justification through faith alone. See, for example, my posts here, here, and here.


My View


Since Sean and Stephanie issued a broad criticism of many different forms of justification through faith alone (Calvinism, Arminianism, Lutheranism, and antinomianism, along with some criticisms of sola fide that were unspecified), I'm going to be addressing evidence for a broad range of views prior to the Reformation. I don't agree with all of these views. I'm not a Lutheran, and I disagree with antinomian views of justification that reject or underestimate the significance of sanctification in this life. I agree with Calvinism (and some Arminians) that justification can't be lost, but I'm going to be citing pre-Reformation sources who held other views as well, since Sean and Stephanie included Arminian notions of sola fide in his criticism. I'm not claiming to agree with every pre-Reformation source I cite.

And while I consider imputed righteousness an important doctrine, it's not the subject I'm primarily addressing here. I don't consider belief in imputed righteousness essential to salvation. Notice that I referred to belief in imputed righteousness. Imputed righteousness itself is essential. Nobody is justified without it. And belief in the concept is important. I think every Christian should be taught it. But belief in something can be important without being essential. Even though imputed righteousness is essential and belief in it is important, the primary subject of this post is justification through faith alone.


Scholarship


Since Sean and Stephanie thinks that Alister McGrath's conclusions are "a big problem for the Protestant position", then let's consider what other scholars have said. (Note, too, the important qualifications McGrath has made, as discussed by James Swan here. Matthew Schultz cited Swan's article in one of the threads linked above, and Sean and Stephanie ignored it. See, also, the many posts in the archives of Swan's blog that address this subject.)

Jaroslav Pelikan wrote:

"Every major tenet of the Reformation had considerable support in the catholic tradition. That was eminently true of the central Reformation teaching of justification by faith alone….That the ground of our salvation is the unearned favor of God in Christ, and that all we need do to obtain it is to trust that favor – this was the confession of great catholic saints and teachers….Rome’s reactions [to the Protestant reformers] were the doctrinal decrees of the Council of Trent and the Roman Catechism based upon those decrees. In these decrees, the Council of Trent selected and elevated to official status the notion of justification by faith plus works, which was only one of the doctrines of justification in the medieval theologians and ancient fathers. When the reformers attacked this notion in the name of the doctrine of justification by faith alone – a doctrine also attested to by some medieval theologians and ancient fathers – Rome reacted by canonizing one trend in preference to all the others. What had previously been permitted also (justification by faith alone), now became forbidden. In condemning the Protestant Reformation, the Council of Trent condemned part of its own catholic tradition.” (RRC, 49, 51-52)

James Swan quotes the following from another book Pelikan wrote, one that I haven't read:

"Existing side by side in pre-Reformation theology were several ways of interpreting the righteousness of God and the act of justification. They ranged from strongly moralistic views that seemed to equate justification with moral renewal to ultra-forensic views, which saw justification as a 'nude imputation' that seemed possible apart from Christ, by an arbitrary decree of God. Between these extremes were many combinations; and though certain views predominated in late nominalism, it is not possible even there to speak of a single doctrine of justification."

Many other scholars have made comments similar to Pelikan's. One of the best brief overviews of this subject that I've seen is Nick Needham's chapter in JIP, 25-53. Needham makes many points relevant to this post, including the following:

"The language of justification occurs reasonably often in the fathers. What does the language mean? Although it does not always have the same precise connotation, it seems clear that there is a very prominent strand of usage in which it has a basically forensic meaning....The forensic framework of this justification language is further illustrated by another strand of patristic teaching that employs the concept of imputation - reckoning or crediting something to someone's account, a synthesis of legal and financial metaphors, where the books that are being kept are 'judgment books.'" (27-28, 32)

Earlier this year, Timothy George had a discussion with Francis Beckwith at Wheaton College, on the topic "Can You Be Catholic And Evangelical?". During the discussion, George appealed to a passage in Augustine for support of the concept of imputed righteousness. Karlfried Froehlich wrote:

"Parallel to a strong use of Augustinian transformation language, Bernard of Clairvaux reflected this forensic tendency. Protestants have often noted Bernardine texts which seemed to emphasize imputative justification." (JBF, 157)

Leonard Verduin wrote:

"In fact, a chorus of protest resounds across the ages, contesting all that feeds the idea of salvation by sacramental manipulation, and sustaining all that which belongs with the formula of salvation by believing response to the preached Word....In the year 1025 some 'heretics' were located in the vicinity of Liege...They said that 'There are no sacraments in the holy Church by which one can attain unto salvation.'" (RTS, 142-143)

Thomas Scheck argues that there were people in Origen's day who believed in some form of justification through faith alone. Though Origen rejected their view, he considered them Christians:

"With believers in mind he [Origen] rejects the view that justification is by faith alone, apparently because certain Christians were denying a future judgment based upon works....In 8.2 Origen again shows awareness of persons who do not seem to be heretics, but who do not understand the inextricable link between faith and good works. He refers to them as he expounds Rom 10.9, where it is evident that Origen rejects their theology, insisting that belief in Christ's resurrection and public confession of his lordship profits one nothing if his resurrection is not realized in the life of the believer....Gnostic and even some Christian exegetes used the 'faith alone' formulation to deny the doctrine of a future judgment according to works, but Origen repudiates this tactic." (COR, 34-35, 38)

D.H. Williams comments:

"The doctrine of justification by faith did not originate in the period of the Reformation, nor is the teaching a unique emblem of Protestantism. Evangelical scholars Timothy George and Thomas Oden have rightly observed that justification by faith was not a new teaching invented by the Reformers. Apart from New Testament documents, justification by faith finds its roots in the early church. Stated positively, the exegesis of justification by faith is a catholic and pre-Reformation teaching, and the Reformers themselves found precedents for this teaching in the early fathers, even as they went in new directions with these ideas." (EVT, 129)

Similar comments have been made by many other scholars.

Sometimes what's being addressed is a particular strand of thought within pre-Reformation sources that was accompanied by other views, sometimes inconsistently. Patristic scholars and others who work in relevant fields often note that these sources were inconsistent or sometimes only partially agreed with the Protestant concepts in question. Karlfried Froehlich refers to "all kinds of combinations between Augustinian, Thomist, Scotist, and nominalist elements" in medieval sources (JBF, 160). Robert Eno refers to how Origen is "not an easy author to interpret" and "less orderly and consistent" (JBF, 112) than other sources. Similar comments are often made in the scholarly literature about other pre-Reformation sources as well. In some cases, these men acknowledged their own inconsistencies. Augustine, for example, often acknowledged that he had changed his position over time on some theological issues. And scholars note his inconsistencies even where he doesn't admit them. Citing an inconsistency with Protestant belief in one portion of a church father's writings doesn't prove that he never agreed with that belief elsewhere.

You might disagree with the judgments of the scholars I've cited above or agree with them, but consider their conclusions insignificant. In some cases, I don't know much about the accuracy of the claims these scholars are making. Most of my research has focused on the earliest centuries of church history, not the later patristic centuries or the medieval era. And I haven't studied the doctrine of imputed righteousness as much as I've studied justification through faith alone. I don't know much about some of the claims made by the scholars I've cited above. The point I'm making here, though, is that scholars can be cited making comments that go in the opposite direction of what Catholics so often cite from Alister McGrath and others.


Some Of The Relevant Sources


One of the earliest patristic sources, Clement of Rome, wrote:

"And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. What shall we do, then, brethren? Shall we become slothful in well-doing, and cease from the practice of love? God forbid that any such course should be followed by us! But rather let us hasten with all energy and readiness of mind to perform every good work." (First Clement, 32-33)

What must be read into the text in order to reconcile Clement's comments with Catholicism? We have to assume (1) that he only meant to exclude works that are somehow deficient (such as graceless works) when he referred to works "wrought in holiness of heart", (2) that he meant "faith and baptism", "faith and works", or something similar when he referred to "faith" as the means of attaining justification, (3) that the reference to "that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men" isn't meant to deny that baptism and other requirements have been added to faith since the Old Testament era, and (4) that Clement went on to tell his readers not to use the gospel as an opportunity to avoid good works just after telling them that we're justified through a combination between faith and works. Not a single one of those conclusions is likely, and the combination of all four is even more unlikely. What Clement seems to be communicating is justification through faith alone.

Sometimes Catholics will cite chapter 12, where Clement remarks that "On account of her faith and hospitality, Rahab the harlot was saved." But read the context. Clement is addressing salvation in the sense of safety from the Israeli invasion, not the attaining of eternal life. Clement goes on to quote Rahab saying to the Israeli spies, "keep ye me and the house of my father in safety" (12). Clement then quotes the spies saying, "It shall be as thou hast spoken to us. As soon, therefore, as thou knowest that we are at hand, thou shall gather all thy family under thy roof, and they shall be preserved, but all that are found outside of thy dwelling shall perish." (12) The salvation in question is physical, not spiritual. Rahab wasn't asking the spies to give her eternal life. Clement is addressing the benefits of godly living and the consequences of ungodliness in general, not merely how a person is justified.

Catholics sometimes cite Clement's reference to "being justified by our works, and not our words" in chapter 30 of First Clement, but he's addressing justification in the sense of vindication, such as we see in Luke 7:35, not in the sense of attaining eternal life. He says, "Let testimony to our good deeds be borne by others", which is a reference to vindication, not a reference to the attaining of eternal life.

Clement was no antinomian, as passages like chapter 58 illustrate. But the same could be said of a Presbyterian or Methodist, for example. In light of what Clement says in chapters 32-33, a Catholic reading of First Clement isn't the most likely interpretation.

Another of the earliest patristic sources, The Epistle To Diognetus, refers to the substitutionary nature of Jesus' work and His righteousness in particular (9). He even refers to how His righteousness "covers our sins", in language reminiscent of the dunghill analogy often attributed to Martin Luther.

In the earliest extant treatise on baptism, Tertullian addresses a large variety of views held by various individuals and groups. Among the views he addresses is the belief that "Baptism is not necessary for them to whom faith is sufficient; for withal, Abraham pleased God by a sacrament of no water, but of faith." (On Baptism, 13)

Nick Needham writes about patristic sources who held a view that "effectively makes initial justification itself a twofold process: faith introduces us to salvation, and baptism perfects the introduction" (JIP, 42). He cites Origen, Basil of Caesarea, and Cyril of Jerusalem as examples. He goes on, "Basil's use of 'seal' imagery may indicate that he regarded baptism as the public and official declaration of a justification that until then has been private and unofficial" (42). He notes that their view (the view of Basil and others) is inconsistent with the views of some other fathers (n. 49 on 42), a point that Thomas Scheck also makes (COR, n. 376 on 350, n. 411 on 354).

In the seventh century, Andreas records the comments an earlier Christian author made about faith and baptism:

"Now someone might object to this and say: 'Did Paul not use Abraham as an example of someone who was justified by faith, without works? And here James is using the very same Abraham as an example of someone who was justified, not by faith alone, but also by works which confirm that faith.' How can we answer this? And how can Abraham be an example of faith without works, as well as of faith with works, at the same time? But the solution is ready to hand from the Scriptures. For the same Abraham is at different times an example of both kinds of faith. The first is prebaptismal faith, which does not require works but only confession and the word of salvation, by which those who believe in Christ are justified. The second is postbaptismal faith, which is combined with works. Understood in this way, the two apostles do not contradict one another, but one and the same Spirit is speaking through both of them." (JPJ, 32)

Augustine refers to a large variety of views of justification that existed in his day (The City Of God, 21:17-27). Here are some of his comments:

"But, say they, the catholic Christians have Christ for a foundation, and they have not fallen away from union with Him, no matter how depraved a life they have built on this foundation, as wood, hay, stubble; and accordingly the well-directed faith by which Christ is their foundation will suffice to deliver them some time from the continuance of that fire, though it be with loss, since those things they have built on it shall be burned. Let the Apostle James summarily reply to them: ‘If any man say he has faith, and have not works, can faith save him?’” (The City Of God, 21:26)

Antinomian concepts of justification through faith alone seem to have been common long before the Reformation. After Augustine's day, Bede writes against those who believe "that it does not matter whether they live evil lives or do wicked and terrible things, as long as they believe in Christ, because salvation is through faith" (JPJ, 31).

Sometimes sources who expressed a form of justification through works in some places in their writings advocated a different view elsewhere. For example:

"Jerome develops the same distinction, stating that, while the Devil and the impious who have denied God will be tortured without remission, those who have trusted in Christ, even if they have sinned and fallen away, will eventually be saved. Much the same teaching appears in Ambrose, developed in greater detail." (ECD, 484)

“Saint Jerome, though an enemy of Origen, was, when it came to salvation, more of an Origenist than Ambrose. He believed that all sinners, all mortal beings, with the exception of Satan, atheists, and the ungodly, would be saved: 'Just as we believe that the torments of the Devil, of all the deniers of God, of the ungodly who have said in their hearts, 'there is no God,' will be eternal, so too do we believe that the judgment of Christian sinners, whose works will be tried and purged in fire will be moderate and mixed with clemency.' Furthermore, 'He who with all his spirit has placed his faith in Christ, even if he die in sin, shall by his faith live forever.'" (BOP, 61)