By James K.
Beilby and Paul Rhodes Eddy
ASSOCIATE EDITOR Steven E. Eenderlein
Introduction
Multi-view
debate books have become a major publication genre, and, as many have noted, it
is high time that one was released on the doctrine of justification. That such
a publication is sorely needed today is indicated by at least two factors: the
subject’s importance, and the assortment of disagreements it generates. As to
the former, John Calvin said that justification by faith was so important that
“wherever the knowledge of it is taken away, the glory of Christ is
extinguished, religion abolished, the Church destroyed, and the hope of
salvation utterly overthrown,” and many would agree today.[1] Concerning the
latter, while it may not surprise many readers that various views of
justification exist (especially between Roman Catholics and Protestants), the
width of the range of disagreements and options may come as a shock (especially
when one considers that four out of the five views expressed in this book are
Protestant).
Justification: Historical and
Modern Survey
The
book begins with an extremely welcome historical survey on the doctrine of
justification and its current issues. Taking up the first two chapters, it
alone may be worth the price of the book. The first chapter begins with the
early church and takes the reader up to current ecumenical dialogues.
Often summarizing material from Alister
McGrath’s Iustitia Dei, it gives the reader a good feel for the historical
currents leading up to some of today’s concerns over justification. The second
chapter, which picks out these concerns in detail, is especially illuminating
for those unaware of the wide spectrum of thinking on the doctrine of
justification. These issues, which range from those rooted in biblical theology
down to those based on minute details of grammar, generate approximately forty
different options amongst Protestant scholars alone.
Reformed View of Justification (Protestant)
Turning
to the view chapters, the first is by Michael Horton, the J. Gresham Machen
Professor of Theology and Apologetics at Westminster Seminary California and
Editor-in-Chief of Modern Reformation magazine,
representing the traditional Reformed view of justification. Horton
argues specifically that justification is a judicial declaration which depends
not on anything done by the justified person, but completely upon the righteous
work of Jesus Christ which is imputed to the believer externally, and which
alone is considered at the final judgment (pp. 85-88). Works pertain to
sanctification, a process by which the sinner produces the inevitable fruit of
goodness which comes from gratitude for salvation, but which is distinct from
justification (pp. 89). The confusion of the two (justification and
sanctification) is a major factor in the ongoing debate between Reformed
Protestants and Roman Catholics. Horton’s arguments consist of the exegetical
variety, focusing on the forensic/legal use of the term “justification” in
Scripture (pp. 91-93), God’s righteousness and the debate over the genitive
sense of pistis Christou (“in Christ”) (pp. 93-98), and the imputational nature
of justification’s application to the sinner (pp. 98-105). He finishes with a
discussion of theological presuppositions among various disputants such as N.
T. Wright and E. P. Sanders (representing the “New Perspective on Paul”).
Progressive Reformed View of
Justification (Protestant)
The
Progressive Reformed view is represented by Michael F. Bird, lecturer in
theology at Ridley College in Melbourne, Australia. This “progressive view” is
seen as broadly covenantal and respectful of the Reformed confessions, but
avoiding a “theological straight jacket” by being willing to make corrections
when needed (p. 131). Bird ends up landing somewhere between the new
perspective and traditional Reformed view. Observing that “much Reformed
interpretation of Paul simply lacks social realism and often glosses over the
specific historical context of Paul’s letters” (p. 132), Bird presents several
correctives that he thinks will bring Reformed theology into line with more
up-to-date scholarship. He begins with a look at righteousness and faith in
Romans and Galatians. He points out (as do most others in this volume) that
justification is but one of many metaphors for salvation in the Bible and that
it should not be privileged to the exclusion of those others. Noting that in
many cases Paul is referring to the divisive nature of the works of the law
with regard to Jews and Gentiles, Bird argues that “participationist
categories” of justification in Christ are to be preferred to forensic-only
declarations (although both are legitimate). He thus takes a mediating view
between purely subjective or objective views of “faith in/of Christ” language.
Bird comes out with a strong criticism of the concept of imputation in his
second section (pp. 145-152), arguing that it “presses legitimate biblical
ideas into an illegitimate framework,”
“misinterprets some of the language,” is “trapped in medieval categories
of merit,” and “does not adequately grasp the implications of union with
Christ.” Bird finishes with a brief consideration of Paul and James on
justification, concluding that although they are using the same words when
discussing the faith of Abraham they are
not speaking in the same sense. He concludes with a helpful summary of his
position that justification should be considered as both forensic and effective.
Further, that incorporation in Christ’s righteousness not only saves the
individual but also unites the two previously estranged people groups in God.
New Perspective View of
Justification (Protestant)
The
third view on the table for discussion is the “New Perspective [on Paul]” view,
presented by James D. G. Dunn. This “new” perspective has already spawned new
“new perspectives,” and so Dunn begins by laying out which features of the
perspective he is prepared to defend, namely: a new view of Judaism, the
significance of Paul’s mission, works of the law, and the whole gospel of Paul
(p. 177). The new view of Judaism is essentially that first century (Second
Temple) Judaism was not the legalistic, works-salvation religion that is has
been thought of for so long. Rather, it was a graceful covenant of God based on
faith that incorporated works in its agreement (i.e., “covenantal nomism”)
(pp.177-183). Thus, the view that simply pitted a legalistic Judaism against a
grace-filled Christianity is in error. The real issue was that Jewish laws need
not be followed in order to become part of God’s [New] covenant family. “Works
of the law” in the relevant Pauline contexts, then, are those that mark out
Israel form the nations such as circumcision and cleanliness laws (p. 190-195).
It is the uniting of these peoples that is at issue with Paul – not a crass
clash between legalism and faith. This new perspective helps explain how Paul
can at once be seen to be both strongly critical and supportive of good works –
indeed, final judgment will be “according to” ( as opposed to “based on”) good
works in the life of the believer, such that what is declared at justification
is brought to fruition in the final judgment (pp. 198-200). Paul is thus
vindicated as being a consistent theologian when his gospel is considered in
its wholeness.
Deification View of Justification
(Protestant)
The
fourth view is probably the most unknown for Western readers – the “Deification
View” of the Finnish school of Luther
presented by Velli-Matti Kärkkäinen. Although Eastern in origin, this view of
justification is argued by a Protestant Fuller Theological Seminary professor
who served as president and professor at Isokirja College in Keuruu, Finland,
and holds a teaching position at the University of Helsinki as Docent of Ecumenics.
Kärkkäinen’s ecumenical stance comes through clearly in his contribution,
as he not only presents the deification
interpretation of Luther as a viable view, but also as one that might serve as
a bridge with the Catholic-Lutheran Joint Statement on Justification of 1999
(and, thus, could serve to help the three major branches of Christianity
reunite over this controversial subject). Kärkkäinen gives the Finnish
(“Manermaa school”) view of Luther – arguing that Luther saw justification not
in the forensic-only sense of his later followers, but as a transformative
process more like that of the Eastern churches (i.e., “theosis”).
Unfortunately, Kärkkäinen does not give a very precise definition of what he
means by these terms, which not only could easily lead to confusion for readers
unfamiliar with the distinctions made by eastern theologians when they speak of
“deification” in the salvific sense, but also leaves his interlocutors unable
to give as much helpful feedback. Kärkkäinen agrees with others that justification
is synergistic to some extent, that freedom of the will remains even after
original sin, and that faith produces a “real-ontic” union with Christ that
allows the believer to participate in Christ’s life producing true
transformation and not just a legal declaration. Thus, although a distinction
between God’s and man’s righteousness remains, the later Lutheran separation of
justification and sanctification is not Luther’s actual view. Once this
understanding of justification and the work of the Spirit is taken into
account, says Kärkkäine, many of the dichotomies found in the current debate
turn out to be false ones.
Roman Catholic View of
Justification
The
fifth and final view (Roman Catholic) is presented by two writers: Gerald
O’Collins and Oliver Rafferty. O’Collins was professor of systematic and
fundamental theology at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, and
currently is research professor at the Jesuit Theological College in Melbourne,
Australia as well as a research professor in theology at St Mary’s University
College in Twickenham. Rafferty is a lecturer in Church History at Heythrop
College, London and has taught at several universities in the United Kingdom
and Ireland, and has held visiting professorships of history in the United
States and Korea. Rafferty opens the chapter with a summary of the historical
development of the Catholic doctrine of justification leading up to the Council
of Trent [which Rafferty asserts to be “the clearest and most systematic
exposition of the catholic theology of justification” (p. 265)] (pp. 265-281).
Above all, says Rafferty, “Trent wanted to uphold the view that justification
involved not only the remission of sins but also the sanctification of the
individual” (p. 278). Although Trent cannot be easily summarized, Rafferty
lists a few important points concerning imputation vs. impartation, certainty
of salvation, purgatory, etc. to aid in considering Trent’s findings.
O’Collin’s offering is primarily autobiographic in nature, with little argumentation
or explication of his view [which he says represents “a rather than the Roman
Catholic version of justification” (p. 281 – emphasis in original)]. He touches
on the multiple metaphors for salvation, the objective vs. subjective
understanding of “in Christ” in Luther and later translators, and ends by
defining justification as “God’s faithful activity of human and cosmic
restoration effected through the inseparable work of Christ and the Holy
Spirit” (p. 286). He concludes by pointing out that both sides in the
Catholic-Lutheran Joint Declaration agree on the basics of justification by
grace and that the condemnations of the 16th Century no longer apply. However,
he cautions the reader that neither side in this Declaration officially
represent either side for either Lutheranism or Roman Catholicism, and notes
that had Luther’s view actually been so close to that of Rome, Trent would
hardly have been so harsh.
Conclusion
Overall,
Justification: Five Views is not only a very welcome addition to the multi-view
book genre, but an excellent example for future publications of its type. The
introductory chapters are very helpful, little space is wasted in the position
and response chapters, a loving spirit is exhibited by all writers, and helpful
tools such as author, subject, and Scripture indices are included as well.
Should another publisher deign to publish something similar, a few suggestions
might be helpful. First, the spectrum of views might be better represented by
other positions.[2] For example, a more traditional Lutheran view might be best
to include (no Lutheran writers are included in this volume). The mediating
view between the traditional Reformed and New Perspective views may not be as
helpful as a third, more popular and representative view, as these two fairly
represent the spectrum. Further, while including the deification view was very
welcome, expressing it as a minority view of a single Lutheran school was
probably not as strong as simply seeking representation from a traditional Eastern
Orthodox scholar. Second, a stronger voice for Roman Catholicism would be
appreciated. As interesting as a (second) history of interpretation by
Rafferty, and the biographical details of O’Collins theological journey were, a
more straightforward presentation of, and arguments for, current Catholic
thinking on justification would better match the tenor of the book.
0 comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.