"you will receive no other law for your belief than that interpretation of the Scripture which seems to you the best"

I am going to reserve comment on the quotation from the title of this thread until the end of this post, focusing instead, for now, on Alister McGrath's, Christianity's Dangerous Idea: The Protestant Revolution, which I recently finished reading (link to Google Books preview).

I had actually purchased this book—along with a number of others—a few months back, but did not get around to reading it until just a few days ago. Dr. McGrath is one of my favorite Protestant authors, especially his works on Christian history (both history proper, as well as historical theology), and this book did not disappoint. If one is looking for a polemical treatment on the subject he addresses, don't bother purchasing the book; but, if one is looking for a concise, objective and balanced contribution, definitely get a hold of a copy.

His introduction sets the tone (of course) for the book, beginning with some reflections on the July 1998 Lambeth Conference. From the pen of Dr. McGrath we read:

In July 1998, the bishops of the Anglican Communion met in the historic English cathedral city of Canterbury for their traditional Lambeth Conference, held every ten  years. The intention was to address the many challenges and opportunities that Anglicanism faced worldwide...The bishops gathered every day for prayer and Bible study, a powerful affirmation of the role of the Bible in sustaining Christian unity, guiding the church in turbulent times, and nourishing personal spirituality.

But how was the Bible to be interpreted...

How, many Anglicans wondered, could the Bible be the basis for their identify and unity when there was such obvious disunity on how it was to be understood? How could a text-based movement have a coherent inner identify when there was such a clear and fundamental disagreement on how that text was to be interpreted and applied on an issue of critical importance?

The idea that lay at the heart of the sixteenth-century Reformation, which brought Anglicanism and the other Protestant churches into being, was that the Bible is capable of being understood by all Christian believers—and that they all have the right to interpret it and to insist upon their perspectives being taken seriously. Yet this powerful affirmation of spiritual democracy ended up unleashing forces that threatened to destabilize the church, eventually leading to fissure and formation of breakaway groups...

The dangerous new idea, firmly embodied at the heart of the Protestant revolution, was that all Christians have the right to interpret the Bible for themselves. However, it ultimately proved uncontrollable, spawning developments that few at the time could have envisaged or predicted. (Pages 1, 2)

On the next page, he raises two very important questions:

Who has the authority to define its faith? Who has the right to interpret its fundamental document, the Bible? (Page 3)

This is followed with:

The outbreak of the Peasant's War in 1525 brought home to Luther that his new approach was dangerous and ultimately uncontrollable. If every individual was able to interpret the Bible as he pleased, the outcome could only be anarchy and radical individualism. Too late, Luther tried to rein in the movement by emphasizing the importance of authorized leaders, such as himself, and institutions in the interpretation of the Bible. But who, his critics asked, "authorized" these so-called authorities? (Page 3 - bold emphasis mine.)

The above questions are repeated throughout the book. In addition to strict individualism, the issue of competing "authorities" creating fragmentation almost from the very beginning of the Protestant revolt/revolution are raised. Dr. McGrath states that, "There was no single Wittenberg reforming program, no single approach to biblical interpretation and application" (p. 65).

Is it any wonder that such problems were greatly magnified as the revolt/revolution spread from Wittenberg?

McGrath moves on from Wittenberg to Zurich and Zwingli, then to the Anabaptists; and in chapter 4, to John Calvin. Chapter 5 is devoted to England and the "Emergence of Anglicanism", which is followed by "European Protestantism in Crisis, 1560–1800" (ch. 6), and then "Protestantism in America" (ch. 7).

Questions concerning authority and interpretation continue. Chapter 10, "The Bible and Protestantism" is excellent, containing reflections on the issues of sola scriptura, translations, commentaries, lectionaries, theological works and the canon.

On page 209, he writes:

Since every Protestant has the right to interpret the Bible, a wide range of interpretations cannot be avoided. And since there is no centralized authority within Protestantism, this proliferation of options cannot be controlled. Who has the right to decide what is orthodox and what is heretical?

And just a bit later he states:

Over the years, each strand of Protestantism developed its own way of understanding and implementing the sola Scriptura principle.

Dr. McGrath has added confirmation to many important issues that have been raised here at AF. From almost the beginning of this blog, I have pointed out that the assessments of A.N.S. Lane in his important article, “Scripture, Tradition and Church: An Historical Survey” (LINK), raise some serious, unanswered problems for the Protestant paradigm. The following quotation from Lane's work has been published at the bottom of the right side-bar of this blog for nearly a decade now:

The Reformers unequivocally rejected the teaching authority of the Roman Catholic Church. This left open the question of who should interpret Scripture. The Reformation was not a struggle for the right of private judgement. The Reformers feared private judgement almost as much as did the Catholics and were not slow to attack it in its Anabaptist manifestation. The Reformation principle was not private judgement but the perspicuity of the Scriptures. Scripture was ‘sui ipsius interpres’ and the simple principle of interpreting individual passages by the whole was to lead to unanimity in understanding. This came close to creating anew the infallible church…It was this belief in the clarity of Scripture that made the early disputes between Protestants so fierce. This theory seemed plausible while the majority of Protestants held to Lutheran or Calvinist orthodoxy but the seventeenth century saw the beginning of the erosion of these monopolies. But even in 1530 Casper Schwenckfeld could cynically note that ‘the Papists damn the Lutherans; the Lutherans damn the Zwinglians; the Zwinglians damn the Anabaptists and the Anabaptists damn all others.’ By the end of the seventeenth century many others saw that it was not possible on the basis of Scripture alone to build up a detailed orthodoxy commanding general assent. (A.N.S. Lane, “Scripture, Tradition and Church: An Historical Survey”, Vox Evangelica, Volume IX – 1975, pp. 44, 45 – bold emphasis mine.)

And back in Nov. 2009, I posted the following from yet another Reformed author:

Unlike modern Evangelicalism, the classical Protestant Reformers held to a high view of the Church. When the Reformers confessed extra ecclesiam nulla salus, which means “there is no salvation outside the Church,” they were not referring to the invisible Church of all the elect. Such a statement would be tantamount to saying that outside of salvation there is no salvation. It would be a truism. The Reformers were referring to the visible Church…The Church is the pillar and ground, the interpreter, teacher, and proclaimer of God’s Word…The Church has authority because Christ gave the Church authority. The Christian who rejects the authority of the Church rejects the authority of the One who sent her (Luke 10:16). (Keith A. Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura, pp. 268, 269.)

Clearly, the questions of individual interpretation and authority outside the Bible itself raised by Dr. McGrath are/were also on the minds of Lane and Mathison.

And so, with all this in mind, I shall ask: how does one determine which interpretation of the Bible is the correct one? And further, is there an authority in place which/who has the approval from God himself to provide the correct interpretation of His Word?

Now, back to the opening quotation/title of this thread:

"you will receive no other law for your belief than that interpretation of the Scripture which seems to you the best"

This quotation is from Francis de Sales, The Catholic Controversy (page 3, of Mackey's English trans., third edition, 1909 - PDF version available online HERE).

For anyone who has ever pondered over the questions raised by Dr. McGrath, I sincerely believe that you owe it to yourself to read de Sales thoughtful answers.

Grace and peace,

David 

Alister McGrath vs. Christopher Hitchens: The Center vs. the Fringe – Pt.1

Back on October 11, 2007, one of my favorite Evangelical theologians debated the controversial atheist, Christopher Hitchens. The following video is the first in a series available via YouTube—ENJOY!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NX_LM7WZc9A&feature=related



Grace and peace,

David

James White: “he’s not really like the Pope”, so let me tell you what Trent really says…

In the early portion of the 10-22-04 Dividing Line webcast, our master “stalker”, James, takes a few minutes, yet once again, to cast some disparaging remarks at Dr. Francis J. Beckwith. The following is a selection from the program:

…speaking of apostasy, ummmm, I was reading a brief article by Francis J. Beckwith this morning on his website: The Council of Trent did not deny forensic justification…(2:20ff.)

James goes on to tell us that Dr. Beckwith is “not really like the Pope”, and then, a bit later, informs his listeners that Dr. Beckwith’s interpretation of the 11th canon of the Council of Trent, “is a denial of Roman Catholic teaching on this subject.”

In essence, James is saying that one should not to trust Dr. Beckwith’s assessment, but rather, one should trust a professional, anti-Catholic’s interpretation.

And further, James is also inferring that one should not trust a certain Evangelical scholar, whose specialty happens to be historical theology, because it just so happens that this scholar’s understanding of canon XI is almost identical to that of Dr. Beckwith’s. Note the following:

It is clear that this condemnation [in Canon XI] is aimed against a purely extrinsic conception of justification (in the Catholic sense of the term) — in other words, the view that the Christian life may begin and continue without any transformation or inner renewal of the sinner. In fact, the canon does not censure any magisterial Protestant account of iustificatio hominis, in that the initial (extrinsic) justification of humans is either understood (as with Melanchthon) to be inextricably linked with their subsequent (intrinsic) sanctification, so that the concepts are notionally distinct, but nothing more; or else both the extrinsic justification and intrinsic sanctification of humanity are understood (as with Calvin) to be contiguous dimensions of the union of the believer with Christ. (Alister E. McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, 3rd ed., p. 343.)

[BTW, I had posted this same quote in the combox (HERE) of an earlier thread at the Return to Rome blog.

So, ignore Dr. McGrath, and ignore the monumental document, Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (see THIS THREAD for links to JD and supporting documents)—just trust James’ take on the matter…


Grace and peace,

David (a neophyte “stalker”)

Pseudo-Luther quote: updated information.

Back on April 15, 2008 I posted a THREAD that examined a quite famous quote usually attributed to Martin Luther: “justification by faith alone is ‘the article upon which the church stands or falls (articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae)’”.

I noted that the phrase was actually coined in the early 18th century (1718) by one Valentin E. Löscher. The scholar, Eric W. Gritsch (on whose research I had relied upon for the information), suggested that Löscher’s phrase was probably derived from Luther’s Smalcald Articles (Part II, Article I), which, at that time, seemed like a good candidate to me. However, yesterday afternoon, I believe that I came across a much better predecessor. In the introduction, “The Argument”, to his 1535 “Lectures on Galatians”, Martin Luther said:

In this epistle, therefore, Paul is concerned to instruct, comfort, and sustain us diligently in a perfect knowledge of this most excellent and Christian righteousness. For if the doctrine of justification is lost, the whole of Christian doctrine is lost. And those in the world who do not teach it are either Jews or Turks or papists or sectarians. For between these two kinds of righteousness, the active righteousness of the Law and the passive righteousness of Christ, there is no middle ground. Therefore he who has strayed away from this Christian righteousness will necessarily relapse into the active righteousness; that is, when he has lost Christ, he must fall into a trust in his own works. (Martin Luther, Luther’s Works – Volume 26: Lectures On Galatians 1535, trans. Jaroslav Pelikan, p. 9.)

Another version (Middleton’s) reads:

St. Paul, therefore, in this Epistle, goeth about diligently to instruct us, to comfort us, to hold us in the perfect knowledge of this most Christian and excellent righteousness. For if the article of justification be once lost, then is all true Christian doctrine lost. And as many as are in the world that hold not this doctrine, are either Jews, Turks, Papists, or heretics. For between, the “righteousness of the law,” and “Christian righteousness,” there is no mean. He then that strayeth from this “Christian righteousness,” must needs fall into the “righteousness of the law ;” that is to say, “when he hath lost Christ he must fall into the confidence of his own works.” (Martin Luther, A Commentary On Saint Paul’s Epistle To The Galatians, 1839 ed., p. xcviii.)

Note this phrase: “For if the doctrine of justification is lost, the whole of Christian doctrine is lost.”

IMHO, the above seems to be the best candidate (to date) as the probably source for Löscher’s (in)famous dictum.


Grace and peace,

David

UPDATING THE UPDATE: It did not take very long for this thread to stimulate further research into the origins of the phrase “articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae”. The very next day, TurretinFan provided some additional information in a subsequent THREAD he had posted on his blog. Within hours, JOHN BUGAY, brought to light some important information that had been posted back on September 1, 2008 by DR. R. SCOTT CLARK. The significant footnote referenced by Dr. Clark from McGrath’s Iustitia Dei is reproduced below:

For the sense and origins of this celebrated phrase, see F. Loofs, ‘Der articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae’. It is necessary to challenge Loofs upon several points, particularly his suggestion that the phrase is first used in the eighteenth century by the Lutheran theologian Valentin Löscher in his famous anti-Pietist diatribe Vollständiger Timotheus Verinus oder Darlegung der Wahrheit und des Friedens in denen bisherigen Pietistischen Streitigkeiten (1718-21), and is restricted to the Lutheran constituency within Protestantism. This is clearly incorrect. The Reformed theologian Johann Heinrich Alsted uses the phrase a century earlier, opening his discussion of the justification of humanity coram Deo as follows: ‘articulus iustificationis dicitur articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae’ (Theologia scholastica didacta (Hanover, 1618), 711). Precursors of the phrase may, of course, be found in the writings of Luther himself ““ e.g., WA 40/3.352.3: ‘quia isto articulo stante stat Ecclesia, ruente ruit Ecclesia’. For more recent reflection, see Schwarz, ‘Luthers Rechtfertigungslehre als Eckstein der christlichen Theologie und Kirche’. (Alister E. McGrath, Iustitia Dei, Third Edition, p. vii.)

[Note: this same information was provided (with minor variations) in the First Edition, 1986, 2.193, footnote #3; and in the Second Edition, 1998, p. 448, footnote #3.]


P.S. I had read the First Edition, cover-to-cover, back in the late 90s, but had obviously forgotten about this important information concerning Alsted; and this, in spite of the fact that I discovered upon checking my personal copy I had actually highlighted the footnote!

P.S.S. I want to thank Dr. Clark, John Bugay, TurretinFan, and James Swan for their efforts on this subject.

Justification: always forensic?

Some comments and ruminations posted yesterday, concerning the issue of justification, have prompted me to create a responsive thread. At de reginis duobus, Jason Stillman posted in the thread, Who Said That?, a quote he had, "heard…in a Protestant/Catholic debate involving Michael Horton". Jason does not tell he readers the name/place of the original debate, but once he mentioned Michael Horton’s name, I immediately was able to deduce the original source: What Still Divides Us? I own this entire debate in a cassette format produced by Basilica Press. On the back of the 8 tape album cover we read: “This debate took place at Lake Avenue Church in Pasadena, California, on March 3 & 4, 1995, before a Protestant audience of 1,500.”

Research via Google revealed that the full debate is still available in various formats, through numerous providers (caveat emptor - costs vary significantly).

Interestingly enough, a transcript of Michael Horton’s opening statement on justification is also available under the title: Are We Justified By Faith Alone?.

Now that ‘due diligence’ has been carried out concerning the source of the quote provided by Jason, it is time to provide some resources and reflections on the subject matter.

First, Michael Horton’s opening statement has been thoroughly critiqued by Robert Sungenis at his Dr. Robert Sungenis site.

Second, the quote provided by Jason is highly selective; as such, it is misleading. The following is a brief compilation of some of my own research into this issue; the Protestant patristic scholar, Alister McGrath, penned the following observations:

…it will be clear that the medieval period was astonishingly faithful to the teaching of Augustine on the question of the nature of justification, where the Reformers departed from it…The Reformation understanding of the nature of justification – as opposed to its mode – must therefore be regarded as a genuine theological novum. (Alister McGrath, Iustitia Dei, 1986 ed., pp. 1.185-187.)

He then asked the following queston: “For what reasons did the Reformers abandon the catholic consensus on the nature of justification?” (Ibid. 187.)

An important background to McGrath’s later assessment of the “reasons” was provided earlier:

Man’s righteousness, effected in justification, is regarded by Augustine as inherent rather than imputed, to use the vocabulary of the sixteenth century. A concept of ‘imputed righteousness’, in the later Protestant sense of the term, would be quite redundant within Augustine’s doctrine of justification, in that man is made righteous in justification. The righteousness which man thus receives, although originating from God, is nevertheless located within man, and can be said to be his, part of his being and intrinsic to his person. An element which underlies this understanding of the nature of justifying righteousness is the Greek concept of deification, which makes its appearance in later Augustinian soteriology. (Ibid., pp. 1.31, 32.)

But, did Augustine ‘get it wrong’? The consensus of the Protestant world (excluding Anabaptists/Mennonites) sure thought so. But this consensus is not nearly as large at it once was. Some recent/current scholars[1] are now convinced that the verb dikaoō has a causative/factitive/effective sense in Paul’s usage, and if they are correct, we can say we with confidence that Augustine did not ‘get it wrong’.

One current scholar goes so far as to conclude:

The various dikai- terms all refer to the same quality or effect of Jesus’ death on the believer. In other words, despite their grammatical distinctions, dikaiosunē, dikaios, dikaiōsis and even dikaioō all have the same sense; therefore, the rendering of dikaiosunē is “righteousness,” of dikaios, “righteous,” and of dikaioō, “make righteous. (Chris VanLandingham, Judgment & Justification in Early Judaism and the Apostle Paul, pp. 245, 246 – the entire chapter, “’Justification by Faith’—A Mistranslated Phrase and Misunderstood Concept”, pp. 242-332, is a must read.)

The Lutheran scholar, John Reumann (hearkening back to Melanchthon) maintains that dikaioō has a double sense: declarative and causative (see his, Righteousness in the New Testament, pp. 4-11.)

Further, a group of Finnish Lutheran scholars[2] are now recognizing the importance of deification in understanding the nature of justification, and are able to declare, “Lutherans can without difficulty argue that a Christian is both made righteous and also deified as a partaker of the divine nature”[3].

Even McGrath could write:

It is certainly true that Augustine speaks of the real interior renewal of the sinner by the action of the Holy Spirit, which he later expressed in terms of participation in the divine substance itself…God has given man the power both to receive and participate in the divine being. By this participation in the life of the Trinity, the justified sinner may be said to be deified. (Ibid., p. 1.32)

Though one must wait until Augustine to find a concrete reflection on the role that deification plays in justification, the doctrine of deification itself is quite prominent in many of the Church Fathers prior to Augustine. And though most are aware of the importance of deification in Orthodox thought, recent scholars are now identifying certain elements of deification in Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, and Wesley.

To make a very long story short, Augustine’s take on justification certainly has Biblical warrant, and just might be spot-on.

Notes:

[1] See Theological Lexicon of the New Testament - by Ceslas Spicq, trans. & edited by James D. Ernest, pp. 1.337-343; Rereading Paul Together – edited by David Aune, pp. 83-86; Justificaton: What’s at Stake in the Current Debates – edited by Husbands and Treier, pp. 17-45; Justification by Faith in Catholic-Protestant Dialogue – by Anthony N.S. Lane, pp. 158-167, for some examples.
[2] See Union with Christ: The New Finnish Interpretation of Luther – edited by Braaten and Jenson
[3] Ibid. p. 67.

[Two other excellent resources are the essays produced by Gerald Hiestand and Fr Alvin Kimmel.]

I think I shall end this post with a quote from Sacred Scripture:

The first to plead his case seems just, Until another comes and examines him. – Proverbs 18:17 (NASB)


Grace and peace,

David

James Swan on justification

The way things unfold in the blogsphere can at times be quite interesting. For instance, my last thread here at AF (09-27-08) dealt with the topic of justification, with the broader picture of the development of doctrine in the background. In the comments section, “Interlocutor” in THIS POST posed a couple of important questions that I chose not to answer at that time. I started ‘hitting-the-books’, focusing on Lane, McGrath, and Oberman. After lunch, I enlisted the internet, and while browsing, came across THIS THREAD, posted yesterday at the AOMIN blog. Though the thread itself is essentially a diatribe directed at James’ all too frequent internet foes, his link to a THREAD at his Beggar’s All blog, which references three books I had read: Oberman’s, The Harvest of Medieval Theology; McGrath’s, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification; and Sproul’s, Faith Alone: The Evangelical Doctrine of Justification, caught my interest.

In that same post, James’ then links to yet another BA THREAD, and cites two more books I have read: Pelikan’s, Obedient Rebels: Catholic Substance and Protestant Principle in Luther’s Reformation and his, The Riddle of Roman Catholicism. NOTE: all of these books touch on the questions that “Interlocutor” had posed, and all (with the exception of Sproul’s book) are part of my self-imposed re-reading list for a future attempt at try to address those questions. Interesting indeed!

Now, I still have at least a couple more days of intense reading before I attempt an answer to “Interlocutor”, but in the meantime, feel somewhat compelled to address some of the comments I came across in James’ threads:

In dialoging with Roman Catholics on sola fide, I have sometimes argued from their point of view: that is, the doctrine of justification was not, at the time of Luther’s writing, dogmatically defined in the Roman Catholic sense. In other words, Luther had freedom to hold the view on justification that he did within a Roman Catholic framework.

I think James is substantially correct on this, as long a one keeps in mind that Luther did in fact introduce a theological novum—i.e. justification (soteriologically speaking) via imputation alone.

I share this for one reason: don't get sucked into those silly arguments that "sola fide" was a theological "novum" previous to the Reformation.

Now this depends on how one defines “sola fide”. There is, and has always been, a Catholic sense of the phrase. However, the way in which Luther and Calvin qualified the phrase, one finds a clear departure from the Augustinian and Thomistic understanding, which dominated Middle Age thought/theology. (See Heckel’s informative ESSAY.)

I admit, the historical aspect of sola fide is a difficult issue, but applying a historical test to the Catholic notion of justification has its problems as well. Historically, one can make a case that Augustine didn't know Greek and the entire direction of the Church was redirected away from what the Bible says on sola fide.

This issue has been addressed in a concise and cogent manner HERE.

There is so much more that could be commented on, but I do not want to spend too much time on James’ musings. If others wish to engage the content contained in James' threads and links, please feel free to do so. As for me, time to hit-the-books…


Grace and peace,

David

Development, Justification/Soteriology and the Early Church Fathers

During this past week, three new threads, by Dr. Michael Liccione, concerning the development of doctrine (DD), have been posted at Philosophia Perennis: FIRST ; SECOND ; THIRD.These three new threads have, to date, generated some 92 comments. The level of the content and dialogue is quite high, and intellectually stimulating; as such, I would like to recommend all three threads to those with any interest in DD.

Obviously, these new threads have caused yours truly to reflect a bit further on DD. Rather than duplicate the material that has already been presented, I would like to explore a specific facet of DD, the development of the doctrine justification, and how it raises some serious questions concerning sola scriptura and perspicuity. I shall begin my foray into this topic by asking three questions: first, what line of development did the early post-apostolic Church proceed on; second, how does this direction relate to the original revelatory deposit; and third can 21st century Christians gain some important insights on how this development took place.

What line of development did the early post-apostolic Church proceed on?

Two dominant themes are to be found in the early Church Fathers concerning justification/soteriology: interior regeneration of the believer, and the ex opera operato nature of the sacraments. One is at a loss to find a line of development that proceeds along the line of “salvation by faith alone, through the imputation of Christ’s righteousness alone”—such a line of development did not exist, and does not appear until the 16th century (A.N.S. Lane postulates that Bernard of Clairvaux may be an exception). Many patristic scholars are keenly aware of this historical fact (e.g. Alister McGrath, A.N.S. Lane, Jaroslav Pelikan , Thomas F. Torrance, H.E.W. Turner, William Cunningham), however some contemporary Reformed apologists are not comfortable with this, and have attempted to read post-Reformation developments into some of the early Church Fathers. Before I proceed any further, the very nature of the question I am fleshing out demands that I address this recent polemic. One representative of this school of thought is James R. White. Mr. White delineated his position in his book, The God Who Justifies (Bethany House, 2001). In an attempt to avoid charges of misrepresentation, I shall provide copious quotations from the book to establish Mr. White’s position:

SO WHAT ABOUT THE EARLY CHURCH?

There are only a few valid contextual citations—that is, citations that are fair to the context of the author and the author’s expressed beliefs and theology—that can be mustered in reference to justification by grace through faith alone in the writings of the early church. Ironically, one is from one of the earliest non-scriptural writings, traditionally identified with Clement, bishop of Rome, around the turn of the first century. The work more probably produced by the elders of the church at Rome (the monarchical or one-man episcopate did not develop until the middle of the second century, so the church at Rome at that time would have been led by a group of elders, as is the biblical pattern), speaks often of God’s work of saving His elect people. In section 32, the epistle makes this bold statement:

Therefore, all these were glorified and magnified, not because of themselves, or through their own works, or for the righteous deeds they performed, but by His will. And we also, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by means ourselves, nor by our own wisdom or understanding or godliness or works which we have done in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which the Almighty God has justified all those believing from the beginning. To whom be glory for ever and ever, amen.

This statement is surely in harmony with orthodox Protestant understanding of justification, and it can only be made to fit other systems by some imaginative (and anachronistic) redefinition of the terms.(TGWJ, p. 130.)

And:

In another very orthodox (i.e. biblically based) reference, the anonymous author (sometimes called Mathetes, the Greek term for “disciple”) writes to Diognetius[sic] and explains the leading elements of the Christian faith. In section 9 the author shows the depth of his familiarity with the writings of the apostle Paul:

This was not that He at all delighted in our sins, but that He simply endured them; nor that He approved the time of working iniquity which then was, but that He sought to form a mind conscious of righteousness, so that being convinced in that time of our unworthiness of attaining life through our own works, it should now, through the kindness of God, be vouchsafed to us; and having made it manifest that in ourselves we were unable to enter into the kingdom of God, we might through the power of God be made able. But when our wickedness had reached its height, and it had been clearly shown that its reward, punishment and death, was impending over us; and when the time had come which God had before appointed for manifesting His own kindness and power, how the one love of God, through exceeding regard for men, did not regard us with hatred, nor thrust us away, nor remember our iniquity against us, but showed great long-suffering, and bore with us, He Himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities, He gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous, the incorruptible One for the corruptible, the immortal One for them that are mortal. For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than His righteousness? By what other one was it possible that we, the wicked and ungodly, could be justified, than by the only Son of God? O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation! that the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors! Having therefore convinced us in the former time that our nature was unable to attain to life, and having now revealed the Savior who is able to save even those things which it was [formerly] impossible to save, by both these facts He desired to lead us to trust in His kindness, to esteem Him our Nourisher, Father, Teacher, Counselor, Healer, our Wisdom, Light, Honor, Glory, Power, and Life.

Aside from these brief glimpses into a period when apostolic teaching continued without philosophical and traditional accretions, most of the discussion one finds of the topic is either based upon considerations far removed from the biblical text or is so shallow and surface-level as to give the reader no real insight into the beliefs of the author.(TGWJ, pp. 130, 131.)


First off, I have attempted to pin down the English translation of the text utilized by Mr. White, but alas, among the 9 translations of Clement (Lake, Richardson, Sparks, Kleist, Staniforth, Lightfoot, Grant, Glimm, Roberts & Donaldson), that I possess within my library, none matched Mr. White’s text. And unfortunately, he does not tell his readers which translation he used (it may, in fact, be he own).

Second, Mr. White’s remarks that the above selection from Clement “is surely in harmony with orthodox Protestant understanding of justification, and it can only be made to fit other systems by some imaginative (and anachronistic) redefinition of the terms” is highly suspect; one will gain an entirely different outlook from the following patristic scholars:

It is obvious that in asserting justification by faith Clement was simply reproducing Paul’s idea without appreciating what it involved, and that he really agreed with the other Christians of his day that salvation is to be had only by obeying God and his will. That the early Christians should have departed from Paul in this matter is not surprising at all. (Arthur Cushman McGiffert, A History of Christian Thought, vol. 1. 85.)

The fundamental idea at the back of the words dikaiosunē, dikaioumai seems to be the moral qualification which avails before God conceived as a quality of the soul. That is achieved by faith which is fear of God working itself out in obedience. And so Clement can say that we are “justified by works, not by words” ergois dikaioumenoi, mē logois, and insists that we are not justified by pistis alone but by pistis and eusebeia, by pistis and philozenia, by pistis and alētheia. (Thomas F. Torrance, The Doctrine of Grace In the Apostolic Fathers, p. 49 – note: I have transliterated the Greek for my readers.)

…while sometimes Clement speaks in the very tones of Paul, as for instance on justification by faith (ch. 32:4), his leading convictions are somewhat different…Clement has moved away from the Pauline gospel into an atmosphere more concerned with moral life, and in particular with virtues of humility and order. Where ethical injunctions are secondary to Paul’s letters, they are primary in Clement. (Cyril C. Richardson, Early Christian Fathers, p, 38.)

And Clement himself wrote:

Blessed are we, beloved, if we keep the commandments of God in the harmony of love; that so through love our sins may be forgiven us. For it is written, “Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not impute to him, and in whose mouth there is no guile.” (ch. 50, Donaldson & Roberts trans. – in ANF 1.18, 19.)

[Also: “Let us clothe ourselves with concord and humility, ever exercising self-control, standing far off from all whispering and evil-speaking, being justified by our works, and not our words.” (ch. 30 – ANF 1.13); “We see, then, how all righteous men have been adorned with good works, and how the Lord Himself, adorning Himself with His works, rejoiced. Having therefore such an example, let us without delay accede to His will, and let us work the work of righteousness with our whole strength.” (ch. 33) – ANF 1.14; “Let him who has love in Christ keep the commandments of Christ. Who can describe the [blessed] bond of the love of God? What man is able to tell the excellence of its beauty, as it ought to be told? The height to which love exalts is unspeakable. Love unites us to God. Love covers a multitude of sins. Love beareth all things, is long-suffering in all things. There is nothing base, nothing arrogant in love. Love admits of no schisms: love gives rise to no seditions: love does all things in harmony. By love have all the elect of God been made perfect; without love nothing is well-pleasing to God.” (ch. 49 – ANF 1.18.]

IMHO, an objective reading of Clement’s ENTIRE epistle to the Corinthians forces one to reject Mr. White's assessment; Clement is not a proto-Protestant; but rather, he is a proto-Catholic.

Now to The Epistle To Diognetus. Once again, Mr. White did not inform his readers whose English translation he was citing/using. However, unlike the Clement passage, I was able to find the actual source: Donaldson & Roberts translation – in ANF 1.28.

We know Mr. White’s position on this selection from the epistle, but what do patristic scholars have to say? The most definitive study of the epistle to date is Henry G. Meecham’s, The Epistle To Diognetus – The Greek Text With Introduction, Translation, and Notes (Manchester Univ. Press, 1949). Note what Meecham wrote:

By righteousness of the Son man’s sins are ‘covered’ (see note on ix. 3). “In that righteousness we are justified. The Pauline term is used, but the meaning has become much less forensic. The thought is not that of an externally imputed righteousness, but of a real change in the sinful heart of man, and the writer seems to feel that the righteousness of Christ actually becomes ours” (Grensted). (Page 25.)

Now, when one takes into consideration the rest of writings of the early Church Fathers who wrote on the doctrine of justification/soteriology, I believe that one is forced to conclude with Dr. McGrath, “that there are no ‘Forerunners of the Reformation doctrines of justification’”; and that the Reformation understanding of justification was “a genuine theological novum” (Alister E. McGrath, Iustitia Dei, vol. 1, p. 187 – 1986 ed.). [For a very recent informative study on the doctrine of justification in the early Church see Thomas P. Scheck’s, Origen and the History of Justification, (2008).]


More on the line of development of the early post-apostolic Church in my next thread, the Lord willing.


Grace and peace,

David