Read an Excerpt
Faith Alone â" The Doctrine of Justification
By Thomas Schreiner ZONDERVAN
Copyright © 2015 Thomas R. Schreiner
All rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-0-310-51578-4
CHAPTER 1
Sola Fide in the Early Church
"O the sweet exchange, O the incomprehensible work of God, O the unexpected blessings, that the sinfulness of many should be hidden in one righteous man, while the righteousness of one should justify many sinners!"
— The Epistle to Diognetus 9.5
We begin our historical tour of the doctrine of justification by looking at the apostolic fathers and the patristic era. In doing so, we must acknowledge that our point of view affects how we read. At the outset we should say that the writings of the earliest Christians should be read with gratefulness and appreciation. When we read them, we recognize and affirm that they confessed the same faith we cherish. We resonate with their belief that Jesus is the Christ and that he fulfilled Old Testament prophecy, for they confessed that Christ is the center of their faith. Evangelical Protestants recognize that God guided the early church as it wrestled with the christological dimensions of the faith revealed to them. Protestants inf luenced by Reformation traditions affirm that the Nicean and Chalcedonian creeds capture the message of the NT. Nor do we limit our appreciation to christological matters, for we rejoice in their affirmation of the created world, their rejection of Gnosticism, and their concern for ethics proclaimed by Jesus Christ and the apostles.
The oft-repeated saying that we stand on the shoulders of those who precede us applies to the earliest theologians in the history of the church and indeed to all the saints and scholars before us. Protestants who ignore or despise the contributions of the earliest era of the church show their folly and arrogance, for we stand in debt to the church throughout the ages. By affirming sola fide, we are not saying that we believe the true church only arose in the sixteenth century, nor are we saying that the church was deeply flawed until the time of the Reformation. On the contrary, we stand in the deepest appreciation of believers who followed the Lord before us, gratefully acknowledging their faith, wisdom, courage, and devotion. Luther himself acknowledged that there was much good in the church in the 1,500 years preceding him. An observation like this doesn't mean that there weren't weaknesses in the church, nor should we assume that the church and its doctrines have always been biblical and healthy. The Reformation happened for a reason! Still, the danger for many Protestants is to assume that the church had little to no understanding of the Pauline gospel for its first 1,500 years. Such a judgment is a gross exaggeration.
This leads us to the question we first wish to consider: Is sola fide taught in the earliest period of church history? We know that the formula itself — "faith alone" — was confessionally adopted during the Reformation after the church had existed for nearly 1,500 years. This leads us to wonder: If the earliest Christians didn't espouse faith alone, should we do so today? Today, many evangelicals are returning to and recovering the voice of the early church fathers. We recognize our debt to the early fathers, and there is now a fresh explosion of interest in their exegesis and theology. We now recognize that the early fathers were careful interpreters of Scripture, and hence our interest in whether they confessed that salvation is by faith alone is piqued. Did Protestants during the time of the Reformation and subsequently perhaps overreact to Roman Catholics? Could there be a more balanced and biblical stance found in the earliest fathers, in those who lived and wrote before the controversies of the 1500s began?
I haven't said anything yet about the soteriology of the earliest Christians, for there is significant controversy in scholarship over whether they were, in fact, faithful to Paul's theology of grace. I can scarcely resolve the matter here, given the extensive debate on the topic. Still, I hope to provide a perspective for our study, and it will become apparent where I lean in the dispute over whether the earliest fathers were faithful to Paul. Some have argued, perhaps most famously Thomas Torrance, that those in the patristic era misunderstood the Pauline gospel and actually contradicted it. Others claim that Torrance's conclusion isn't warranted, that a sympathetic examination of the theology of the earliest era shows that they affirmed Paul's gospel. I incline more to the latter viewpoint, but before making that case, I should say another word about the matter of doctrinal clarity and precision.
To put it simply, we cannot expect the earliest Christians to have the same clarity on the issue of sola fide as the Reformers. The emphasis we find among them on topics like good works and merit lacks the clarity of the later discussions, but a sympathetic reading doesn't posit a contradiction between them and the Reformers. True faith results in good works, and the term "merit" in the early fathers may designate the reward given instead of being interpreted to say that one earns salvation. We must remember that the early believers were rightly concerned about antinomianism, a misreading of Paul's theology of grace that supported a sinful lifestyle. The earliest fathers rightly opposed what Dietrich Bonhoeffer would later call "cheap grace," an abuse of the freedom of the gospel leading one to excuse sinful behavior.
The Reformers, unlike the church fathers, had the benefit of 1,500 years of Christian ref lection in assessing justification and stood in debt to those who preceded them, especially to Augustine. The earliest church didn't encounter significant theological controversy over soteriology and the role of faith and works. They gladly affirmed that salvation was of the Lord. They also, in line with the Pauline witness, confessed that salvation was by faith instead of by works. At the same time they concluded that good works were necessary for final salvation. These affirmations need not be seen as contradictory. They accord with what the NT itself teaches, and thus they represent a faithful appropriation of the NT witness, even if some of the terms and expressions of the early fathers lacked the clarity and precision of later formulations. A faithful reception of the NT message shouldn't be equated with a full understanding of soteriology or with the precision that we find with the Reformers and their followers. But the vagueness of the early fathers isn't surprising, for controversy (as is evident with the early debates on the Trinity and Christology) is the furnace in which clearer theology is forged.
What we do not find in the patristic era, at least until Augustine, is a full discussion of the relationship between faith and works. That matter came to the forefront in Augustine's dispute with Pelagius. Before that time the church fathers were content with simply saying what we find in the NT: salvation is by faith and due to the grace of God, and those who experience God's grace should live a new life, for those who are not transformed will not receive an eternal reward. In that respect, the fathers faithfully captured the message of the NT. But we should not expect those in the patristic era to speak directly to issues that arose later in church history.
Some, lamenting the divisions between Roman Catholics and Protestants in the last five hundred years, may pine for the unity on soteriology we find in the early church and might wish that we could go back to that period. Such feelings represent nostalgia, a nostalgia that doesn't accord with historical realities. The truth is that every period of church history has been marked by doctrinal strife and dispute. Indeed, once the matter of faith and works came to the table in the dispute between Augustine and Pelagius, the matter was sharply controverted. Pastors were alerted in a fresh way to the issues at stake.
It is also nostalgic and sentimental to wish that we could discuss the matter of sola fide apart from the Reformation and the Counter Reformation, not to mention the four hundred plus years since. The controversy during the Reformation sharpened the debate and posed the issues with a clarity we don't find in the ancient church. Again, to say this is no criticism of the early fathers. We should not expect them to weigh in on issues that weren't debated in their time. We must be careful of an anachronistic criticism that judges theologians based on subsequent history. Nor can we go back to an earlier era to find the doctrinal purity and unity we long for. Instead, we must assess the question of justification in light of the entirety of church history and of the intensive debates and discussions that have arisen. Some may be satisfied with being Augustinian, but the discussion has moved past Augustine. Such a statement doesn't mean that we ignore Augustine, for his contribution was vital and must be integrated into current discussions. Still, he did not give the final and decisive answer in the discussion, and the contribution of the Reformers and contemporary biblical scholarship must also be included in assessing the role of sola fide today.
Indeed, we should be grateful for the last five hundred years, for the debates and divisions and discussions have forced us to read the biblical text intensely and carefully. They prompt us to be like the Bereans, who examined the Scriptures to discern what they actually teach (Acts 17:11). Perhaps some theological formulations are more precise than Scripture warrants. Nevertheless, as the church has learned in christological controversies, it may be that the intense study on justification has led us to a more nuanced view, a view that does justice to the entirety of the scriptural witness. One reason we will engage in a tour of church history, despite the dangers of being selective and brief, is that it provides a taste of the depth and breadth of the work of those who have gone before us.
To sum up, as we consider the contributions of the apostolic fathers and the patristic era, we must not expect too much from them, nor too little. We must not expect them to be conversant with the debates of the Reformation, for that would be anachronistic. At the same time, we can be guilty of expecting too little as well, for if they are faithful to the apostolic witness, we will detect the gospel in what they have written.
Defining Key Terms
For those who may be new to these discussions or who are unfamiliar with the historic or contemporary debates on the subject of justification, it is important to gain familiarity with some of the key terms used. So, before we dive into the historical evidence for sola fide, let's consider some definitions.
Though I've used "justification" several times already and most readers will be familiar with what the term means, we can define it as being right before God. Justification, then, refers to how we attain righteousness. Forensic understandings of justification see this as being declared righteous before God. By contrast, transformative understandings see it as being made righteous before God. Along with this, it is important that we grasp the distinction between an imputed righteousness and an infused righteousnes. Imputed righteousness means that we are declared to be in the right before God on the basis of the righteousness of Jesus Christ, which is given to us when we believe. Infused righteousness means that we are righteous before God because of our righteous behavior, because of the righteousness that transforms and changes us.
Historically, Roman Catholics have defended the notion that the righteousness that saves us on the day of judgment is infused, while Protestants have maintained that the righteousness that delivers us from God's wrath is imputed. I will argue in this book that the Protestant understanding is correct and that the Roman Catholic view deviates from the gospel of Jesus Christ. For those who are new to this discussion, know that we will unpack more of this in the chapters that follow. With these basic definitions in place, we can now turn to the historical evidence for sola fide in the early church.
Justification by Faith in 1 Clement
In the writings of the earliest Christians we do not find many references to justification, but the evidence we do have supports the notion that most early church fathers understood justification forensically, and thus, as we will see, they stand in contrast to Augustine. We begin with these fascinating words about justification in 1 Clem. 32:3–4, which most believe was written around AD 96.
All, therefore, were glorified and magnified, not through themselves or their own works or the righteous actions which they did, but through his will. And so we, having been called through his will in Christ Jesus, are not justified through ourselves or through our wisdom or understanding or piety or works, which we have done in holiness of heart, but through faith, by which the almighty God has justified all who have existed from the beginning, to whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen.
Clement clearly says that our works or holiness do not justify us. As Lindemann observes, Clement "shows quite clearly that he is not a teacher of 'justification by works.'" He often emphasizes God's gracious work in believers. Instead, justification is God's work and is granted to those who exercise faith. Such a notion accords with Clement's teaching on election (1 Clem. 32:3; 59:2), which features God's grace in salvation. In Clement's emphasis on justification by faith (31:1–2), we have an early example of what would later be known as sola fide. At the same time, Clement spends most of the letter exhorting his readers to live a virtuous life. Such an emphasis, however, does not mean that he denies what he wrote about justification. We must consider the occasion and circumstances that called forth the document. For Clement good works flow from faith (30:3) and are not the ground of justification. As Arnold says, good works in Clement "are the appropriate response to the work of salvation, not the foundation of justification."
Clement doesn't tie justification to the person and work of Christ to the same degree Paul does. Even though we don't have the same kind of clarity that we find in Paul, the importance of Christ's blood is noted (7:4), and hence there are reasons to think that justification is due to what Christ has accomplished.
Justification in Ignatius
Another early witness to justification by faith is Ignatius. Ignatius emphasizes that believers live according to grace and center on Jesus Christ (Magn. 8:1; Phld. 9:2). Even though he doesn't highlight the term justification, he features the content of the gospel and Jesus' death and resurrection (Phld. 9:2). Those who center on Jesus Christ don't fall prey to Judaism (Magn. 10:3; Phld. 6:1). Instead, Ignatius calls on his readers to exercise faith and love (Eph. 1:14; Magn. 1). Justification for Ignatius centers on Jesus Christ (Phld. 8:2), and the atonement that comes through his blood (Smyrn. 6:1), so that Christ is understood as a substitute (Rom. 6:1; Smyrn. 6:2; Trall. 2:1; 9:2). Indeed, it seems that justification is apart from works of law since he rejects circumcision for salvation. Ignatius recognizes his own imperfection and his need for mercy, finding rest in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, so that the gospel is his hope (Phld. 5:1–2; Smyrn. 11:1).
Thomas Torrance thinks that faith and love in Ignatius mean that faith and works justify us. But again we need to remember the situation and occasion that called forth the Ignatian letters. In this case, Ignatius was about to suffer martyrdom. Still, he continued to emphasize the grace of God (Magn. 8:1; Smyrn. 6:2), and love should be construed as the consequence and fruit of faith. Others see the emphasis on martyrdom in Ignatius to be opposed to justification by faith, as if he put his trust in his sacrifice. One could interpret his martrydom in this way, but the necessity of martrydom doesn't necessarily communicate works-righteousness, for the desire to be faithful accords with the Pauline teaching that one must endure to be saved.
(Continues...)
Excerpted from Faith Alone â" The Doctrine of Justification by Thomas Schreiner. Copyright © 2015 Thomas R. Schreiner. Excerpted by permission of ZONDERVAN.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
