|
Justification
and the Protestant Reformation Our working theme for Galatians: “Grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, as taught in Scripture alone, to the glory of God alone” CHARTING THE COURSE FOR THIS STUDY Justification and the Protestant Reformation (Galatians 2:11-21) A. In the churches of Galatia the Gospel was being perverted by the Judaizers (Galatians 1:6-9). 1. The Judaizers’ Gospel was, ““Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” (Acts 15:1) 2. Paul’s Gospel was that the cross is the only foundation of God’s acceptance of us and the cross is the only foundation of our acceptance of others within the church. 3. Paul’s Gospel taught that we are cleansed by faith in Jesus’ blood. The Judaizers said that we are cleansed through circumcision and by adhering to the Jewish food laws. B. In order to undermine Paul’s Gospel the Judaizers were questioning Paul’s authority. For the last 2,000 years people have done the same thing! If they don’t like what Paul said they try pitting Paul against Jesus or James, etc. Ø If people don’t like Paul’s teaching about women, then try and show how Paul contradicted Jesus (however see Gal.3:26-29 for one of the most liberating statements in the Scriptures made about women). Ø If we don’t like Paul’s teaching about homosexuality, say that Jesus never uttered a word about the subject… Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) the third President of the United States
declared, “Paul was the first corrupter of the Doctrines of Jesus.” (from
a letter addessed to W. Short and published in The Great Thoughts, by
George Seldes, Ballantine Books, N.Y., 1985, p. 208) The
German theologian Ferdinand Christian Baur (1792-1860) asked, “What kind of
authority can there be for an ‘apostle’ who, unlike the other apostles, had
never been prepared for the apostolic office in Jesus’ own school but
had only later dared to claim the apostolic office on the basis of his own
authority? The only question comes to be how the apostle Paul appears in his
Epistles to be so indifferent to the historical facts of the life of Jesus …
He bears himself but little like a disciple who has received the doctrines
and the principles which he preaches from the Master whose name he bears.” Danish
philosopher and theologian Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) commented, “In the
teachings of Christ, religion is completely present tense: Jesus is the prototype
and our task is to imitate him, become a disciple. But then through Paul came
a basic alteration. Paul draws attention away from imitating Christ and fixes
attention on the death of Christ the Atoner. What Martin Luther, in his
reformation, failed to realize is that even before Catholicism, Christianity
had become degenerate at the hands of Paul. Paul made Christianity the
religion of Paul, not of Christ. Paul threw the Christianity of Christ away,
completely turning it upside down, making it just the opposite of the
original proclamation of Christ.” French
philosopher Ernest Renan (1823-1892) wrote, “True Christianity, which will
last forever, comes from the gospel words of Christ not from the epistles of
Paul. The writings of Paul have been a danger and a hidden rock, the causes
of the principal defects of Christian theology.” New
Testament scholar Wilhelm Wrede (1859-1906) stated, “The obvious
contradictions in the three accounts given by Paul in regard to his
conversion are enough to arouse distrust.... The moral majesty of Jesus, his
purity and piety, his ministry among his people, his manner as a prophet, the
whole concrete ethical-religious content of his earthly life, signifies for
Paul's Christology nothing whatever.... The name 'disciple of Jesus’ has
little applicability to Paul.... Jesus or Paul: this alternative
characterizes, at least in part, the religious and theological warfare of the
present day.” German
theologian Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965) remarked, “Where possible Paul
avoids quoting the teaching of, in fact even mentioning it. If we had to rely
on Paul, we should not know that Jesus taught in parables, had delivered the
Sermon on the Mount, and had taught his followers the 'Our Father.' Even
where they are especially relevant, Paul passes over the words of Jesus.” The
Jewish philosopher Martin Buber (1878-1965) stated, “The Jesus of the Sermon
on the Mount is completely opposed to Paul.” American
Poet Robert Frost (1874-1963) warned, “Paul, he’s in the Bible too. He
is the fellow who theologized Christ almost out of Christianity. Look
out for him” (in “A Masque of Mercy”). Günther Bornkamm (1905 –
1990) the New Testament scholar
and student of Rudolph Bultmann wrote, “Above all there results the chasm
which separates Jesus from Paul and the conclusion that more than the
historical Jesus ... it is Paul who really founded Christianity.... Already
during his lifetime Paul was considered an illegitimate Apostle and a
falsifier of the Christian message.... For a long time, Judeo-Christianity
rejected him completely, as a rival to Peter and James, the brother of the
Lord.... Paul does not connect immediately with ... [the] words ... of the
earthly Jesus. Everything seems to indicate that he didn't even know them.” Retired
Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong (1931- ) avowed, “Paul’s words are not the
Words of God (Yahweh). They are the words of Paul- a vast difference”
(Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism, p. 104, Harper San Francisco, 1991) Paul Johnson, “The Christ of Paul was not affirmed
by the historical Jesus of the Jerusalem Church.... Writings ... by Christian
Jews of the decade of the 50's [AD] present Paul as the Antichrist and the
prime heretic.... The Christology of Paul, which later became the substance
of the universal Christian faith,... was predicated by an external personage
whom many members of the Jerusalem Church absolutely did not recognize as an
Apostle” (A History of Christianity) C. Paul’s autobiography in Galatians 1-2 serves two main purposes: 1. To establish his apostolic authority (Gal.1:1,11,12). a. Paul’s Gospel was recognized by the leaders in Jerusalem (2:7-9). b. Paul even rebuked Cephas (2:11-21). c. Peter recognized Paul’s apostolic authority in his last letter (2 Peter 3:2,15). d. Paul performed the signs of an apostle (Romans 15:18,19; 2 Corinthians 12:12; Gal.3:1-5). 2. To establish his Gospel of justification by grace alone (Galatians 1:3,6,15) through faith alone (Galatians 2:16,20; 3:1-14, 22-29; 6:10; cf. Ephesians 2:8-10) in Christ alone to the glory of God alone (1:4-5). a. According to Paul’s former manner of life in Judaism he was not saved (cf. 1 Timothy 1:12-16). b. Paul was not converted by the Law, he stood condemned by the Law (Gal.1:13-14; cf. Philippians 3). c. The
Gospel of the Judaizers was false because it was bringing Christians back to
Paul’s unconverted way of life. Paul
later pleads, “I beg of you,
brethren, become as I am, for I also have become as you are. You have done me
no wrong” (Gal.4:12). D. We should never underestimate the false Gospel of the Judaizers because Peter fell prey to it and even Barnabas! (Galatians 2:11ff.) JUSTIFICATION
AND THE PROTESTANT REFORMATION A. What is the meaning of “justified”? This controversy goes back to the time of the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century. [1]
a. In Lutheran theology,
justification has often been called ‘the article upon which the church stands
or falls’ (ecclesia stantis et
cadentis ecclesiae).[2] i. “If this one teaching [on justification] stands in its purity, then Christendom will also remain pure and good, undivided and unseparated; for this alone, and nothing else, makes and maintains Christendom. Everything else may be brilliantly counterfeited by false Christians and hypocrites; but where this falls, it is impossible to ward off any error or sectarian spirit.” (Martin Luther in Luther’s Works 14:37, “Exposition of Psalm 117” 1530). ii. “This doctrine, I say, they will not tolerate under any circumstances. We are able to forgo it just as little; for if this doctrine vanishes, the church vanishes. Then no error can any long be resisted.” (Martin Luther in Luther’s Works 47:54, “Warning to His Dear German People” 1531). iii. Philip Melanchthon, Martin Luther’s right hand man, said that justification is “the most important topic of Christian teaching which, rightly understood, illumines and magnifies the honor of Christ.” (Apology of the Augsburg Confession, IV.2) b. Reformed theologians have also highlighted the importance the doctrine of justification for the preaching of the Gospel. i. John Calvin called the doctrine of justification ‘the main hinge on which religion turns’. (Institutes of the Christian Religion III.11.1). ii. Francis Turretin, declared that justification is “of the greatest importance... the principal rampart of the Christian religion.” (Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 2:633). “For the quarrel between Rome and the Reformation did not have to do with whether we are justified by an active or inactive faith, or by a living or a dead faith. But the question was, just as it was for Paul, whether faith with its works, or whether faith apart from its works, justifies us before God and in our consciences. (Herman Bavinck, Gereformeerde Dogmatiek, Vol. IV [4th ed.; Kampen: J. H. Kok, 1930], pp.198-207. B. The Renaissance paved the way for the Reformation understanding of Paul’s usage of the term “justification.” 1. The Renaissance brought about an appreciation for the original languages. Before Renaissance Humanism, most Christian scholars studied the Bible in Latin. a. Desiderius Erasmus “Prince of Humanists” (c.1466 - 1536) was the first editor of the Greek New Testament. His motto was the Latin phrase ad fontes which means “to the sources.” b. Giovanni Pico della Mirandola (1463-1494) was a Hebrew scholar who argued we should go back to Hebrew and Jewish sources. c. Johannes Reuchlin (1455-1522) was a Christian Renaissance scholar. He wrote a Hebrew primer (de Rudimentis Hebraicis [1506]) used by the Reformers (Reuchlin was the uncle of Philip Melanchthon but he never left Rome). 2. The Reformation’s emphasis upon sola scriptura was upon Scripture in the original languages. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; (Matt. 5:18) so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them. (Isa. 8:20, Acts 15:15, John 5:39,46) But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, (John 5:39) therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, (1 Cor. 14:6,9,11–12,24,27–28) that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner; (Col. 3:16) and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope. (Rom. 15:4) (Westminster Confession of Faith 1:8; emphasis added). 3. Roman Catholics did not appeal to the Scriptures in the original languages but rather to the translation of the Latin Vulgate (Catholics were therefore not unlike those who argue today for the “King James” Only”). The Council of Trent declared in 1546, “But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema….Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,—considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,—ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.” The 16th century Douay-Rheims Bible (DRB) translators translated from the Latin Vulgate. They didn’t go back to the Greek and Hebrew. The translators gave ten reasons for doing this and ended up saying that the Latin Vulgate ""is not only better then all other Latin translations, but then the Greek text itself, in those places where they disagree." (Preface to the Rheims New Testament, 1582). They state that the Vulgate is "more pure then the Hebrew or Greek now extinct" and that "the same Latin hath been far better conserved from corruptions." (Preface to the Douay Old Testament, 1609). C. How
did Luther and the Reformers come up with the idea that justification is an
“act of God” by going back to the original languages? 1. Citing Augustine, Catholic scholars were misled by the Latin word justificare which means “make righteous.” 2. Paul’s use of justification in the Greek is a forensic term with the sense of declaring righteous. Justification is an act of God’s free grace and not a work of God’s free grace. (J.I. Packer, “Sola Fide: The Reformed Doctrine of Justification”).
|
|
D. Roman Catholicism today: 1. Many Roman Catholic exegetes now acknowledge that justification is forensic in nature. 2. Rome seems to be open to reinterpreting the Council of Trent. E. Major questions still remain between the Roman and Protestant understanding of justification: [3] 1. Rome still maintains justification is a process and thereby confuses justification and sanctification. [4] Michael Horton points out, “This, however, rejects Paul's whole point in Romans 4:1-5, that justification comes only to those who (a) are wicked and (b) stop working for it. God justifies the wicked as wicked, the sinner as sinner. That is the good news of the gospel, and the scandal of the Cross!” Q.77 of the Westminster Larger Catechism Wherein do justification and sanctification differ? Although sanctification be inseparably joined with justification, (1 Cor. 6:11, 1 Cor. 1:30) yet they differ, in that God in justification impureth the righteousness of Christ; (Rom. 4:6 ,8) in sanctification of his Spirit infuseth grace, and enableth to the exercise thereof; (Ezek. 36:27) in the former, sin is pardoned; (Rom. 3:24–25) in the other, it is subdued: (Rom. 6:6,14) the one doth equally free all believers from the revenging wrath of God, and that perfectly in this life, that they never fall into condemnation (Rom. 8:33–34) the other is neither equal in all, (1 John 2:12–14, Heb. 5:12–14) nor in this life perfect in any, (1 John 1:8,10) but growing up to perfection. (2 Cor. 7:1, Phil. 3:12–14) 2.The Council of Trent taught that good works are the gifts of God’s grace and the good merits of him justified. This seems contradictory. How can you be justified God’s grace alone and your works of merit? R.C. Sproul points out, “Rome’s view of merit and grace contains an unresolved paradox. On the one hand Rome insists on speaking of merit, while on the other she insists that this merit is rooted in grace. The Germans expressed this paradox by coining the term Gnadenlohn, “gracious merit.” (R.C. Sproul, Faith Alone: The evangelical doctrine of justification; p.148). 3. It is unclear as to why the Catholic view of justification (faith + works) omits all cause for self-boasting (see Romans 4:1-5). 4.
How can our works merit for others the grace needed for eternal life as the
Catholic Catechism asserts, “No one can merit the initial grace which is at
the origin of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit, we can merit for
ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain eternal life, as
well as necessary temporal goods” (CCC 2027)? This contradicts Romans 11:6, “But if it is by grace, it is no longer
on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.” 5. The Bible provides for the believer’s assurance of salvation but Rome’s view of justification does not allow for assurance of salvation. “In chapter IX of the Decree of Justification the Council [of Trent] not only described such an assurance as ‘boasting’ and as a ‘vain and ungodly confidence’, but also stated unequivocally that ‘no one can know with the certainty of faith, which cannot be subject to error, that he has obtained the grace of God’.” (Right with God: Justification in the Bible and the World, p.215). |
