Salvation Debate: Augustine of Hippo to Council of

Trent

PURPOSE
1. Present the different ways salvation is understood in Catholic, Orthodox,
and Protestant theologies.
SUMMARY
The sixteenth-century Reformation was a revolt against the doctrine of sal
vation as taught by the medieval church. Román Catholic theology believed
human works make a contribution to salvation, whereas the Reformers rejected
that function of human works. A Catholic Augustinian monk, Martin Luther,
launched the Reformation after discovering new freedom in Christ from the
text “The just shall live by faith” (Rom. 1:17, NKjv). He wrote in the margin
of his Bible next to this text the Latin word sola which means “alone.” This
was inspired by his reading of the rest of the text: “For in the gospel a righ-
teousness from God is revealed—a righteousness that is by faith from first to
last” (1:17a). “Faith alone” seemed the appropriate human response to the gift
of justification. By contrast, the medieval church believed that faith without
works is dead, which seems to find support in James: “a person is considered
righteous by what they do and not by faith alone” (2:24). The medieval church did not
believe in justificaron by faith alone (as do Protestants); rather, they believed in
justificaron by faith.
These positions are radically different (and let me point out that this is not just
another debate—the meaning of the gospel is at stake). Faith seems to be confined
to the front-end of salvation for Catholics, but not present throughout. Put another
way, salvation is through Christ from beginning to end in biblical theology; but is
mostly through the church and sacraments in Catholic theology (and through sac-
raments in the Orthodox church, and in some Protestant denominations). Some
argüe that there is little difference among the teachings of Luther, Calvin, and the
Catholic church, for all three go back to Augustine, and all three unite justifica
ron and sanctification. Official pronouncements from both sides indícate the dif-
ferences. Orthodox theology has no interest in justification by faith, and focuses
rather on divinization (theosis) of humanity in Christ and in believers.
OUTLINE
I. Introduction
II. Sub-Chrístian Theology
A. Gnosticism
B. Pelagianism
III. Catholic Theology: History Behind Medieval Church
A. Augustine of Hippo (354-430)
1. Enchiridion
2. Second Council of Orange (529)
B. Medieval Church
C. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)
1. Summa Theologica
IV. Orthodox Theology
A. Evaluation
V. Reformation Theology
A. Martín Luther (1483—1546)
B. Philipp Melanchthon (1497-1560)
C. John Calvin (1509-1564)
D. Andreas Osiander (1498—1552)
E. Justification from Eternity
F. Creeds
1. Augsburg Confession (1530)
2. Articles of Smalcald (1537)
3. Formula of Concord (1577)
VI. Román Response: Between Diet of Augsburg (1530) and Diet of Ratisbon
(1541)
VII. Counter Reformation: Council of Trent (1545-1563)
A. Evaluation
VIII. Conclusión
IX. Study Questions
Introduction
The final three chapters of this volume (15-17) focus on the debate among
Christians about salvation. General biblical data on salvation is at the begin
ning, in chapter 12, and serves as the biblical basis for the following five chap
ters on salvation and justification. During the first three-hundred-fifty years
of the Chrístian era, the doctrine of justification was not debated in the same
way that Christology and the Trinity were. Nevertheless, seeds were sown in
those formative years that bore fruit in the medieval period. For example, just
as the impassibility (apatheid) of God was a philosophical view that questioned
God’s compassion (see my Systematic Theology, volume 2, chapter 6), so self-
power (autoexousid) was a philosophical term introducing humanity to the
doctrine of justification (cf. Latín liberum arbitriurn). Also, the Greek word
meromai (to receive one’s share) was translated by the Latín word meritum (to
be worthy of something), which brought the concept of merit into medieval
theology, affecting the biblical doctrine of justification.1 So alien philosophi
cal ideas distorted the biblical meaning of justification, contributing to the
Román Catholic concept of justification.
While philosophical meanings crept into theology, some pagan views of salva
tion were vigorously repudiated, such as Gnosticism and Pelagianism, to which we
now turn. Pelagianism is addressed in my Systematic Theology, volume 2, chapter
15, so we will only touch on some highlights here.
Sub-Christian Theology

GNOSTICISM
In Iranian Gnosticism the struggle between light and darkness is about
releasing humans from the “prison of this world so that they may reenter the
sphere of heavenly light.” In Syrian Gnosticism Christ (or the Holy Spirit)
“tricks the Creator-Demiurge into breathing into man the breath of Iife,” which
passes light particles into the first man. The realm of the Demiurge entombs
man in a body of death. The trees in Edén are transformed, so “the biblical tree
of the knowledge of good and evil becomes a vehicle of knowledge (gnosis) f
whereas the tree of life becomes a vehicle of bondage. Man is encouraged to
eat of the tree of knowledge and comes to know more than the Creator, and in
anger the Creator confines man to “an earthly body of forgetfulness.”2
The Gnostic “God is the unfathomable abyss exalted above all contact
with the creature world.”3 Gnostics are “spiritual persons [pneumatikoi] who
possess the light particles and need only to be awakened in order to inherit
their destinies.”4 5 In Gnostic theology Christ communicates gnosis (knowl
edge) to a select group, which is a type of predestinaron? For humans “are
by nature divided into different moral classes, and so fitted for different des
tinies. No member of a lower class can transcend the circle which fate, or an
absolute predestination, has drawn about him.”6 So there is an uncrossable
gulf between God and the elect, and salvation (destiny) is through knowledge
(gnosis), and not through Christ, who only temporally adopted a body (per-
haps at baptism) and left it before the crucifixión. This docetic Christology
means that Christ only appeared to be a human, and as the resurrected one
awakens humans, or enlightens them.7 There is no crucifixión as the means
of redemption. Although knowledge can be received, it is apparently also
within, and so humans only need to recover from forgetfulness to recognize
this knowledge—which they already possess.
Against Gnostics who considered matter to be evil, Irenaeus rightly empha-
sized that salvation is wholistic (soul and body) for “the saved man is a complete
man.”8 Compared to the Gnostic God and demiurge, he said of Christianity: “in
both Testaments there is the same righteousness of God,”9 for it is the same God
in both.10 Irenaeus criticized Gnostics for their misuse of Scripture to support
their opinions,11 and said: “there are as many schemes of‘redemption as there are teachers
of these mystical opinions.”12 He told them to heed the teaching
of church leaders because they “have received the certain gift of truth” through
apostolic succession.13 This was tantamount to saying truth is found only in the
church, yet apostolic succession of office doesn’t guarantee succession of apostolic
truth, as we will demónstrate in examples given below. (Just as Gnosticism has
mystical opinions so does Catholic theology, as we will see later. Evaluation of
apostolic succession is given in my Systematic Theology, volume 4.) Irenaeus com
pared the two Adams (no human fathers), one caused sin through disobedience
while the other “by yielding obedience, became the cause of salvation.”14 He also
compared the two virgins (Eve and Mary): “as the human race fell into bondage
to death by means of a virgin, so is it rescued by a virgin.”15 These two compari-
sons give too much credit to mere mortals. The problem with the soteriology of
Irenaeus is his comparison of the two virgins, whereas Scripture only compares
the two Adams (Rom. 5:17-19; 1 Cor. 15:21—22).
Although Irenaeus believed that the corruptible body puts on incorruption
at the coming of Christ (1 Cor. 15:53),16 he seems to suggest that the Eucharist
in some way makes this reality present, for human bodies “when they receive
the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible.”17 Maybe this incorruption is partial
because, in a later segment on the gifts of the Holy Spirit, Irenaeus says, “we do
now receive a certain portion of His Spirit, tending towards perfection, and pre-
paring us for incorruption, being little by little accustomed to receive and bear
God; which also the apostle terms an earnest,’... This earnest, therefore, thus
dwelling in us, renders us spiritual even now, and the mortal is swallowed up in
immortality” (2 Cor. 4:4—5).18
Even though Irenaeus claimed to be a person with apostolic succession, his
two interpretations above have Mary and the Eucharist deflecting attention
from the Savior Jesús Christ as means of salvation; for Mary is only a willing
mortal, “for all have sinned” (Rom. 3:23), and Mary called Christ her “Savior”
(Luke 1:47); and the bread and wine are only symbols of Christ’s body and
blood, for Christ Himself handed the bread and wine to His disciples at the
Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:24-25). If the bread was literally His body, and the
wine literally His blood, then were there two Christs in the upper room? In
other words, the elevation of Mary above fellow sinners in need of a Savior,
and the elevation of the bread and wine to the body and blood of Chris were human,
nonbiblical traditions already present in the early church.19 So
we have Gnostic nonbiblical ideas being met by other nonbiblical ideas, for
both were traditions contrary to Scripture. Although in different ways, neither
Gnosticism ñor its refutation by Irenaeus does justice to Christ as the solé
means of salvation for humans.
PELAGIANISM
While the oriental or Greek church (East) was occupied with Christologi-
cal controversies, the Latin church (West) was occupied with anthropological
and soteriological controversies.20 In the first four centuries, theologians were
focused on objective truths about the Trinity, but the fifth century introduced
a new subjective focus because of Pelagius (ca. 360—420), who rejected the idea
that persons are born with a sinful nature and denied all supernatural influences
upon the human will. His ideas launched the Pelagian controversy.21 Human
freedom became the soul of the Pelagian view, and divine grace became the soul
of Augustine’s refutation of Pelagius.22 Pelagius was shallow compared to Augus-
tine, for he had not had the personal experience of God’s grace in his life. Pela
gius was more mechanical than relational in thinking humans can keep the law
in their own strength, and Augustine knew from experience that law keeping is
impossible apart from divine grace. Apparently Pelagius did not sense his need
of a Savior to the extent that Augustine did.
Pelagius believed that humans are born sinless and can remain sinless
(law abiding) by the strength of their will, an external legalism that knows
no need of salvation. Coelestius, pupil of Pelagius, influenced Zosimus,
bishop of Rome, to support the Pelagian teaching. The Africans did not go
along with that decisión, and in a general African council at Carthage (16th
Council of Carthage’418), more than two hundred bishops registered their
opposition to Pelagius. As a result, Zosimus changed his mind and issued an
encyclical to all bishops, in the West and in the East, opposing Pelagius and
Coelestius, stating that he supported the Council of Carthage decisión.23 (It
should be noted that the African bishops prevailed over the bishop of Rome, and that the
latter was not considered to have primacy over the church as a
whole. That was in the fifth century; the Román Catholic church would not
rise to prominence until the next century.)
Augustine’s belief in a sovereign God’s predestining the elect had a great
influence on the Reformers, who added the decree of reprobation, which
included everyone in God’s election—a decisión made in eternity that could not
be changed in history. So Augustine influenced later Protestant theology.
Semi-Pelagianism is found midway between Pelagius and Augustine,
and developed in the fifth century in southern France during the last years
of Augustine’s life. Semi-Pelagianism rejects both the sinlessness of human
nature (Pelagius) and the entire corruption of human nature (Augustine);
and it rejects grace as external (Pelagius) and grace as irresistible (Augustine),
among other things (this view is generally closer to Pelagius’s teachings than
Augustine’s).24
John Cassian headed up the Semi-Pelagian party and affirmed the univer
sal sinfulness of humans, but rejected Augustine’s election and irresistible grace,
stating that the image of God and human freedom were not destroyed but dam-
aged (weakened) by the Fall, and people need to cooperate with God’s grace in
their salvation.25 Some believed that Augustine’s attributing predestination, irre
sistible grace, and perseverance solely to God would undermine all moral works,
for if God calis and preserves the called, then why is human effort necessary?
John Cassian rejected Augustine’s election of the few, for God wants to save all
humans.26 In two provincial synods (Arles, 472; and Lyons, 475), Augustine’s
doctrine of predestination was condemned.
Augustine presents the will of God in contrast to the will of humans,
but God’s predestinarían will determines who is to be saved and who is to
be lost;27 so God’s will alone is operative in salvation. This is the opposite of
Pelagius’s view that human will alone is operative in salvation. Both views
are opposite extremes that overlook the appropriate relationship required
between God and humans in the process of salvation. Christ Himself
expressed this relationship: “For God so loved the world [not just the elect]
that he gave his one and only Son [God’s part], that whoever believes in him
[human part] shall not perish but have eternal life [salvation]” (John 3:16).
Neither Augustine ñor Pelagius understood this balanced biblical view of the alvation
process. Whereas Pelagius believed that humans can live a sinless
life through use of the will, Augustine believed that infants can be baptized
and saved, even though their will is not involved (belief).28
Augustine is known for giving more than one side of an argument, so the
Reformers used his writings to refute the medieval church that is founded,
in part, on his writings. For example, he speaks of the sacraments of baptism
and the Eucharist in the same treatise where he writes the following, which if
fully applied would do away with sacraments as means of salvation. Under the
heading “Only Christ Justifies,” Augustine writes:
he [Pau[] mentions that justificación whereby Christ justifies the ungodly, and
which he did not propose as an object of imitation, for He [Christ] alone is capable
of effecting this. Now it was quite competent for the apostle to say, and to say rightly:
“Be ye imitators of me, as I also am of Christ;” but he could never say: Be ye justified
by me, as I also am by Christ;—since there may be, and indeed actually are and have
been, many who were righteous and worthy of imitation; but no one is righteous
and a justifier but Christ alone. Whence it is said: “To the man that believeth on him
that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.”29
While opposing Pelagius’s claim that some died without sinning, Augustine says
the Virgin Mary may have lived without sin.30 Both are refuted by Scripture,
“for all have sinned” (Rom. 3:23).
From the above it is clear that both Irenaeus and Augustine rightly refuted
the Gnostics and Pelagians respectively, but both did so with nonbiblical views
in addition to their biblical evidences. Giving nonbiblical data equal honor
with biblical texts always has a detrimental effect on the truth. In other words,
errors are not overeóme by errors, despite the best intentions of Irenaeus and
Augustine. Errors were an appeal to the church beliefs, even though not bibli
cal beliefs. B. B. Warfield concludes, “Thus, al though Augustine’s theology had
a very strong churchly element within it, it was, on the side that is presented
in the controversy against Pelagianism, distinctly anti-ecclesiastical. Its central
thought was the absolute dependence of the individual on the grace of God in
Jesús Christ.”31 I would add that the developing ecclesiological traditions also
played a role in his refutations.

Catholic Theology: History

Behind Medieval Church
AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO (354-430)
In his early thirties, after a proflígate life, Augustine flung himself down
under a fig tree and wept bitterly. Then, from a nearby house, he heard the voice
of a child chanting, “Take up and read; take up and read.” He sensed that God
was speaking to him, got up, went inside, reached for his Bible, and read the
verses upon which his eyes first fell. It was Romans 13:13—14. Verse 14 enumer-
ates various sins, and the next verse says, “[C] lo the yourselves with the Lord
Jesús Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the flesh.” In
that moment, Augustine was converted.32
Early in his career, when a presbyter, Augustine delivered a discourse on the
creed before a council of the whole North African episcopate assembled at Hippo
Regius. He began by quoting “the righteous person will live by his faithfulness”
(Hab. 2:4; Rom. 1:17; Gal. 3:11; Heb. 10:38) as “the most solid foundation of
apostolic teaching.” He elucidated the apostolic teaching by again quoting Paúl:
“With the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confes-
sion is made unto salvation” (Rom. 10:10).33 Here is a belief that confesses, a faith
that works, a unión which apparently defines righteousness and salvation. Augus
tine said Christ assumed “the entire nature of man...body, soul, and spirit.... For
surely, since that assumption was effected in behalf of our salvation, one must be on
his guard lest, as he believes that there is something belonging to our nature which
sustains no relation to that assumption, this something may fail also to sustain any
relation to our salvation.”34 This was the same point made by Athanasius (293—
373), the bishop of Alexandria, who believed that the unassumed is unredeemed.35
Augustine’s belief in the guilt of Adam’s sin inherited at birth (original sin)
led him to believe that God’s grace is infused in babies at birth,36 which is not
a logical basis for imputed justification. Throughout his writings Augustine
glories in God’s grace, and justification is by grace, but it isn’t a “declared
justification” but an “internal justification.” In the context of justification,
Augustine says God “works in His saints.”37 Augustine asks, “For what else does the
phrase ‘being justified’ signify than ‘being made righteous’—by Him,
of course, who justifies the ungodly man, that he may become a godly one
instead?”38 Augustine explains what “justifieth the ungodly” means—“the
ungodly maketh pious.”39 “For when the ungodly is justified, from ungodly
he is made just.”40 This view apparently means justification ineludes healing.41
The Catholic ontological view (infusión) of justification is different from the
forensic view (imputation) of justification in some Protestant theology. Infu
sión characterizes Román Catholic theology from birth throughout life. Pre-
destination had not been thought out as a doctrine prior to Augustine, and he
confined his attention to election (not including reprobation). The source of
Augustine’s anthropology and soteriology was the sovereign will of God, which
is irresistible, and henee God imparted irresistible grace to the elect, who are the
minority of humans. Therefore, the gospel was not universal, so Augustine gave
“forced interpretations” to texts that speak of God’s universal love.42
Alister E. McGrath of Oxford University wrote about Augustine in two
books.43 He believed that humans have some freedom of choice, but sin keeps
them from coming to God. Only grace liberates or causes human free will to
come to God. As such, grace is the healer of human nature. For Christ said,
“apart from me you can do nothing” (John 15:5). So, for Augustine, God’s
promise of grace is the basis of human justification.44 And grace is the work of
the Holy Spirit.45 Augustine’s “Faith working through love,” from Galatians 5:6,
was his contribution to justifying faith for a thousand years.46 Augustine does
not distinguish between the event and the process of justification. In fact, he
considered righteousness as inherent, not imputed.47
It is too bad that Augustine misread Romans 9, a common error among
predestinarians (see my Systematic Theology, volume 2, chapters 15-16). It was
God’s cali to Augustine to be clothed by Jesús Christ that converted him, and
influenced his understanding of justification by faith. From Romans 3:20 he
knew that justification doesn’t come through the law.48 Rather, justification is God’s gift
through the Holy Spirit. So one is “justified freely by His grace” so
grace may “heal” the will to enable one to keep the law.49 Throughout his writ-
ings Augustine glories in God’s grace, and justification is by grace. To him it
isn’t a “declared justification” but an “internal justification,” for in the context of
justification, Augustine says God “works in His saints.”50 Augustine ralis us that
he didn’t know Hebrew,51 and he disliked the difficulty of learning Greek?2 He
The etymology of the Latin jus
was therefore limited to the Latin word
tifico means to “make righteous” rather than to “declare righteous.”53 As David
Wright states, “There is general agreement that he took it to mean ‘to make
righteous’ and held to this throughout his writing career.”54
Augustine believed that salvation is solely within the church, communicated
through the sacraments. By contrast, Scripture finds salvation in Christ alone.
Grace is irresistible for Augustine, a position that is based on his foundational
view of predestination. Grace is not for all people—it is only given to the elect
for their regeneration. There are degrees of grace: “prevenient grace” produces a
longing to be saved; “operating grace” creates faith and free will to do good and
unites the soul to Christ; “co-operating grace” combats remaining evil, producing
works called fruits of faith; and “perfect grace” enables perseverance until reach-
ing a perfect state, not in this life, but when sin and death is no more.55 When
it comes to justification by faith, “Augustine regards love rather than faith as the
central principie of justification,”56 a view that influenced Catholic interpretación
of justification throughout history.
Enchiridion
Augustine’s Enchiridion was written after Jerome’s death (September 20,
420; Jerome had translated the Vulgate) in the last decade of Augustine’s life.
The Enchiridion teaches that original sin from Adam affeets the entire race,
causing each one to have “inherited guilt” and a loss of free will.57 Salva
tion is found only in the church because “outside the Church sins are not
remitted. For the Church alone has received the pledge of the Holy Spirit, without which
there is no remission of sins.”08 That is why the “sacraments
of salvation” are in the church?9 Augustíne adds that “there are many kinds
of alms, by giving of which we assist to procure the pardon of our sins,”58 59 60
so some human works for salvation are found in his theology. In fact, works
gain merit, even helping others who have died.61 Augustine prays for his dead
mother that her sins be forgiven, even though she had lived a wonderful life.62
Merits contribute to one’s final state, for all receive “degrees of happiness” or
“degrees of misery.”63
Augustine held that salvation is not for everyone, for “not even a majority”
will be saved.64 65 Consider two infants “whose cases seem in all respects alike, one
is by the mercy of God chosen to Himself, and the other is by His justice aban-
doned.” God could save all but does what He pleases insteadA All are born with
original sin so “it is grace alone that separates the redeemed from the lost.”66
The choosing of some, while rejecting the majority, seems just to Augustine, for
“if not a single member of the race had been redeemed, no one could justly have
questioned the justice of God.”67
These are nonbiblical ideas that replace biblical truths. There is not a single
verse in Scripture that suggests that salvation is not available for all humans,
ñor that all humans receive Adam’s guilt, even though the death-consequences
of his sin are received (Rom. 5:18-19; 1 Cor. 15:21-22). Neither does Scrip
ture suggest that salvation is confined to the church and that sacraments are a
means of salvation. Ñor do works save or gain merit, for salvation is a gift and
not merited (John 3:16); sinners only merit death (Rom. 6:23).
Augustine said very little about what Christ is doing in heaven since His
ascensión. He takes time to say that Christ’s tomb was never used before ñor
after Christ was there; and likewise Mary’s womb was never used before ñor
after Christ was there. All that is mentioned of Christ’s ministry in heaven is His
“awarding deserts as men deserve them.”68 He overlooks the post-resurrection
ministry of Christ in heaven and its important contribution to human salvation
(as explained in Hebrews).

Second Council of Orange (529)

Supporters of Augustine (in Gaul) arranged for the Synod of Orange, which
condemned Semí-Pelagianism and agreed with the anthropological and sote-
riological views of Augustine, some of which were: (1) Adam’s sin injured body
and soul of all humans, bringing death to all; (2) God’s bestowed grace causes
humans to pray for salvation; (3) all good thoughts and works are a gift from
God; (4) even saints and the regenérate continually need God’s help; (5) the
will weakened through Adam’s sin is only restored through the grace of bap-
tism; (6) unmerited grace precedes méritorious works; (7) even if there had
been no Fall, humans would have needed God’s grace for salvation.69 Among
other questions that could be raised, how can baptism restore the will (item
4)? How are works meritorious when they are done through unmerited grace
(Ítems 5—6)? Why would persons need salvation apart from the Fall (item 7)?
Even though, according to Augustine, humans are devoid of any virtue and
depend fully on God’s grace alone to be saved, their works are still meritorious,
which isn’t logical, for merit for human works and full dependence on God’s
works alone are mutually exclusive.
MEDIEVAL CHURCH
Martín Luther called the medieval church the “Aristotelian church,” for
it depended on Aristotle more than on Scripture.70 Sacramental theology
(systematized during 1050-1240) linked justificaron with the sacraments.71
This alleges that continuous justification is mediated through the church and
its sacraments. In the late twelfth century, the idea of merit for works of
continuous justification entered Román Catholic theology.72 73 There were five
main schools of thought on justification in the late medieval period, and
henee among Catholic thinkers (including early Dominican, early and later
Franciscan, and medieval Augustinian), with considerable diversity which
need not detain us./3 What is important is the unanimous view of medieval
theology that justification is both an act and a process in which the status
and the nature of humans are altered.74

THOMAS AQUINAS (1225-1274)

Augustine and Aquinas are the most influential Catholic theologians. Whereas
Augustine believes in predestination to eternal life but not reprobation, Aqui
nas believes in both, and considers reprobation as “the cause of abandonment by
God.”/? The theology of Aquinas is by far the most in trícate Catholic system ever
written, and Aquinas was the leading medieval Catholic theologian. It is important
that we get an overview of this system before looking at ideas within it. (Because
of space limitations, this overview will focus on ideas germane to soteriology, and
will be representative, not exhaustive.)
Summa Theologica
The Summa Theologica* 76 is the theological system of Thomas Aquinas. “This
brilliant synthesis of Christian thought has had a decisive and permanent impact
on religión since the thirteenth century and has become substantially the official
teaching of the Catholic Church.”77 A. G. Sertillanges, O.P., says “The Church
believes today, as she believed from the first, that Thomism is an ark of salva-
tion, capable of keeping minds afloat in the deluge of doctrine.”78 The system is
a veritable source of church traditions and comments from philosophers; it uses
the Latín Vulgate, which is not always an accurate translation. Besides this, the
system is written using typical medieval scholastic reasoning, which makes it
difficult for many modern readers to comprehend.79
Aquinas claims that God’s being is immutable (doesn’t change, Q. 9),80 that
He predestines persons to salvation and reprobation (Q. 23), and that the Holy
Spirit dwells in humans and gifts them with “sanctifying grace” (Q. 43).81 How-
ever, sacraments of the Oíd Law “were ordained to the sanctification of man”
(Q. 102)82 (yet “they neither contained ñor caused grace”),83 and sacrament of the New
Law are for “the sanctification of man,”84 for they “contain grace”
and are “an instrumental cause of grace.”85 Aquinas claims, “The sacraments are
signs in protestation of the faith whereby man is justified.”86 Aquinas teaches
that the Holy Spirit and sacraments sanctify. In so doing, he gives credence to
justification through the sacraments, as if they are of vital importance in making
a person righteous.
Whereas Scripture finds justification in Christ alone, the Catholic view
called this biblical view into question by focusing on the sacraments as if they
were as important as Christ in the justification by faith process. According to
Aquinas, the Holy Spirit and sacraments sanctify. For Aquinas, God’s grace
“is nothing short of a partaking of the Divine Nature, which exceeds every
other nature.” He says it is “necessary that God alone should deify bestowing
a partaking of the Divine Nature.”87 This means justification is deification, a
theosis like that found in Orthodox soteriology. Here justification has become
a qualified sanctification.
Where is Christ in this theology? Christ and the sacraments are both instru-
ments for God’s sanctification: “Now the principal efficient cause of grace is God
Himself, in comparison with Whom Christ’s humanity is as a united instru-
ment, whereas the sacrament is as a sepárate instrument.”88 Aquinas claims that
“it seems that by the sacraments God imprints His character on us.”89 The grace
sacraments confer “afford a remedy against sin.”90 Yet “ministers of the Church
can confer the sacraments, though they be wicked.”91 This is because (1) the
priest never loses his ordination,92 and (2) “Ministers of the Church do not by
their own power cleanse from sin those who approach the sacraments, ñor do
they confer grace on them: it is Christ Who does this by His own power while
He employs them as instruments.”93
Contrary to the above statements of Aquinas, God does not mix the
holy with the profane. Of Judah, He said, “Her priests do violence to my
law and profane my holy things; they do not distinguish between the holy
and the common” (Ezek. 22:26a; cf. 44:23). Eli’s sons Hophni and Phineas
were priests (1 Sam. 1:3b) and were “scoundrels” and “had no regard for the
Lord” (1 Sam. 2:12), and so God sent a message to Eli saying they would both die on the
same day. Then God said, “I will raise up for myself a faithful
priest, who will do according to what is in my heart and mind. I will firmly
establish his priestly house, and they will minister before my anointed one
always” (1 Sam. 2:35). It seems inconsistent to me that in Catholic theology
Christ confers sacramental grace through sinful instruments when He needed
an immaculate Mary in order to confer grace as a Savior. The sacrament of
baptism is even conferred by pagans,94 95 for “[fjaith is not necessary in the one
baptized any more than in the one who baptizes.”9? In spite of these condi-
tions, Aquinas claims that “the grace of the Holy Ghost and the fullness of
the virtues are given in Baptism.”96 Here are examples of mixing the holy and
the profane, which is contrary to Scripture.
The above examples also ignore the fact that God is a relational God and
does not impart salvation through a mechanical means which implies that a
relationship with Him is optional. The covenants are not experienced outside
of a relationship between God and humans (see my Systematic Theology, volume
2, chapters 8—11), and neither is salvation. There is only one means of media-
tion, and that is through Christ and the Holy Spirit, or through a divine means
that issues out of the relational Trinity, applying salvation that is relational and
refíects the inner history of the relational Trinity. Any other alleged means of
impartation is an empty counterfeit.
Now we come to two other aspects of Catholic theology, penances and purga-
tory, which cali into question God’s free gift of forgiveness. Catholicism teaches
that salvation is by meritorious works—many works—that continué into purga-
tory after death, and can be aided by the works of others too. Purgatory is for
cleansing, but takes place in hell,97 in “the bowels of the earth.”98 There is no
assurance in the Catholic system, and the eternal loyalty of the redeemed to
God is made possible through the eternal existence of hell, as if loyalty is not
attained through the memory of Christ s death on Calvary. Aquinas puts it this
way: “The everlasting punishment of the wicked will not be altogether useless.
For they are useful for two purposes. First, because thereby the Divine justice is
safeguarded which is acceptable to God for its own sake...He is for ever unap-
peased by the punishment of the wicked. Secondly, they are useful, because the
elect rejoice therein, when they see God’s justice in them, and realize that they
have escaped them.”99
The above words of Aquinas turn the gospel on its head. Christ said of Cal
vary, “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself”
(John 12:32). This has not happened yet, but in the final judgment all will be
drawn to Christ through a replay of Calvary, and all created beings will bow down
before Him (Isa. 45:23b; Rom. 14:11; Phil. 2:10—11; Rev. 5:13; 15:3; 19:1—6).
How can Christ be unappeased by endless human suffering when He “is the
atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the
whole world” (1 John 2:2), “not wanting anyone to perish” (2 Pet. 3:9b). We are
talking about the Christ who wept over Jerusalem (Luke 19:41), saying “Jerusa-
lem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often
I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under
her wings, and you were not willing” (Matt. 23:37). We are talking about the God
of the Oíd Testament, who said of Israel at the time of their Babylonian captivity,
“‘Is not Ephraim my dear son, the child in whom I delight? Though I often speak
against him, I still remember him. Therefore my heart yearns for him; I have great
compassion for him,’ declares the Lord” (Jer. 31:20b). We are talking about the
gospel that gives humans two choices—believe or perish: “For God so loved the
world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not
perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16). It is the love of God that saves and keeps
all created beings cióse to Him, for they have seen the stark difference at the Cross
between Christ and Satan, the one dying for others, the other killing the One who
gave him life. If Christ is unappeased by human suffering in eternal hell, then there
is no difference between Him and Satan. They are both vengeful and vicio us, and
it is God, not Satan, who perpetrates the worst holocaust ever in an ever-burning
hell. What will be the result? As endless time passes by, worít God be seen as more
heartless than Satan, and worít Calvary be overshadowed and forgotten?
Both Augustine and Aquinas fail to comprehend God’s universal love for all
humans, and in their doctrine of predestination we find a God who is unaffected
by having chosen a few for salvation and reprobating the rest to damnation. No
wonder both understand God as impassible. This makes humans uneasy, because
it leaves them insecure as to whether they will be saved or not. In this context, the
work of salvation is not God’s alone, for Catholic theology claims that the church
is the means of salvation through the ministry of priests, the seven sacraments,
and the intercession of Mary and saints. All of these are an affront to God, as if the
Persons of the Trinity are incapable of saving persons without these human means.
In reality these human means become more important to many members than
the only mediator between God and humans, Jesús Christ (1 Tim. 2:5). Dorít we
find a “different gospel” (heteron euangelíon) in Catholic theology, one that Paúl (in
principie) wrote about in Galatians (Gal. 1:6b)?
Berkouwer says it well: “In studying the Reformation, one is struck by the
remarkable correspondence between Paul’s struggle against Judaism in both its
gross and its refined work-righteousness and the Reformation struggle against
human merit.”100 Salvation by faith alone {solafide, Reformed view) is the oppo-
site of works of merit (Román Catholic view). “It is the works of the law, not
those of faith, which threaten sola fide.”™'
Paúl declares that the “different gospel” (Gal. 1:6) is due to some who want
to “distort [metastrepsai] the gospel” (Gal. 1:7, esv). Twice Paúl says these peo-
pie should be “accursed” [anathema] (1:8-9, esv), because their “gospel” is only
“mans [kata anthropon] gospel” (1:11b, esv). Paúl states that once he peddled a
human gospel by being “extremely zealous” (perissoterds zéldtés) for the “tradi-
tions of my fathers” (paradoseon moupatrikdn, 1:14b, esv).
In like manner, others were doing the same to the churches in Galatia
by promoting circumcision as a means of salvation, a tradition of the Jew-
ish fathers (cf. 2:9b, 12b; 5:2-3). These Judaizers wanted members to be cir-
cumcised “that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ” (6:12-14,
esv). A tradition of the fathers caused them to turn away from the Cross. The
Judaizers’ mission was to “spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesús,
so that they might bring us into slavery” (2:4, esv). True freedom means “a
person is not justified by works of the law [ergon nomou] but through faith in
Jesús Christ” (2:16a, esv). For “if righteousness were through the law, then
Christ died for no purpose” (2:21, esv), for “no one is justified before God
by the law, for "The righteous shall live by faith’” (3:11, esv), for “if a law had
been given that could give life [zoopoiésai], then righteousness would indeed
be by the law” (3:21, esv). “You are severed from Christ [katérgéthéte apo Chris-
tou] you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace”
(5:4, esv). Scripture calis the gospel the “eternal gospel” (Rev. 14:6a). Paúl
says that the gospel preached to Abraham was a promise that all nations will
be blessed; it is a universal gospel, it knows nothing about electing a few. For
Christ suffered “death for everyone” (Heb. 2:9b). Amazing grace is all humans
need in order to have righteousness imputed to them, for Christ is “Our Righ
teous Savior” (Jer. 23:6b), and only Christ is “our righteousness, holiness and
redemption” (1 Cor. 1:30), for “no one will be declared righteous in God’s
sight by the works of the law” (Rom. 3:20a).
It is important to understand that there is no imputation of Christ’s righ
teousness in the theology of Aquinas, even though there is a non-imputation of sin. Instead,
God allegedly infuses grace into the human soul as the basis
of God’s forgiveness. This apparently replaces the work of God in Christ for
humans by the work of God in humans, and so fails to give proper place to
Christ as the righteousness humans need to have imputed to them.102 Infusión
is a human doctrine, a tool in the hands of the church, to allegedly convey grace
through sacraments, but in reality it replaces Christ the Savior in whom alone
there is the fullness of grace through His life and death to save humanity.
Christ said, “my Fathers will is that everyone who looks to the Son and
believes in him shall have eternal life” (John 6:40). The ministry of the resur-
rected Christ as high priest in heaven’s sanctuary is where believers should focus
their attention, not on priests below. The writer of Hebrews says that we should
“[fix] our eyes on Jesús, the pioneer and perfecter of faith. For the joy set before
him he endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand
of the throne of God” (Heb. 12:2). Christ’s priestly ministry is better than that
of human priests in the past, because He ministers on the basis of a better sacri-
fice—the only perfect sacrifice. All can come directly to Him without having to
go through priests as they did in the Oíd Testament: “For we do not have a high
priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who
has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin. Let us then
approach God’s throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy
and find grace to help us in our time of need” (Heb. 4:15-16). This gospel
rejects the need of any other intercessors—no one ever suffered like Jesús, and
there are no others who could be more sympathetic than He is.
The freedom of the gospel, with its gift of salvation and direct access to the
Savior, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, is a covenant relationship of love
that one can revel in with security, peace, and hope. Reading through major
segments of Aquinas’s system, with its church, sacraments, priests, Mary, and
saints reminds one of the multiplied rules and regulations of the Oíd Testament
era, human ways that robbed the people of a relationship with God. Christ said
about these people, and it seems to apply to much of Catholic dogma, “in vain
do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men” (Matt.
15:9, esv). It reminds one of a minister at the altar, after marrying the bride and
groom, saying, “I’m coming with you on the honeymoon.” No one has a right
to come between bride and groom, ñor should they come between the Bride-
groom Christ and the bride represented individually by each Christian. Catholic
theology risks losing the exuberant joy of the gospel by placing the magisterium above
Scripture, which in turns leads to replacing the only means of salvation
provided by God with human means.
God doesn’t need sacraments, for He not only sent His Son to save the world
(John 3:16) but “sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, Abba! Father!’”
(Gal. 4:6, esv). As well, “Christ is formed in you” (Christos morphdthe en hymin, Gal.
4:19b, esv), and the fruit of the Holy Spirit “is love, joy, peace, patience, kind-
ness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control” (5:22-23, esv). I feel like Karl
Barth, who cried out against anthropological liberalism, “Let God be God!” The
Persons of the Trinity are well able to save humans, and no one else can—whether
church, sacraments, or saints. Christ overthrew the works-oriented, false gospel in
the temple, and the money changers and animal traffickers fled (John 2:12-16;
Matt. 21:12-13; Mark 11:15-17; Luke 19:45—46). If Christ were on earth today,
I believe He would overthrow all human means of salvation in the church, so that
people could once again see the simplicity and glory of the gospel—that God loves
them and that He carne to save them. Nothing more, nothing less.
Orthodox Theology103
The Orthodox Church, present in different countries, claims to be as ancient
as the Catholic Church, having departed from Catholicism in 1054 over doctri
nal and hierarchical differences. Does it have a doctrine of salvation? Orthodox
theology is rooted in the church fathers, like Irenaeus, Athanasius, and John
the Damascene, to ñame a few. Orthodox theology is incarnation-centered.
It asserts that when God became human, the divine nature assumed human
nature, and there was a great exchange.
For example, Irenaeus said that the Son of God did “through His transcen-
dent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is
Himself.”104 Similarly Athanasius said, “He was made man that we might be made
God.”105 The same fundamental principie is noted in the following statements:
“The unassumed is unhealed (Gregory of Nazianzus), or “What Christ has not
assumed has not been saved (Cyril of Alexandria).”106
Later, Gregory Palamas (1296-1359), Archbishop of Thessalonica and theo-
logian in Greece, said, “Moreover, the transformation of our human nature, in
deification and transfiguraron—were these not accomplished in Christ from the
start, from the moment in which He assumed our nature?”10 Also from Thes
salonica is a contemporary, Georgios Mantzaridis, chair of Moral Theology and
Christian Sociology in the Theological School of the University ofThessaloniki.
He puts it this way: “The consequence of this hypostatic unión in Christ of the
two natures was the deification of the human nature He assumed.”108 Palamas
stated that the deified human nature in Christ is “an inexhaustible source, trans-
mitting this divinizing energy to men and thereby deifying them.”109 Mantzari
dis projects that “The process of man’s deification, begun in this life, becomes
perfect, and irreversible in the age to come.”110
This process in Greek is called theosis (deification), which was coined by
Gregory of Nazianzus, bishop of Constantinople in the fourth century.111
Contemporary orthodox bishop Kallistos Ware explains what deification means:
“By virtue of this distinction between the divine essence and the divine energies,
we are able to affirm the possibility of a direct or mystical unión between man
and God—-what the Greek Fathers term the theosis of man, his ‘deification—but
at the same time we exelude any pantheistic identificadon between the two: for
man participates in the energies of God, not in the essence. There is unión, but
not fusión or confusión.”112
So in Orthodox theology there is a difference between God’s energies and His
essence (or nature). Humans particípate in God’s energies, not in His essence.
Bishop Ware states that God is unknowable; He is “beyond and above all that
we can think or express, yet closer to us than our own heart.”113 Let us probe the
assumption behind this división of energies and essence. It has to do with what
can be known or experienced of God. Orthodox theology (Greek) has to do with
an apophatic way (negative way to know God by what God is not) rather than in
Western (Latín) theology which is cataphatic (positive way to know God by what
God is).114 * Ware said, “We are taught when reciting the Jesús prayer [repetitive prayer
“Jesús Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinnerT, to avoid so far as
possible any specific image or picture,”115 but this seems contrary to the bíblica!
view of God revealed in Scripcure. Of course the biblical self-reveladon of God
is finite and representative of an infinitely greater reality, but it is authentic and
a positive aid to salvation. For example, we are asked to fix our eyes upon Jesús
(Heb. 12:2a), who revealed God (John 14:9; 17:25-26), because by beholding we
are being changed as we “contémplate the Lord’s glory” (doxan kyriou; 2 Cor. 3:18),
so that when Christ comes in the Second Advent we “shall be like Him” (esometha
homoioiautd, 1 John 3:2).
Participation in divine energies in a direct mystical sense seems removed
from biblical statements like the following: Through “his very great and pre-
cious promises...you may particípate in the divine nature” (2 Pet. 1:4), or be
“partakers of the divine nature” (esv). Christ put it this way: “I am the vine; you
are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit;
apart from me you will do nothing” (John 15:5). Paúl says, “For the fruit of
the Spirit [kurpos tou pneumatos] is love, joy, peace, forgiveness, kindness, good-
ness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control” (Gal. 5:22-23). This fruit refers
to God’s attributes or divine nature (what He is like), brought to humans by the
Holy Spirit. This does not seem confined to divine energies. Through the Holy
Spirit and indwelling Christ, humans reflect God.
EVALUATION
It is time for an overall evaluation. There is a fundamental problem with the
divinized humanity of Orthodox theology. If Christ’s human nature was divin-
ized, this would have disqualified Him on two levels from being our Savior.
Level one has to do with the purpose of His human life, and level two has to
do with the purpose of His present ministry in heaven’s sanctuary. Both levels
necessitated that Christ be truly human (not a divinized humanity).
Level one: Jesús Christ, “Who, being in very nature God, did not consider
equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made
himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human
likeness” (homoidmati anthrópon; Phil. 2:6-7). Christ was human for the advan
tage of humans in two ways. It was to perfect a human character to give to
humans as their robe of righteousness, His sinless character in place of their sin
fui character (Isa. 61:10). In this way Christ is our righteousness (1 Cor. 1:30).
He also needed to be truly human (mortal not immortal) so He could die a substitutionary
death and pay the price of all human sin (a divinized humanity
could not die).
Level one also questions the doctrine of justification by faith (taken up in
this volume). The Eastern Orthodox theósis, or divinized humanity, suggests
more than imputed righteousness. It ineludes imparted righteousness. In the
book Theósis, we find the following quotation:
Through the appeal to justification as involving both declaration and deifica-
tion Torrance [T. F. Torrance of Edinburgh University] anticipates the move within
Ludieran scholarship116 to see Luther’s doctrine of justification as more than a decla-
tory [sic] “legal fiction,” but as actually involving the making righteous of the sinner
through deification. Like Torrance, Luther does not sepárate the person of Christ from
his work. Rather, Christ himself, both his person and his work, is the ground of Chris-
tian righteousness as the believer participates in the divine nature through Christ.117
Level two: With respect to Jesús Christ in His present ministry in heaven’s
sanctuary, “we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our
weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we
are—-yet did not sin. Let us then approach God’s throne of grace with con-
fidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time
of need” (Heb. 4:15—16). A divinized humanity would disqualify Christ from
being our understanding high priest today. Living on earth as God, Christ could
not qualify as the mediator between God and humanity. He would not know
what to live as a man meant, and He would not have bridged the huge gulf
between God and humanity if merely divine and divinized humanity.
There is another fundamental problem with the divinized humanity of
Christ and His followers. This is a philosophical view derived from human
thinking, focusing on what humans guess took place when the divine and the
human united in Jesús Christ. As noted above, these Orthodox assumptions are
not in agreement with Scripture. There is a reason for problems in theology,
such as in T. F. Torrance, Karl Barth, and others, because they identify Jesús
Christ as revelation rather than Scripture, which is relegated to a mere witness
to revelation and to the Living Word of God. There is some truth to this, for
Scripture does point to the Living Word of God, Jesús Christ, but only because
He is first revealed as such in Scripture. Where would we know of Christ and
His incarnation without Scripture?
Foundational to any germine knowledge of Jesús Christ (His two natures,
and all He has accomplished and is doing for our salvation) is the written
Word of God. Human traditions have replaced divine revelation through
Scripture in Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox theologies. Based on
the above, it seems that Orthodox theology is less relational than the rela-
tional Trinity revealed in Scripture. For example, Christ’s divinized human-
ity remains a “wholly other” God, removed from the reality of being fully
human. This is not a biblical incarnation that united a fully God nature with
a fully human one. In spite of its good intention, the Orthodox incarnation
seems to be only a mechanical replacement for the genuine coming of Christ
into human history—to reveal God’s love for the world He longed to save.
Panayiotis Nellas in his book Deification in Christ provides insight into the
unión of creation and incarnation—that creation was the first step towards
incarnation. He says, “The unión of God and man according to energy’ which
was granted to mankind with the creation of Adam ‘in the image’ had as its
aim the leading of human nature to hypostatic unión with the divine Logos
in Christ. This aim constituted the original destiny of Adam and remained
permanent and immutable—‘for the counsels of the Lord are not repented
of’—even after the fall.”118
Orthodox Theology believes that Christ’s incarnation would have taken
place even if there had been no Fall. Put differently, the creation of humans
was only complete in the incarnational unión of God and humanity. This
diminished the sacrifice in Christ becoming human. The Orthodox incarna
tion idea is absent in Scripture and contradicts Scripture that creation was
completed (Gen. 2:1-3). This is no better than Satan’s blatant contradiction
of Christ’s words about dying if forbidden fruit was eaten (Gen. 2:16—17;
3:2-4). That led to the Fall of the race, and Orthodox theology is imbedded
with the same problem—disbelief in God’s Word.
The biblical plan of salvation is questioned by the divinizadon of the
humanity of Christ, for Christ is disqualified from producing a robe of righ-
teousness and being a sympathetic high priest in heavens sanctuary. Even
though the cross is part of Orthodox theology, it is arguable that the great
exchange took place between God and humans at the cross and not before.
At Calvary “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him
we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Cor. 5:21). Deification of
humans is never mentioned in Scripture.

Reformation Theology119
Money paid for Masses and indulgences (in order to lessen time in purgatory)
was a great financial boon for the Román Catholic church in medieval times
(and this no doubt is one reason for preserving the salvation by works system).
It may also explain why so many joined the Reform movement to proclaim sal
vation through faith, apart from works. European countries under papal power
wanted their sovereignty, and so the desire for freedom from Romes power and
the Reformers’ desire to be free from Catholic theology aided in their severance
from the medieval church. From the outset, the Reformers wanted to consolé
believers who had been trying to earn their salvation. They shared the freedom
of the gospel which saves people on the basis of Christ’s righteousness (life and
death), not on the basis of infused righteousness in sinners through God’s grace,
for no focus should replace the work of Christ’s life and death.120
In the medieval period the Román Catholic church had developed sacra
mental theology. During the years 1050—1250, justification was linked to the
sacraments of baptism and penance.121 In the late twelfth century, supernatural
grace raised human acts from the natural to the supernatural plañe and made
them meritorious.122 For Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), habitual grace healed
the wounded nature, justified the recipient (making him or her acceptable to
God), and “functions as the principie of meritorious action.”123
McGrath finds in the medieval understanding an exclusión of the distinction
between justification and sanctification characteristic of the Reformation.124 The
late medieval period (from the fourteenth century onward) had múltiple theo-
ries of justification. Henee “the question about justification was not sprung on
Western Christendom by the Protestant Reformers in the sixteenth century.”125
Some believe that the Council ofTrent (1545-1563) defined the limits of this
pluralism with a final declaration.
The sixteenth-century Reformation included some sacramental theology,
but was their view on justification a new understanding of the doctrine—or was
it the same as the medieval understanding? Those opposed to the Reformation
said it was a new view. Others dismissed this conclusión, claiming that the Ref
ormation view was a return to the earlier teaching of the church that had been
distorted by the later medieval teaching. They held that the Reformation view as really che
same as Augustine of Hippo’s teaching (354-430). Ochers said che
Reformación was noc so much a rediscovery of Pauline justificación as ic was a
rediscovery of Auguscine’s doccrine of grace.126
Was chere a forerunner of che Reformación view among chese various views
of the medieval period? From 1530-1730 (firsc era of che Reformación), chere
were chree characceriscics of che Protescanc Reformación: (1) Justificación was
considered a forensic declaración of being righceous, buc noc a process chac made
a person righteous, so justificación was a change of scacus and noc a change of
nacure. (2) A discinccion was made between justificación (excrinsic divine dec
laración of a new scacus) and sanctificacion (incrinsic process of divine renewal
of che juscified sinner). (3) The immediace cause of justificación was che alien
righceousness of Chrisc impuced in justificación, which involved a synchecic and
noc an analycic judgmenc by God.
One should keep in mind chac che above underscanding of Procescanc jus
tificación was influenced by Philipp Melanchchon (1497—1560), for Marcin
Lucher and Huldrych Zwingli done presenc justificación exaccly chis way. As
Bruce McCormack noces, che break wich medieval Cacholicism was “less chan
complece due co a residual commicmenc co Medieval Cacholic underscand-
ings of regeneración and a shaky grasp of che relación of justificación and
regeneración.”127 This is why Lucher and Calvin join regeneración wich jus
tificación, which some scholars believe is che same as Román Cacholic the-
ology, buc chere is a difference because Lucher and Calvin never caughc an
infusión of grace, wich ics elevación of human nacure (Cacholic view). One
wonders whecher Luther’s focus on Chrisc’s alien juscice has influenced che
idea of forensic (or declaracive) justificación. Medieval cheology underscood
justificación as boch an acc and a process, or a change of scacus (acc) and nacure
(process). Lucher’s decisive break wich medieval cheology means underscand
ing che juscified person as boch incrinsically sinful and excrinsically righceous
(che laccer is opposice co infusión).
The uniqueness of che Reformación underscanding is well recognized. For
example, hiscorian Kennech Lacourecce says chac while Lucher was leccuring
on Romans and Galatians (1515-1517), che phrase ‘“che righceous will live by
faich’ [Rom 1:17], broughc him che ¡Iluminación by which he was chereafter
co live. ‘Justificación by faich’ became, chrough him, a discinccive principie of
Procescancism.”128 129 Hiscorian Philip Schaff says justificación by faich “is the ver