Is justification by faith alone still the dividing line? (Horton, Ryken, Vickers, etc.)

In the recent issue of Credo Magazine, “Justification: The Doctrine On Which the Church Stands or Falls,” one of the feature articles was a roundtable discussion called, “Is justification by faith alone still the dividing line?” In this article executive editor, Matthew Barrett talks to Michael Horton, Brian Vickers, J.V. Fesko, Guy Waters, Korey Maas, and Philip Ryken about how we should understand the doctrine of justification and why it still matters today.” To get you started, here is Barrett’s interaction with Michael Horton, who is J. Gresham Machen Professor of Systematic Theology and Apologetics at Westminster Seminary California, CEO of White Horse Inn, and Editor-in-Chief of Modern Reformation magazine. He is also the author of numerous books, including The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way.

Michael, you have written and spoken extensively on Reformation theology. But some have argued that the Reformation is over. Protestants and Roman Catholics, so they argue, no longer need to be divided over justification but have essentially reached enough agreement and compromise to come together. Is the Reformation over and if not, what continues to be the dividing line between Protestants and Roman Catholics on justification?

I think the Reformation may be over in much of Protestantism today.  Whether one thinks that’s a good thing depends on how one answers these basic questions:

(1) Did the Reformers identify the correct distortions of faith and practice in their day?

(2) Were their correctives nothing less than a recovery of the clear teaching of the gospel or were they making a mountain out of a mole-hill?

(3) If the Reformers were right, does the Roman magisterium today continue to reject the sufficiency and clarity of Scripture and of Christ’s merit and mediation?  Does it still condemn the doctrine of justification solely on the basis of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness through faith alone?

On the first question, it will come as no surprise that I answer “Yes!”  Drawing on the whole teaching of Scripture with remarkable exegetical skill, the Reformers were also successful in pointing out their continuity with the ancient church on a host of points and the extent to which the medieval papacy had strayed from the faith.

On the second question, there should be no dispute.  The papacy certainly did not think that it was a minor dispute.  Millions of Catholic Christians were evangelized (and many millions more since, including non-Christians around the world).  Nor were the Reformers and the magisterium speaking past each other.  The Council of Trent very clearly, precisely, and accurately defines the Reformers’ position and at least gives it the dignity of qualifying as a serious heresy to say that Christ’s merits alone suffice, that justification rests solely on his imputed righteousness, and that in justification faith merely receives Christ with his benefits.

On the third question, I suggest that there has been no advance beyond the impasse of Trent, despite some fruitful decades of ecumenical conversation.  The most promising attempt was the “Joint Declaration on Justification” (1999), between the World Lutheran Federation and the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.  It displays a clearly Augustinian emphasis.  After all, it affirms that grace is necessary at every stage in salvation and that our works are not the meritorious ground of justification.  However, according to Roman Catholic teaching, the “first justification” (in baptism) is a purely gracious infusion.  And although good works are not the ground, they are the instrumental cause (along with faith, which is itself a loving work) of justification.  To the extent that one cooperates, further grace is infused and one hopes to attain to a final justification by having cooperated with this grace through good works.  The mainline Lutherans conceded the crucial point that in the act of justification faith is also love (rather than love being the fruit of faith).  This is not a fine point, but the hinge of the whole debate.  It’s no wonder, then, that the statement reads, “In light of this consensus, the corresponding doctrinal condemnations of the sixteenth century do not apply to today’s partner.”  That is because the mainline Lutherans who signed the document no longer hold the views that Trent condemned.

Both in the Joint Declaration and in subsequent statements, the Vatican has made it clear that the agreement in no way modifies the condemnations of Trent itself.  And in any case, the Joint Declaration has no official status at least for Rome, because it has never been given papal promulgation.  The authorized version of magisterial teaching for today may be found in the Catholic Catechism, which clearly affirms the teaching of Trent.  Magisterial decisions are not only binding but “irreformable.”  This should not discourage us from pursuing greater common understanding, but it does challenge a naïve optimism that Rome will—or even can—reject its distortions and in fact clear condemnations of the heart of the gospel until “irreformability” is itself reconsidered.  Furthermore, despite its affirmation of God’s gracious initiative, Vatican II has pushed deeper into Semi-Pelagian territory by its thesis that “those who do what lies within them”—even atheists—are in a state of grace.  Thus, now good works are not only necessary in addition to faith, but sufficient for justification, apart from faith.  Nor did “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” (ECT) transcend the differences.  Rather, the evangelical partners took “off the table” differences over merit, purgatory, mediation of Mary and the saints, and other elements that are in fact the heart of the division.

I would add, though, that the greatest concern today is not that Roman Catholic teaching remains committed to a false understanding of the gospel.  My greater concern is that Protestantism generally has lost its way.  There are terrific exceptions all around the globe.  Nevertheless, we shouldn’t be obsessed with Roman Catholic distortions and denials of the gospel when in many cases these defects are at least as apparent today in both mainline and evangelical churches.

So a brief answer to your question: No, the Reformation is not over because “the gospel is [still] the power of God unto salvation for everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek” (Rom 1:16).  We all need this gospel now more than ever.

Read the rest of this article today!

To view the Magazine as a PDF

Justification: The Doctrine on which the Church Stands or Falls

While we could point to many different factors that led the sixteenth century Protestant Reformers to break from Rome, perhaps one that would be at the very top of the list is the doctrine of justification by faith alone. For Luther and Calvin, this doctrine is the very hinge on which the Christian religion turns. In part this is because sola fide is what sets Protestants apart. While every other religion puts something of man into the equation, Protestantism removes man’s works from the justification formula altogether. Therefore, the “sola” in sola fide makes all the difference in the world.

With over 2,000 years of church history in our rear view mirror, it appears that sola fide is a doctrine that comes under discussion in every generation. Our generation is no exception. Much dialogue continues over the New Perspective on Paul, Protestant and Catholic statements of agreement, and the relationship between justification and the Christian life. In this issue I am proud to welcome some of the finest thinkers on the subject in order to better understand what Scripture says about how sinners can be made right with a holy God.

Contributors include Thomas Schreiner, Michael Allen, Michael Horton, Philip Ryken, J.V. Fesko, Matthew Barrett, Korey Maas, Guy Waters, Brian Vickers, Fred Zaspel, and many others.