Note: Moore College trains a significant number of Australia’s evangelical
Anglican and Presbyterian ministers. This interview was conducted by *Peter
Hastie*, editor of _The Australian Presbyterian._ The interview provides
some international perspective on current debates about Justification.
*PH*: What is the doctrine of Justification by faith?
*PJ:* The best place to start in thinking about the doctrine is with the
Judgment seat of God. The Bible teaches that we are all going to appear
before the judgment seat of Christ to be Judged one day. Either we will be
acquitted or we will be condemned. Those who are acquitted will be
“Justified.” In other words, God will hand down a verdict of “not guilty.”
He will declare that we are righteous. And the question is: how does that
happen?
Unfortunately, most people think it happens because of our good works.
However, the Bible tells us that our good works have nothing to do with
God’s declaration of Justification. In fact, we are justified through our
faith in the Lord Jesus Christ alone. His righteousness is freely given to
us. So the doctrine of Justification by faith is the teaching that God
declares to be righteous those who have put their trust in nothing else but
Christ for their salvation.
*PH*: How is Justification by faith integral to Paul’s Gospel?
*PJ:* Justification is integral to Paul’s message because It is the Gospel
of the good news about Jesus Christ. When Paul preached the Gospel, he
focused on the death of Christ upon the cross. He preached that Christ had
borne our penalty upon the cross, and had taken away God’s Judgment upon our
sin. Now, since the Lord Jesus does that, we may put our faith in him and be
justified. So at the very heart of Paul’s message lies this great truth of
Justification by faith alone, and it is integral because it touches every
part of his message.
For instance, look at what Paul says about the Sacraments of Baptism and the
Lord’s Supper. All Paul’s teaching about them presupposes that we are saved
by grace through faith in Christ alone. The Supper proclaims that we are
saved only by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. So Justification by faith is a
teaching that lays an axe to the root of human pride and arrogance. It says
“No!” to the idea that we are justified by our good works. This means that
we must be sure that every aspect of our church life reinforces the
fundamental idea that we are saved by God’s grace through faith in Christ
and not in any sense by our works.
*PH*: Why did Luther call this the article of a standing or falling church?
*PJ:* Because the church which does not preach the Gospel in a
“Justification by faith” way, is a Church that has lost the Gospel. It’s as
simple as that. And even though it may be a church with an impressive
history, like the medieval Roman Catholic church, with all the panoply and
glory of a great past and much wealth, as well as an extensive priesthood
and a powerful sway over millions of people, yet if it is not preaching the
Gospel in a justification by faith” way, then it has lost the Gospel. It is
preaching another Christ. And it’s a miracle if some people are saved in the
fellowship of such a church. So Luther rightly brought to bear the test of
Justification by faith upon the preaching of the church. Where justification
by faith is being preached, the Gospel is being preached. Where it is not
being preached, then the Gospel is being distorted and people are being sent
back to their own works which cannot save them.
*PH*: Can you explain why the Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey,
recently said: “Justification by faith is hardly a common expression these
days, even in the church”?
*PJ:* Yes, I can explain it, because what he said is true. It’s true about
the worldwide Anglican Communion, and it is true of other churches too.
There are a number of reasons for it. First, people are not familiar with
their Bibles. The phrase “justified through faith” is a Bible phrase, and
it’s only as you read the Scriptures that you’ll be led to think about it.
If you don’t read the Scriptures, and the Scriptures are not taught and
preached in the Church, then the phrase won’t come up and you won’t ever
hear it. Over the last thirty or so years in the worldwide Anglican
Communion, there has been a strong movement to celebrate a weekly Eucharist
where the preaching is based only on the set readings mainly from the four
Gospels. It sounds fine in theory, but what it has meant is that people
don’t know their Bibles, and they don’t understand the truths of the faith,
particularly the doctrine of justification. This is a serious problem.
Another reason why justification by faith is little known in the church is
that preachers have tended to leave Bible language behind in their efforts
to translate the faith for modern hearers. When they have put the Gospel
into contemporary terms, they have tried to teach the general idea of
“justification by faith,” but it has been under a different guise and using
other terms. Now I can understand why preachers try to translate the Gospel
for the twentieth century, but in the end we do need to introduce the
*PH*rase because it’s a Bible term. Otherwise, how can people understand
their Bible properly? Preachers must remember that one of their tasks is to
instruct their hearers so that they don’t lose touch with the Word of God.
*PH*: Why doesn’t the doctrine of justification seem to grip people today
the way it did during the Reformation?
*PJ:* The short answer to that, as usual, is sin. What we must realize is
that the natural way that sinful people think is that God saves them because
of their own decency and good works. That’s how we as children of Adam are
born to think.
Now the news that God saves us despite our good works is not something
that’s easy to hear, and it requires God first to enlighten our minds by his
Spirit. Otherwise we will never understand the extraordinary message of
God’s grace. That has always been the case, and it was like that at the
Reformation as well.
But there is a further element that we need to explore in the question. Is
there some reason why the doctrine doesn’t seem to grip Christians or church
people in the modern world? I think that the answer to that lies in the
weakness of our teaching about sin and judgment, and ultimately about the
holiness of God. Tragically, the theme of Judgment is thoroughly muted in
the church. Likewise, what used to be called the preaching of the Law is
rarely done. Although the way some may have done it in the past was
inappropriate, nevertheless, I think that the commands of God and his holy
demand upon our lives rarely get a mention these days. If people are not
aware of God’s holiness and judgment, then they can’t really be aware of the
depth of their own sin and their desperate plight when it comes to dealing
with God. Now if we are not preaching the Gospel in those terms, then we are
not preaching the Gospel. And I fear that we are not preaching the Gospel as
we ought to be doing.
*PH*: Why has the subject of justification by faith become once more a topic
of hot debate amongst scholars today?
*PJ:* This is an interesting question because it is a surprising phenomenon.
Thirty years ago, it was not a subject for active debate, but it has become
so since 1977. 1 choose that date because that was the year that a New
Testament scholar, E. P Sanders, published an important but controversial
book in which he challenged the conventional view that first century Judaism
was a religion of good works.
Sanders was critical of the idea that religion in the time of Jesus was a
religion of rules and regulations which would save you if you kept them. Up
until Sanders’ book, scholars assumed that when Jesus and Paul were
preaching their doctrine of justification by faith they were preaching
against a straightforward “good works” religion. However, E. P Sanders blew
the whistle on this simple idea, and said that it wasn’t true.
Sanders believed that a major reassessment of first century Judaism was
needed. As a result of his studies, he formed the view that grace played a
major role in the Jewish faith of the period. According to him, it was wrong
to claim that the Jews believed in salvation by good works.
Not surprisingly, Sanders sparked a theological row amongst New Testament
scholars which is still raging today. So the current debate that is going on
is not really provoked by issues like the sinfulness of man and the holiness
of God; rather, it’s all about a reassessment of first century Judaism and
how Paul was reacting to it.
However, there is another element in the debate that I need to mention. Some
scholars are also reexamining the meaning of justification by faith in the
110,ht of word studies on such significant terms as “righteousness” as it
was used in the Old Testament. But again, none of this questioning is
arising out of a sense of spiritual crisis prompted by the holiness of God
and the sinfulness of human beings. I think popular Christianity has become
far less interested in holiness than it used to be, and that the current
talk about justification by faith has barely filtered down from scholars to
the average believer.
*PH*: Why are some New Testament scholars like Tom Wright saying that the
doctrine of justification by faith is not a central Pauline doctrine?
*PJ:* I think that scholars like Wright are often reacting to the position
of some German scholars earlier in the twentieth century who treated
justification by faith as the central Pauline doctrine, as the definition of
the Gospel. In doing so they probably owed their thinking to Luther, and so
this later reaction is not just a response to an earlier generation of New
Testament scholars, but it is also a reaction to the Reformation itself
Wright’s basic position is this: when you look at Paul’s writing you will
notice that justification by faith doesn’t turn up everywhere, and there are
other doctrines which would easily be regarded as more at the center of
Paul’s thought. He would say, I think, that the Gospel was more central.
Some other people think that incorporation into Christ is the center of
Paul’s theology. Wright makes the point that Paul is mainly discussing the
future of Israel and the relationship with the Gentiles. Thus justification
is about the nature of the church (who belongs?) rather than salvation (who
does God accept?).
I simply make two observations about the broader issue, rather than about
Wright’s studies particularly: First, I think that the business of trying to
find the center of Paul’s theology is a mistake. How can you ever be sure
that you have found it? The idea of “finding the center” of something is a
very alluring metaphor, but it fuels the false hope that it can be done.
Isn’t it much more sensible to say simply how a particular doctrine relates
to the others, rather than to say that it is at the center? I think so.
Second, it needs to be said that many New Testament scholars don’t believe
that Paul wrote all the New Testament letters attributed to him. So the Paul
they’re talking about is not necessarily the man that we are referring to.
The other problem that they have is that they are looking exclusively at
Paul without taking into account how the rest of the Bible handles these
issues.
My own view on all this is that justification by faith is absolutely
integral to our whole doctrinal understanding because it has to do with what
is so vital in the Bible, namely, the judgment day, what Christ has done to
save us from that judgment day, and what we must do in response to Christ’s
rescue of us from this coming crisis. After all, the reason for wanting to
know who is in the church is to know who is to be saved in the coming
judgment.
*PH*: How are some of these modern scholars like Tom Wright and James Dunn
redefining the doctrine of justification by faith?
*PJ:* Both Dunn and Wright are struggling to come to terms with the new
perspective of E. P Sanders, in their own way. Let me admit first that it is
quite difficult to summarize these arguments briefly in a way that does
justice to them.
Sanders, as you will recall, suggested that we have misunderstood the
beliefs of first century Jews. The Jews of Jesus’ day, he said, did not
believe in justification by good works. Rather, they exalted in God’s grace
and believed that it was only by grace that they were in the covenant.
However, Sanders went on to say that although Jews believed that they were
saved by grace, they also believed that they stayed in the covenant by
works. Both Wright and Dunn in their different ways are trying to grapple
with this, and they are trying to reassess the doctrine of justification by
faith in the light of it. Both of these scholars are very attracted to the
idea that Paul’s “justification by faith” talk comes out of the relationship
between Jew and Gentile in the church, which is undoubtedly a major issue in
Paul’s letters to the Galatians and the Romans.
Dunn’s view, for example, is that Paul’s term, “the works of the law,” does
not refer to the works we do in order to gain salvation through the law.
Rather, these works are “boundary markers” or symbols of one’s Jewishness. A
person is not saved by having or doing them. They are merely intended to
signal that you are Jewish. The real question before the Gentile churches
was this: Do you need to perform “the works of the law” to be a Christian?
In other words, do you have to become Jewish to enter the covenant? The
issue has nothing to do with good works or building up credit for salvation;
rather it is about whether you have to become a Jew to be saved.
In the end, Dunn does specifically see justification as having to do with
their relationship with God, and dependence on God. But the initial point is
this you don’t have to become a Jew to be a Christian. You can be justified
as a Gentile through faith in Christ without keeping the Law. In other
words, you don’t have to convert to Judaism as a first step to being a
Christian. But I am not at all convinced that he is right to say that works
of the law are merely marks. I think that Sanders is wrong and that there is
sufficient evidence that some people did put their faith for salvation in
good works. What is sometimes missed is that the mere fact that people
appealed to grace does not mean that they did not also rely on good works.
Tom Wright is also interested in this matter. But for him the business of
justification by faith is not so much a matter of God’s verdict on the day
of judgment. Instead, it’s related to whether or not a person has a belief
that Jesus is Lord and that God raised him from the dead. This shows that
they are a Christian. Wright claims that this is evidence of the Spirit’s
work in a persons life, and hence proof that the person is already in the
covenant. So what he is saying is that the doctrine of justification by
faith is not about how God makes a person a Christian, rather, it is God’s
righteous declaration that someone is already a Christian.
For Wright, faith is not the instrument by which we grasp Christ, but the
evidence that we are already in Christ. But this is not how Paul uses the
term “faith” ‘in my view. One of the effects of this way of approach is that
it tends to dissolve the dear distinction between the Catholic and
Protestant definitions of justification. I am concerned about his em*PH*asis
on church rather than salvation.
*PH*: What’s the danger of going down the new path? What do we lose?
*PJ:* Well, the first thing that we have to recognize is that this new path
is attractive. It’s like all new things; it’s exciting and therein lies its
danger. Sadly, some Christians will go down this path only because they’re
like the Athenians who were always interested in some new thing.
The other factor that makes this new path attractive is that it appears to
give us a wonderful new way of looking at the New Testament that people
haven’t thought of before, almost as if for thousands of years we haven’t
known what the New Testament says. And now, suddenly, all is revealed. So
it’s quite attractive. The advantage of this new view is that it gives the
appearance of drawing us into the historical circumstances of the day.
However, the danger of the new path is that it is inherently reductionist.
That is to say, it certainly correctly draws us ‘into the issue of Jew and
Gentile relationships, but it doesn’t seem to ask the obvious question: why
is this issue so important? I take it that the reason why the question was
ever important in the first place was because it involved the crucial issue
of how we shall stand before the judgment seat of God. Unless we realize
that that is the real question, then the New Testament will be essentially
trivial for us. It will be no more than the hobby horse of academic experts
who happen to be able to read it in a new way. So personally, I think that
the new path is dangerous. I believe that it will obscure the doctrine of
justification by faith, and it will make assurance of salvation very
difficult indeed. Further, I think that if it obscures the doctrine of
justification by faith, it will cut off the root of godliness because
godliness grows out of justification by faith as well.
Charles Colson and Os Guinness, among others, have been calling on
evangelicals and Roman Catholics to bury the hatchet on their differences
over justification. Should we do that? And should we treat the Reformation
as a backward stop? I believe quite strongly that evangelicals and Catholics
should bury the hatchet on justification by faith, and both of us should do
that by submitting to the truth. And we can do that best by witnessing to
the truth continually.
Sadly, many evangelicals no longer believe in justification by faith as you
can see from the neglect of it in their popular writings. Historically, this
has not always been so. In an earlier period, evangelicals regarded
justification by faith as enormously significant. However, in the broad
evangelical movement today it is not seen in the same light. So whether we
are talking about evangelicals or Catholics, both of us need to rediscover
the great teaching of justification by faith. I believe we have a
responsibility to invite the Roman Catholic Church to do it. It hasn’t done
so yet, although I hope it will.
As far as the Reformation goes, I believe that it was a marvelous backward
step. It is the sort of backward step that we ought to be taking all the
time-right back into the New Testament. It’s time we realized that going
back to the New Testament is the only way to go forward. And we need to do
it again today. There’s an American Episcopalian Bishop who has recently
been saying that we have to rewrite the Bible for every new age. I think
he’s completely wrong. What we have to do is to go back to the sources of
our faith in the New Testament. Then we will discover afresh in each
generation the wonderful truth of the Gospel in a “justification by faith”
way. I think that it’s tragic that many today who call themselves
evangelicals are ashamed of the Reformation or attack the Reformation. Some
of them treat the word “Protestant” as though it’s a vulgar term, and they
want to distance themselves from the Reformation as much as possible. I
would question the credentials of any person who calls himself an
evangelical if he does such a thing. 1 am not ashamed of the word
“Protestant.” I think that one of the great losses of the last twenty to
thirty years has been this term. It’s a very important word that we need to
reuse and rediscover.
*PH*: To what extent then can evangelicals and Catholics work together,
bearing in mind, for example, their collaboration on pro-life issues?
*PJ:* It’s perfectly true that evangelicals and Catholics often work
together on pro-life issues, and we ought to be grateful for that. I,
myself, belong to an organization which has evangelicals and Catholics
working on these sorts of causes. There are definitely issues on which
Christians who have a Trinitarian approach to life can work together
effectively. But if such cooperation obscures for a second the massive
difference between us on the issue of how a person is saved, then we must
stop doing it at once. Cooperation on secondary issues must never be used as
an excuse for down-pedaling the crucial issue of how a person is justified.
People often don’t realize the subtle impact of universalism. It explains
why it’s easier for evangelicals and Catholics to come together today. When
we really believe that all will be saved, the differences between
evangelicals and Catholics seem insignificant and trifling. The popularity
of universalism in the twentieth century goes a long way to explaining why
there is a fresh push for unity with Rome. It is not because we really
believe the same thing about justification by faith. Rather, it is because
the issue of the judgment seat of God has been muted through universalism.
That’s why it’s now so easy for Catholics to accept a watered-down version
of justification by faith with Protestants. It’s all due to the error of
universalism.
*PH*: What will be the pastoral implications if Protestant preaching no
longer focuses on justification by faith alone?
*PJ:* The essential thing that people must grasp is that Protestant pastoral
practice flows out of the doctrine of justification by faith alone. If you
look at Catholic spirituality, particularly Jesuit spirituality, you will
find that inherent in it is the idea of free will and the capacity of human
beings for a good life and good works. This is endemic in all Catholicism.
It is an absolute and non-negotiable part of their teaching. Because
Catholic teaching contains these ideas within it, Catholic spirituality
takes a different form from Protestant spirituality.
Protestantism has different assumptions altogether. For a start, Protestants
do take seriously the scriptural teaching that human beings are totally
sinful, that is, that sin has affected every part of our being. There’s no
part of our existence which is untouched by sin’s effect, and so we need to
refresh ourselves again and again by coming back to the cross of Christ and
receiving forgiveness. The Gospel tells us that we can have assurance of
salvation by faith in Christ, and it underwrites this promise by showing us
the greatness of the Saviour. The Christian life begins and continues at
every stage by faith. It’s a life of faith that we live. We have faith in
Christ, our great Saviour, and faith in him gives us assurance.
However, in Catholic theology you are not permitted to have assurance.
There’s always the element of uncertainty. Assurance is never on the agenda,
because the presence of free-will and good works in Catholic teaching rules
it out. Ultimately, your personal destiny hinges on your own ability, which
gives us no confidence at all. So when people become enamored of a Catholic
spirituality; even if they are Protestants, then you will get a different
version of the Christian life, and a different pastoral practice altogether.
I think it should be obvious to everyone that these are terribly important
issues, and they are important because in our age so many prominent
Protestant authors are now calling upon Catholic “spirituality” to help them
in their pastoral practice. This is a movement fraught with great dangers,
and it shows how many Protestants have a defective understanding of human
sinfulness and the Gospel. The way forward is to refresh our understanding
of the Gospel in a “justification by faith way.”
*Reprinted with permission from the March/April 1999 edition of*
_Modern Reformation_