An Author Interview from Books At a Glance
It’s the doctrine on which the church stands or falls, and every generation of Christians must come to grips with it afresh if the church is to remain faithful. I’m Fred Zaspel with Books At a Glance, and I’m talking of course about the doctrine of justification. And today we have Dr. Michael Horton with us to talk about his important new two-volume book on this essential doctrine.
Mike, great to have you back, and congratulations on this major new accomplishment.
Horton:
Thanks so much, Fred. I’m an admirer of your work, and I’m glad to be on your program.
Zaspel:
Give us a definition of justification – along, perhaps, with some differing understandings that you interact with in your book.
Horton:
Everyone, ironically, even Roman Catholic scholars, New Testament scholars agree that justification is a legal forensic term, that it means to declare right in a court of law, and that, aside from the question of how one is justified, that’s what it means. It means to declare righteous in a court of law. So, already, you have eliminated, by that very definition, much of the understanding of justification in the Middle Ages.
Ever since Augustine (we get the good and the bad from Augustine) everyone since Augustine has understood justification as basically what we mean by regeneration and sanctification, a process of becoming gradually conformed to the image of Christ. The medieval church taught that (and I’m thinking about Thomas Aquinas, especially, here) God infuses his grace into us sovereignly in baptism. It’s all God’s work; it’s all God’s grace; and he irresistibly, effectually changes our heart so that we believe in Christ and we follow after him. But Aquinas believed that this is only the first justification. We need to grow in this justification, (again, he is thinking of it as sanctification) and then, finally, one day, hopefully, we will attain to the final justification that belongs to the elect. We will finally, one day, be declared righteous before God because we actually are righteous.
So, that whole idea of justification as a process of God’s grace infused into our hearts and us cooperating with that grace to the extent that we can so that we grow by his grace in our holiness – that understanding of justification is eliminated virtually by every New Testament scholar I can come across, Roman Catholic or Protestant, who acknowledge that it is a legal term.
Zaspel:
Interesting. So, to declare us righteous,
Horton:
To declare his righteous. And then, the further question is how does he do that? What’s the mechanism for this? And that’s where we get to the doctrine of imputation. He credits us with his righteousness; our sin is imputed to him; his righteousness is imputed to us.
Zaspel:
Okay, I want to ask some more questions about the doctrine itself, but first – this is a massive work – two volumes, nearly a thousand pages. Sketch it out for us just in broad strokes – how do you go about pursuing this topic?
Horton:
Well, it is two volumes; I’m grateful they let me do that, because the first volume is historical, setting the stage for what doctrine are we talking about in the first place, and how have other traditions interpreted the doctrine? And then the second volume is addressing the exegetical questions, diving into contemporary challenges to the doctrine, in Paul’s scholarship especially, looking at the new perspective on Paul and other trends in New Testament scholarship that basically say the Reformation misunderstood Paul. It is a forensic, legal, declaration, but it’s a badge that you are part of the forgiven family, that you belong. That Gentiles, too, belong, even without circumcision. So, they reduce Paul’s works of the law to the boundary markers that keep Gentiles out, especially circumcision. So “we are no longer justified by the works of the law,” means, to New Perspective scholars, we no longer need to become Jews in order to be saved.
I interact, in the second volume with a lot of those challenges and many others that we’ve been hearing, even in our own circles these days. But the first volume really goes all the way back to the earliest texts that we have from the post-apostolic church, and this theme of the great exchange. Because Martin Luther even said, really, what justification is all about, what the Gospel is all about, you can’t even say the Gospel without mentioning the word justification, and really be talking about justification. It’s this – that in this marriage between Christ and us, there’s a great exchange of our rags for his riches; he becomes poor so that we may become rich; he becomes a sinner so that we may become justified; he becomes the most unholy thing in the universe so that we can be the very righteousness of God. So, I thought, let’s start with that because I knew, in a foggy memory, that it was there in the church fathers but I had no idea how prominent it is as a theme. If that’s how you define justification then, good grief, it’s all over the church fathers. So, I start there and work my way up and then try to see (I get to Thomas Aquinas and his development of the theme, Peter Lombard before him and then Thomas Aquinas) the enormous role that the practice of penance played and the development of the theory of penance in the Middle Ages. And how that really constricted the arteries, as it were, of how many interpretations you could have. Because penance was this process of repentance that, at first, was simply church discipline in the case of severe sins, perhaps even excommunication, and then it evolved, mainly through Celtic Irish immigration to France, into this monastic kind of practice that was now for every Christian. All Christians have this very strict regimen of what kind of repentance was necessary in order to receive forgiveness. And as that evolved, a lot of Christians said, “I don’t think there’s any hope for me.” You had other people in the later Middle Ages like Duns Scotuswho said just do what you can, that’s all God requires. Forget the sacrament of penance; it’s not these outward actions; the Lord looks at the heart. If you reach out to him, he will reach out to you; you don’t even need God’s grace infused, you can cooperate right now, you can take the first step up that ladder and God will reach down his hand and help you the rest of the way. That’s how we got the medieval slogan, “God will not deny his grace to those who do what lies within them.” And that really becomes the theology that shapes the world that Martin Luther entered in that monastery. Happily, he had a good mentor, Johann Von Staupitz, the head of the order, who was a strict Augustinian who didn’t agree with all of that. But Luther was trained in this theology of do what you can – we call it nominalism – and that was Luther’s training.
Zaspel:
What is the via moderna, and how did this shape the discussion of justification at the time of the Reformation?
Horton:
Yes, that’s really what I’m talking about when I mentioned nominalism. It’s Latin for, “the modern way.” There are basically two trajectories or trends in the later Middle Ages. You could have Augustinians who are also modern, the via Augustini moderna, but the via moderna, the modern way, was more often associated with the nominalists. And the nominalists were, for the most part, Pelagian or semi-Pelagian. That is, they either believed that God’s grace wasn’t necessary at all, or they believed that God’s grace was something he gave after you, by your own free will, took the first step. You take the first step, repenting and believing in Christ and then he gives you grace for the rest of the way.
Now Thomas Bradwardine, the Archbishop of Canterbury during this time, wrote an amazing treatise called, Against the New Pelagians. He and Staupitz, Luther’s mentor, and Gregory of Rimini and other leading churchmen were opposing this revival, as they saw it, of a “God helps those who help themselves” kind of theology, but they still didn’t understand that justification was a legal forensic declaration. They said it was all of grace from start to finish, even predestination, even Christ dying specifically for his elect people, perseverance of the saints, and so forth, but not that forensic, legal courtroom understanding of justification that you find in the Greek vocabulary around to declare righteous.
Zaspel:
Speaking anachronistically, was there a “Reformed” view of justification in the early centuries of the church after the New Testament?
Horton:
That’s a great question. With the church fathers, as you know, there are so many qualifications. Don’t believe anybody who says “yes,” or “no.” It’s such a complex thing. You can read one page of the same church father, the same text, even, one page where you just nod and say that’s wonderful, that’s out of the park; and read the next page and say he fumbled the ball. One thing that really surprised me, Fred, was we think of ourselves as reformed Christians, as part of the legacy of the great church father, Augustine. And, in many ways, we are. Here’s a great church father who taught God’s sovereign electing grace in Jesus Christ and the effectual successful sovereign character of his grace, perseverance of the saints, and all of it; but, as I say, he introduced this idea of justification as a process. With Chrysostom, the great preacher and bishop of the church in Constantinople (fourth century, early fifth), who was Calvin’s favorite exegete, by the way, Chrysostom – I never knew this until I really delved into him – Chrysostom has a much clearer doctrine of justification, even though he doesn’t believe in unconditional election. It’s fascinating. He doesn’t say God chose people based on what works he foresaw them doing, but that he chose them based on foreseeing faith. But he also purposed that he would give them faith. Now that sounds contradictory and a lot in the church fathers is unclear, but the bottom line is this: he said justification is an instantaneous declaration; it is not a process. The moment you believe (he couldn’t have said it more clearly on so many pages, in so many sermons) the moment you believe, he would tell his congregation, you are clothed in the righteousness of Christ. You are declared righteous, you are justified from that very moment on. And it’s through faith alone, he says. Now, he might have thought, like a typical Arminian brother or sister, that that faith was his choice, that God did not give him, did not grant him, a special gift of faith; but he did believe that faith was a gift in the sense that Christ purchased it for everyone. The important thing there, is not to compare him with Augustine in terms of his view of predestination, but to contrast him with Augustine on justification. Chrysostom was really, for him, the way he preaches justification, the way he preaches the Gospel, again and again and again… you would think Luther or Calvin was preaching that sermon.
Zaspel:
Okay, more constructively now, explain your remark that we understand the Reformation in the words, “grace, not merit; faith, not works.”
Horton:
Yes. It pertains to the basis, first of all, the material ground of our salvation and then the instrument, the means by which we are made partakers in it. And so, Christ alone is the ground of our salvation. I think that we have to be careful about using the shorthand, faith alone. Of course, the reformers did, of course, Paul also did. But it’s a shorthand for Christ alone. For the reformers to say we are justified by grace alone through faith alone was not to give any primacy to the act of faith itself, but was to say, look, the contrast between grace and merit or faith and works in justification is the contrast between Christ and us. We are either saved by Christ, completely, or we are saved by ourselves, completely. There’s no middle ground here. Well, the middle ground is precisely what the medieval church occupied. We are saved by grace, but we are also saved by our cooperation with that grace. Justification is that cooperation with grace. The reformers said, look at these passages, not just in Paul, but in the Gospels. Not only in the New Testament, but in the Old Testament. There’s nothing we can do. We can’t make the first move to God; he has to regenerate us; and he has to declare us righteous; we can’t make ourselves righteous. How much can you cooperate with grace in order to be justified? The Scriptures teach that we are justified, and therefore, we cooperate with God’s grace. It doesn’t tell us that we are justified by cooperating with God’s grace. What was Abraham doing in Genesis 15, when he believed God and was justified? He believed the promise and right then and there, hashab is the Hebrew word, he was justified, then and there. What does that mean? Well, Paul tells us what that means in Romans 4, and elsewhere. So, really, it was coming back to the Scriptures. When we come back to the Scriptures and see how they contrast the helpless condition of fallen human beings with the all-sufficient grace and power and mercy of God in Jesus Christ that we really understand the Gospel.
Zaspel:
What is the relation of justification to union with Christ?
Horton:
This is a big one, especially today. First of all, there are some people who say because we are united to Christ, we don’t need justification. To be united to Christ is to have everything that he has. No need to talk here about imputation as a mechanism for being declared righteous, that his righteousness is imputed to us. Just to be united to Christ is to have everything that he has. Other people say, no, there is a clear doctrine of justification that is distinct from union with Christ. Of course, we have our justification and our sanctification and our glorification in union with Christ, but justification is forensic, whereas sanctification is a process. And so, they will recognize that. Other people, and I place myself in this camp, say that union with Christ is an umbrella term for all of the benefits that we have in Christ. We are chosen in him, redeemed in him, called effectually to union with him; where we receive, through faith, which is a gift, we receive justification, sanctification and glorification. But within that union that we have in Christ, sanctification can only come about, the process of being made new, being conformed to the image of Christ, can only come about on the basis of God’s verdict that we are declared righteous only for the sake of Christ. Think of adoption or marriage, analogies, of course, that the Bible itself uses for all this. First, you have to be legally married before you can sleep together and have a proper relationship in marriage. Before you go home and become part of the family, you have to be legally adopted. And so, justification really is the legal ground that gives us security and certainty. When we are justified, we can go home rejoicing, knowing that nothing can ever separate us from the love of our Father in Jesus Christ. We can grow in our marriage, our union with Christ more and more each day knowing that we can never be severed from his body. Why? Because Romans 5:1, having been justified through faith we have peace with God.
Zaspel:
How does – or how ought – an understanding of the doctrine of justification impact the Christian life?
Horton:
It’s huge, of course. You know, based on what I just said, if we don’t have the security that nothing in heaven or on earth (the end of Romans 8) can separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus, good grief, where do we go from there, Fred? I don’t know. I have a pretty good idea where I would go from there – atheism. You know, I’m done, I’m over, if this is God coming to us saying, “Mike, you’re a pretty good person; you could be a little bit better; I’m gonna help you out here; I’m going to give you your best life now if you follow these tips to become a better you.” No, I’m not interested. Count me out of that one. But if you come to me and tell me that though my sins be as scarlet, they will be as white as wool, that I can be forgiven and accepted, there’s a new covenant that is sealed in Christ’s blood and secured by his resurrection from the dead, now I have hope because I can hang my hat on somebody else. I can fix my eyes on Christ, the author and finisher of my faith.
Zaspel:
How ought this doctrine shape pastoral ministry?
Horton:
Well, look at the way it shaped the pastoral ministry of the apostle Paul. How could he endure all the sufferings, all of the pain? Here’s a guy who had all of the credentials and bright future ahead of him, trained by Gamaliel, the second greatest Jewish thinker of his day, alongside Philo. Paul had a great career ahead of him; he was given letters to go after the Christians whenever he wanted them. He had a lot of power and he was a young guy. He had zeal, he was a Pharisee of Pharisees, as to the law, blameless. But he said, I look at all of that outward zeal and righteousness and education and everything that I had, that I had always put in my asset column, and I move it over to the debit column. (I’m thinking Philippians 3.) Why? Because it’s bad, it’s horrible? Well, aside from killing Christians, no. He says in comparison with gaining Christ, not having a righteousness of my own which comes by the law, but the righteousness that is found in Christ alone. It is that that drove him personally so that he could not even address a letter to any of the churches without sharing the Gospel in the first few sentences. He just bled Gospel. The gospel came out of his pores. And that should be true of all of us as pastors. We preach the whole counsel of God; we preach the law, too, both to drive us to Christ and to lead us in Christ; but, really, our heartbeat is the heartbeat of Scripture from Genesis to Revelation, which is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. That’s what really drives us, puts wind in our sails. And you know, if it puts wind in our sails, it’ll put wind in the sails of the people we preach it to.
Zaspel:
Before we sign off, give us a brief, crisp, summary of the doctrine of justification by faith. And let’s do it this way, a sinner is inquiring, how can I be right with God?
Horton:
The only way you can be right with God is to come with your sins; to come with your doubts; to come with your despair; to come to him just as you are, as we sing, without one plea, except that Christ died for you and was raised for you. Think of the contrast that Jesus draws between the tax collector and the Pharisee. The Pharisee looks over at the tax collector and says, I thank you God that I am not like one of those guys. Notice, he wasn’t saying, what a great guy I am, I did it all by myself. He’s not a Pelagian, he’s not denying God’s grace. He says, I thank you God that I am not like this person over here. And then he goes on to list all the ways that he cooperates with God’s grace. But the tax collector can’t even lift his eyes up to heaven. Imagine this guy probably swindled old ladies out of their estates, and he can’t even raise his eyes to heaven. And he cries out, Lord, be merciful to me, a sinner. And Jesus says that man went home that day justified, rather than the other.
Zaspel:
We’re talking to Dr. Michael Horton about his important new two-volume book on Justification. It’s an outstanding contribution that you’ll not want to miss. I hope it will receive wide attention, and I’m very sure it will.
Mike, congratulations again, and thanks for talking to us today.
Horton:
Thank you so much, Fred, I really appreciate it.
