An Author Interview from Books At a Glance
Justification by faith alone – the doctrine on which the church stands or falls. That’s the way we’ve learned from the Reformers to understand the importance of the doctrine of justification, and that’s the title of Matthew Barrett’s new book: The Doctrine on Which the Church Stands or Falls: Justification in Biblical, Theological, Historical, and Pastoral Perspective. I’m Fred Zaspel, and this is our fourth interview with Dr. Barrett about the book – if you’ve missed the previous three you can catch up here on Books At a Glance (here, here, and here). It’s an important book you will not want to miss.
Matthew, welcome again.
Barrett:
Thank you for having me again.
Zaspel:
Okay, your book has four major sections: Justification in Biblical Perspective – a study in exegetical theology, Justification in Theological Perspective, Justification in Church History, and Justification in Pastoral Practice. In our previous interviews we’ve focused on the first two parts; now let’s glance at the rest.
Was this doctrine of justification by faith to be found in the early centuries of the church in the time after the New Testament?
Barrett:
Yeah, that’s a really good question, Fred. When we talk about justification, sometimes we’ve referred to it as a Reformation doctrine. There is good reason for that because with the Reformation and the Reformers comes a corrective in which they are arguing that justification has been misunderstood, the doctrine that they inherited is not in accordance with what Scripture itself says and so, whether it’s Luther or Calvin or Melanchthon and others, they are pushing back against Rome to argue that it’s not an infused righteousness in which we are somehow made righteous over time. Justification isn’t this long process; rather, it’s an instantaneous declaration, a legal declaration that we are right with God. And not on the basis of anything internal to ourselves, but on the basis of the objective work of Christ.
Well, that Reformation doctrine is sometimes assumed that it’s completely new with the Reformers and up until the sixteenth century it was completely absent. I think that maybe in our zeal for the Reformers that is an oversight, to be sure. The Reformers themselves would argue that their understanding of grace is not new. It’s not original to themselves. Calvin is a great example of this because he would often appeal to the Fathers, and the more he studied, the more he would appeal to them for his understanding of grace. What does that mean then for, say, the patristic period? What does that mean for justification early on? Gerald Bray has an excellent chapter. It’s called, Reformation Invention or Historic Orthodoxy? and he addresses Justification in the Fathers. He makes a helpful, historical qualification at the beginning where he says, if you go to the Fathers and you’re looking for the exact language that’s used during the Reformation, well, for one, it’s going to be anachronous; then again for two, you’re going to be disappointed, and you might even conclude that the concept is foreign to the Fathers because you’re not seeing the vocabulary there. And so, Gerald warns that we have to… Just like in Scripture where we read, maybe, the prophets as a different type of genre from, say, the Pentateuch… Similarly, when we come to history, we have to pay attention to the time period. Gerald argues that on the one hand, yes, the exact language is not there and it wouldn’t be fair to impose that expectation on them because they are dealing with different debates. Debates over the Trinity, over the person of Christ, and so on, while the Reformation is dealing head on with the issues of soteriology. So it wouldn’t be fair to impose that expectation on them. However, it would go too far to say that they have no understanding of this idea. While the exact language may not be there, the concept is, nevertheless, present. It comes out in different ways, though. It may not be a specific book on justification like you see with the Reformers, but instead, it comes out as they are talking about the Trinity or they are talking about the person and work of Christ. Or maybe the Church, the soteriology language comes out there. Bray makes a fascinating argument, a good argument, I think, that at times we do see that certain Fathers have a very biblical understanding of this concept of justification. And they will talk, not only about the work of Christ, but the fact that the believer is only reconciled to God through faith and that it is because of the blood of Jesus Christ that there is this exchange that takes place between what Christ has accomplished and the believer being right with God.
All that, to say, I think that readers will be pleasantly surprised to discover that actually the Fathers have a lot more to say about justification than they ever anticipated.
Zaspel:
You have said that the Reformed doctrine of justification sees justification as consisting in the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to us by grace and through faith alone. Describe for us the Roman Catholic response to this at the Council of Trent. What did the Roman Catholic Church see as the key issues involved?
Barrett:
That’s a difficult question to answer because we sometimes think that in terms of the Roman Catholic Church, we sometimes think that the Reformers are responding to a doctrine of justification that’s been very detailed, articulated, in the official church creeds and councils, and that it’s a target in plain sight. And that’s not necessarily the case. The concept of justification in Rome’s understanding is very prevalent, but it’s not always an easy target; sometimes it’s a moving target, to be sure. However, at Trent, there we begin to see it being formalized. Now, even there, it’s still difficult because if you read Trent and some of its anathemas of the Reformers, there’s been lots of discussion. Does Trent accurately even understand what the Reformers taught? Some have said, “yes;” some have said, “yes, but, no.” So, there’s a little bit of discussion, there, and I would even wonder at times do they even understand what Luther’s teaching, exactly? Maybe to a degree, but also, maybe not. All that to say it’s a bit of a moving target. Nevertheless, if I was to just paint with a broad brush here with broad strokes, I would say, what are the main differences? Well, number one is the Reformers… and this is part of the big breakthrough. And with Luther it comes gradually and progressively; he’s sort of thinking out loud as he goes… For the Reformers, they come to understand that justification is a legal issue. It has to do with our legal status before a holy God. And this was revolutionary; because for Rome, it very much was an internal issue having to do with moral renewal and reform. But the Reformers are arguing that justification is actually a declaration and it’s one that God makes. And this would lead us to our second point – it’s not one that occurs progressively, over a long period of time as if it’s uncertain until the end. No, it is instantaneous; it occurs upon faith in Christ Jesus. So, all that to say, number one it is legal, or perhaps we could use the word forensic – it’s a good word to use – if justification is a forensic matter. And number two, it is not a long process over one’s lifetime. Instead, it is a declaration that takes place upon faith in Christ. It’s not a reoccurring thing.
Well, that assumes, then, another major difference, which is this: Rome argued that justification involves some type of infusion. Some type of infused habit of grace, for example. Some type of infused grace within us that leads us to either cooperate or exercise our free will so that we become righteous, so that we are made more and more righteous. The problem with that is for Rome that also meant you could never be certain. And Trent specifies this. It condemns anyone who would say you can have certain assurance. Rome said, no, you can’t. You may be confident to one degree or another, but you can’t be absolutely certain. Well, that’s very different from the Reformers because they argued, yes, either you’re going to base justification on what’s happening in us – then sure, you can’t be certain, you can’t have assurance; however, if justification is not on the basis of anything we’ve done, but it’s entirely on the basis of what Christ has done, then we have every assurance. We have every certainty because it’s based on something objective, something true, something historical that we have received by faith. And so, the Reformers (we talked about this in an earlier podcast) said, well, justification isn’t an infusion, it’s an imputation, because this goes back to that legal, forensic understanding. It’s an imputation. An imputation of what? An imputation – that simply means a reckoning, an accounting. So think in terms of a courtroom. An accounting that one is not guilty, but now has been declared righteous on the basis of what Jesus Christ has done for us. That doesn’t mean that we are intrinsically holy, that comes with sanctification, but God sees us as if we are righteous because we are clothed in the righteousness, that spotless, perfect righteous robe of his son.
Zaspel:
This steps back to the section of your book that deals with Systematic Theology, but clarify for us now: just how is justification related to our works – both before and after we believe?
Barrett:
Yes. This is an important issue. It’s one that oftentimes Christians go to one extreme or the other. We either say there’s no place at all in the Christian life for works, and that can lead to the very antinomian tendencies. The other extreme is to say works matter so much that we become legalistic. There’s a legalistic tendency there and that can even creep into the doctrine of justification so that we start to see something of our own doings, some type of work of the law as contributing to our justified status.
I think both of those extremes have to be avoided; both are dangerous; they both tend to misunderstand justification. Maybe the best way, or at least one way to approach this in a way that’s more biblical is to introduce systematic categories. This is where systematic theology can be so helpful to understand that there’s a difference between justification and sanctification, though they are very much related to one another. As we’ve been talking about, justification is a legal forensic declaration on the basis of what Christ has done. It’s a status change. Sanctification, on the other hand, stems from justification. It’s born out of justification. It’s the fruit of justification. But it is the internal moral renewal that is the work of the Holy Spirit to confirm us more and more into the image of Christ. And that involves killing sin, what sometimes is called mortification. It also involves vivification, which is living for God, so that’s a positive side of things. How do these relate to one another? Well, we have to be careful we don’t confuse the two with one another so that suddenly our works in the Christian life become the basis of our justification or those become the means to our justification. We want to be careful we’re not confusing them. I think that’s essentially what’s happening with Rome. There’s a confusion of justification and sanctification.
On the other hand, that doesn’t mean that we have no place for works. Works are not the basis of justification, but they certainly are the fruit of justification. And in that sense are extremely important, extremely necessary as the evidence that we have been justified by Christ. So, maybe practically we could think of it this way – if you meet someone who says, yes, I’m a Christian. I believe that I’m saved by grace alone and I follow Christ and I believe in justification, even. But then when you look at their life, they live like the devil. Well, at that point, that should naturally make us uneasy; and that should raise a red flag in our mind that there’s something off here. Why? Well, it’s because if we have been declared right with God, if we have a new status with God, that, then, must result in living as a new creature of God, one who has a status change and that status change means that there’s a life change. It means that, as a Christian, though we do this imperfectly until glory, we are living in a way that’s supposed to be consistent with our new identity in Christ Jesus. So, there’s dangers to avoid here on both sides. The question is not whether there’s a place for works, but where we place works, if that makes sense.
Zaspel:
How is an understanding of the doctrine of justification important pastorally and personally?
Barrett:
Sometimes it’s objected that this Reformation understanding of justification is something that’s only doctrinal and maybe it’s cold or abstract or transactional. And sometimes people are attracted to Rome for this reason because they think Rome is actually going to take Christian living seriously. And there may be some things we need to hear, there, in terms of as Christians and ways that we are living inconsistently; but, I do think that the objection is misguided and off-track. Justification has enormous implications for life in the church, for life as a Christian, for pastoral ministry. I mentioned a minute ago one of them, which is assurance of salvation. I don’t know about you, but if it wasn’t for the active righteousness of Christ, his obedience being imputed to me, I think on many days I would be hopeless and I would despair. But, knowing – and this sometimes means I have to preach the Gospel to myself, or preach justification to myself all over again on some days – when I remind myself that despite my own failings and shortcomings and sins, I am right with God, suddenly that is the greatest news of all. Because I know myself, I know my own sinfulness, my own guilt before a holy God. But in light of that great news, I have assurance. And the basis of my insurance isn’t in myself, it’s in Jesus Christ, my Savior.
So, personally, I think for the Christian there’s enormous assurance to be had. And this is something that should define us as Protestants. I think that if you have a Roman Catholic friend, this is one of those things that will come up. I’ve had great discussions with Roman Catholics before in which they really struggle with this idea of assurance and it affects them personally. And we see that in the life of Martin Luther. He is really cursed in many ways by his lack of assurance, and it’s only when, he describes the experience of rediscovering justification as if he’s altogether born again, suddenly Luther has great confidence. And it’s not because he himself is great; he recognizes, like Paul, he’s the worst of sinners. Luther is rejoicing and has great confidence because he recognizes, his eyes are open to the fact that his assurance, now, is certain because it’s grounded entirely in the gift of God, the righteousness of Christ.
So, personally, that’s one example of how justification affects the Christian life. I would press further and say that that assurance certainly has huge implications for pastoral ministry. I mean, if you’re a pastor out there, and you are counseling someone, this may be at the heart of the issue. But there’s also bigger issues for the church at large. And justification, just to give one example, justification for the pastor has tremendous import. How do you get up there in the pulpit, as a pastor, I mean how can you get up there in the pulpit as a pastor? I mean, no doubt every pastor has felt this, where when you go into the pulpit and you think, how can I preach God’s word? I’m unworthy. Who am I? I’m a sinner, like every other person in my congregation. Well, the confidence that comes with boldly proclaiming, “thus says the Lord,” is grounded in our justification. So, hopefully, in that moment you remind yourself that it’s because I’ve been justified in Jesus Christ that I can get into the pulpit and proclaim the Scriptures. It’s not because I’m some super saint; rather, I am a sinner like those in my congregation, but I am declaring to them the same Gospel, the same great news that has liberated me.
I would also say, for the church as a whole – the book is called The Doctrine on Which the Church Stands or Falls – I think churches should realize that this doctrine is important. It should, in some sense, define you as a church so that whether you are writing a confessional statement, whether you are thinking through your philosophy of ministry or evangelism or missions, this doctrine should come up. It should define you; it should distinguish you, even, from other denominations or other groups like Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox. Not in a prideful sense, that we have to be super tribal, but in a sense that this is a distinguishing mark of what it means to believe the Scriptures, to proclaim the Scriptures, to then as a church share the good news of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Zaspel:
We’re talking to Dr. Matthew Barrett, editor of the excellent and important new book, The Doctrine on Which the Church Stands or Falls: Justification in Biblical, Theological, Historical, and Pastoral Perspective. It is a genuine contribution to the study of the doctrine of justification, a truly “must have” resource that you’ll want to have.
Matthew, congratulations again on this really excellent work, and thanks for talking to us again.
Barrett:
Thanks so much, Fred. As always, it’s a joy to be on.
