The Harmonization of James.

     The Letter of James (the Apostle James pictured above) has a long and fascinating history. Early patristic writers (such as Eusebius) point out that it was not considered apostolic by a minority voice but that in the majority it has always been considered apostolic. But even among the small dissenters the issue was not one of theology but literary or more commonly that it was quoted less often than the other non-disputed NT writings in the earlier patristic fathers. It was not (as with many other things) contested on theological grounds (mainly the so-called problem of Paul's soteriology with James) until the 16th century, most notable with the attack by Martin Luther¹. In many ways Luther is the father of modern biblical criticism in terms of wielding the blade of the critic in one hand and theological bias in the other. He would push sachkritik (content criticism) farther than anyone before based on a theological notion. Luther's descendants were not long to arrive and would innovate many other modes to question James in general and the relationship of James and Paul in particular². All such complaints and detractions I believe can be explained when we understand the intention behind the writing of James. It is not a systematic theological exposition of soteriology but rather is written in a practical fashion. In other words, James is not turning his equipment and venturing to give a detailed point by point systemic definition of soteriology but rather he is interested in the praxis over the outworking of soteriology. 

     It is very likely that the Apostles James and Paul knew each other in person and hence it becomes harder to believe the notion that they were at odds in doctrine. One way around the dilemma has been to argue that James is writing before he met Paul face to face and thus "not understanding Paul's position fully" he writes to counter a faulty understanding of Paul³. But in order to believe this view and entire reconstruction needs to be erected, all built on an immense argument from silence with no early patristic support at all. Another school has held the idea that what James is refuting is not Paul per se, but a group that has either knowingly or not distorted Paul's gospel⁴. In the final analysis, all such mirror readings that have James refuting some misunderstood Pauline teaching stands on shaky ground and it is best to take James at face value and in a plain reading of the texts. Moreover, the most natural understanding of the events surrounding the composition of James is to assume that he was very familiar with "true" Pauline teaching in general and Pauline soteriology in particular. And it is not Pauline teaching he is attacking (since his soteriology is identical to Paul's) but misunderstandings of Pauline theology⁵. 

     Early and unequivocally in the letter, James makes clear his intention in writing; it is an exhortation for his readers to remain steadfast in their faith, for true faith in times of testing produces (1:2-3). The man who remains steadfast throughout life, will thus receive the στεφανον της ζωης, which God has promised to those who love him (1:12). 

 These seemingly works-righteous statements are prefaced in James as also they are in Paul (cf. Rom 2:6-7, 13 / Rom 3:22, 26; et al.) in that they are not of human origin but they are given to us by God as gifts (1:17). It is not of our will but by God's that he has even brought us forward, by the word of truth, first fruits of his creatures (1:18). Man's anger does not produce the righteousness of God (1:20) but rather we are to receive the implanted λογον which saves us (1:21). It is God who has chosen those who are rich in faith and to be heirs of the kingdom (2:5) the implication being crystal clear that this richness in faith and subsequent eternal life is not of human origin but of God's grace. This indeed sounds a lot like Paul and is a testament that James and Paul were in agreement theologically not at odds. 

It is with all this in mind that we should be doers of the λογου, and not just hearers (1:22). For what good is it if someone says he has faith but does not have these works? Is this a true saving faith? (2:14). For faith by itself without works is a dead faith (2:17). In contrast, James can say that he can show his genuine faith in that he is exemplifying these works in his life (2:18). The classical example in Scripture of this writes James is Abraham, whom Scripture said was counted righteous because he believed (2:23). But was he counted righteous solely on account of this belief? Absolutely not, it was the outworking of this faith through works in Abraham's life that justified him (2:21-22). 

 All this leads to James stating, "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone" (2:24). This summation coupled with all that James has stated before acts as a perfect capstone on the Catholic conception of justification and salvation. It is a full orbed concept that displays  a multi-faceted doctrine. It is a working faith that justifies not a dead faith. Paul and James are not in disagreement either knowingly or unknowingly but are perfectly in line is the Catholic understanding. The great Catholic Bishop of Hippo, Augustine commenting on James 2:5 is completely in line with Paul's stress (and official Catholic doctrine) on God's initiating grace,

 "The Elect were chosen before the foundation of the world in that predestination in which God foreknew what He Himself would do...to that end, assuredly, which has no end...By Choosing them, therefore, He makes them rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom. Rightly, then, is He said to choose in them that for the making of which in them He chose them." (De praedestinatione santorum liber ad Prosperum et Hilarium primus. 17, 34). 

 In like manner, according to the patristic father Gregory of Nyssa commenting on James 2:17 (and in line with Paul in Romans 3:28) works in and of themselves can never justify a man, they must be coupled with the correct faith,

"Paul, joining righteousness and faith and weaving them together, constructs of them the breastplates for the infantryman, armoring the soldier properly and safely on both sides...For faith without works of justice is not sufficient for salvation; neither, however, is righteous living secure in itself of salvation, if it is disjoined from faith." (Hom. on Eccl). 

This line of thinking continues in one of the most up to date summaries of Catholic doctrine, (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed. Doubleday, 1995). First and foremost, salvation is initiated by God's grace,

 "The first work of the grace of the Holy Spirit is conversion, effecting justification in accordance with Jesus' proclamation at the beginning of the Gospel: "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." (Matt 4:17). Moved by grace, man turns toward God and away from sin, thus accepting forgiveness and righteousness from on high." (CCC. 3. 1. 1989. The Catechism here cites Trent in full agreement (DS 1528)). Grace is a completely free undeserved gift from God which helps us respond to his call (CCC. 3. 2. 1996). Citing 1 Cor 2:7-9, the Catechism states that grace depends entirely of God's gratuitous initiative, which surpasses the power of human intellect and will (CCC. 3. 2. 1998). Justification is the acceptance of God's righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ, (CCC. 3. 1. 1991). Justification is merited for us by the life and death of Christ, (CCC. 3. 1. 1992). 

     In agreement now with James and the rest of the New Testament, the Catholic Catechism now stresses the reality of man's role in justification. Justification establishes (through a renewed will) a cooperation between God's grace and man's freedom. On man's part this involves two things, his very ascent in faith and in his cooperation in works of charity through the prompting of the Holy Spirit, (CCC. 3. 1. 1993, citing Trent, DS 1525). Citing Augustine (In Jo. ev. 72, 3) the Catechism goes on to state beautifully that of all of God's handiwork, justification is the most excellent works of God's love made manifest in Christ Jesus, granted by the Holy Spirit, (CCC. 3. 1. 1994). Citing Augustine again, (De gratia et libero arbitrio, 17; De natura et gratia, 31) the Catechism confidently holds that the preparation for man to even accept grace is already a free gift from grace. Through this preparation we are sustained in our collaboration in justification through faith and sanctification through charity. It is God's work from first to last, since it is God who began to move our will for us even to will to cooperate in the first place as Augustine notes in the citations, (CCC. 3. 2. 2001). Citing Augustine yet again (Confess. 13, 36, and hence displaying the immense role this great patristic father plays in Catholic soteriology), the Catechism states that God free initiative demands man's free response since God has now created in man his image by conferring on him, along with freedom (of the will), the power to know and love Him (CCC. 3. 2. 2002). 

 Hence these works or fruits in the Christian life are a guarantee that grace is at work in us and should spur us on to an ever greater faith and attitude of trustful poverty (CCC. 3. 2. 2005; citing Matthew 7:20). Citing Augustine in full on this point, "You are glorified in the assembly of your Holy Ones, for in crowning their merits you are crowning your own gifts" (En. in Ps. 102, 7) the Catechism sets the record straight on the reality that even our works in life are ultimately God's gifts to us as well, we have received everything from Him, there is no strict right to any merit on the part of man, (CCC. 3. 2. 2006-07). 

 "The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace. The fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man's free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful." (CCC. 3. 2. 2008). 

 This is the Christian teaching of salvation stemming from Christ our Lord into the writers of the New Testament (in complete harmony with Paul and James) handed down to the patristic fathers (as seen in Augustine) and codified beautifully in Catholic doctrine. It is not salvation by faith alone, with works playing no part whatsoever (other than show evidence of salvation). James makes this crystal clear and the Greek is unmistakable as most modern translations evince. We are not simply declared righteous with Christ's righteousness alone but rather coupled with the declaration we are also made righteous to be presented as the holy and spotless bride of Christ to the Father. This making is not of our own but even this is God's Trinitarian work in us as a free gift. 

 

____________

1. James, according to Luther, did not exemplify Paul's "true" soteriological teaching, namely sola fide and thus was considered inferior.  James "mangles the Scriptures and thereby opposes Paul and all Scripture." (Luther's Works. 35, 397). Furthermore, "it is an epistle of straw" (Ibid., 35, 362). Even though James is not a "chief book," Luther nevertheless did not stop anyone from acknowledging James for it's "good sayings." (Ibid., 35, 397). For a deep analysis of Luther's annotations on James see W. Walther, (TSK: 66, 1893). Notice that in the 16th century the Catholic scholar's Erasmus and Cajetan also disputed James apostolic character but on different grounds, linguistic, grammatical, but even when they did they were very respectable paying full homage to the great lineage of Catholic commentators on James, such as Augustine, Jerome and Bede. James soteriology was in full harmonization with Paul writes Erasmus, while Paul has a different context in mind (law of Moses), James is writing in practical terms, concerned about piety and charity, (Annotationes, 1031). For an equally early and point by point response to these objections to James see Robert Bellarmine, (Prima Controversiae Generalis: De Verbo Dei Quatuor Libris Explicata). On early Protestant positions that Paul and James are in harmony see Philip Melanchton, (Loci Communes Theologici, 1559, IX, V, 2, 12); Ulrich Zwingli, (Expositio Fidei, 1531, fol. 14v); Jean Calvin, (James, pp. 314)

2. Such as the view that James as we have it today was never a Christian work at all, rather an original Jewish source that was later hijacked by early Christian scribes and mixed with dominical Christian traditions, (so. F. Spitta, Zur Geschichte und Literatur des Urchristentums, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1896, pp. 1-239). Or those that hold James as being pseudepigraphical, (Martin Dibelius, (Epistle of James, Fortress, 1976)).  

3. F. C. Baur (Paul, The Apostle of Jesus Christ, Williams & Norgate, 1875) was one of the first modern historico-critical scholars to give a large presentation that James and Paul were at odds on justification. See also; W. M. L. De Wette, (Jakobus, Hirzel, 1847); H. J. Holtzmann, (Lehrbuch der neutestamentlichen Theologie, JCB Mohr, 1897); G. Kittel, (Zeitschrift fur die deutestamentliche Wissenschaft: 41, 1942); Rudolf Bultmann, (Theology of the New Testament, Charles Schribner's Sons, 1955, pp. 2, 131); Werner G Kummel, (Introduction to the New Testament, Abingdon, 1975, pp. 414-16). And more recently Douglas Moo, (James: PNTC, Eerdmans, 2000, pp. 26) has argued that James at the point of composition was unaware of Paul's "true teaching" on soteriology since they had not met yet. So then what James attacks is a misnomer of Paul's actual teaching. But such an explanation opens up a more gruesome can of worms than it seeks to answer. If this were true, it would call into question the very idea of the inspiration of Holy Scripture since it would contain a book (by an inspired Apostle) attacking a true misunderstanding that he held of the doctrine of another inspired Apostle (Paul). Simply stating that this is because they have not met yet is dancing around the question for even if James was written prior to their physical meeting it is very likely that he has been given a detailed theological account of the "true" Pauline teaching. 

4. J. A. Bengel (Gnomon Novi Testamenti, 1773) gave the best expression of this view in the 18th century. But even Bengel defended the harmonization between James and Paul, (ad loc.) 

5. In fact the view which holds James and Paul in tension or misunderstanding has been aligned by a host of modern commentaries, a few examples from a wide range of theological traditions; A. Neander, (James Practically Explained, 1850); H. Ewald, (Jakobus Rundschreiben, Dieterich, 1870), W. Beyschlag, (Jakobus, 1882); T. Zahn, (Introduction to the New Testament, 1897);  are but a few early examples. Usually Catholic commentators defend the theological harmony between Paul and James while it is Protestant commentators that are the usual suspects that deny this and give alternate explanations.

 

St. Luke 1:6: Righteousness Before God.

Continuing on in my devotional reading of St. Luke's gospel we read these introductory passages on the larger pericope concerning the birth and events surrounding the birth of John the Baptist,

"In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, of the division of Abijah; and he had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blamelessly." (Luke 1:5-6, RSVCE)¹

To the observant eye an important question comes to mind. What is the righteousness spoken about here in context? That this passage sounds foreign and alien to modern "Evangelical" ear is evident. For when is the last time in a Protestant funeral have you heard the pastor exclaim, "Bob was an excellent Christian, righteous before the Lord. He walked always in good works, his life is a testament of his faith, he was righteous because he followed all the commandments of God always." Yet here in Holy Scripture and in the New Testament no less we find this very concept.

Protestant commentaries uneasy with this understanding of the text are quick to point out that this δίκαιοι here in Luke refers not to our current righteousness before God through the death of Jesus the Messiah but to some nebulous outdated Old Testament form of righteousness which has been now overridden by Jesus.² However, a clear unbiased reading of the Lukan text teaches that Zechariah and Elizabeth were δίκαιοι because of their walking (πορευόμενοι) in all of His commandments blamelessly (ἄμεμπτοι).

Surely the motif is drawn from the Old Testament but the soteriological conception is one and the same, the saints of the Old Testament were deemed righteous just as the saints of the New and the saints of today. There are not multitudinous ways to be counted δίκαιοι but rather only one way that when rightly considered is monolithic throughout redemptive history. A cursory glance at Old Testament texts such as Gen 18:19 (where the way of the Lord is described as doing righteousness), Deut 6:25 (where again righteousness is described as being gained by closely following God's commandments) makes this clear enough.

In the mind of St. Luke (who is mirroring the larger view of the early Church, v. 1:3) God's law is Holy and when powered by the Holy Spirit (who applies faith to it) is able to justify (Cf. Luke 2:25, 23:50).³ What is "new" of the righteousness of Christ via the gospels is His bringing back into focus the original spiritual meaning of the righteousness of the law. The Jews have lost the original meaning being transfixed on the outward ceremonial aspects of the law, they have failed to see the true intent of the law and the prophets. When the law and the prophets are properly understood this manifests itself properly in one's life. This was the teaching of Jesus' parables, the law and the prophets not done away with but now revealed in their fullest sense through the teaching and life of Jesus Christ.

__________________

[End Notes.]

1. The Greek text reads, "ἦσαν δὲ δίκαιοι ἀμφότεροι ἐναντίον τοῦ θεοῦ, πορευόμενοι ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ἐντολαῖς καὶ δικαιώμασιν τοῦ κυρίου ἄμεμπτοι."

2. Some Protestant circles called "Dispensationalists" go so far as to claim that there was multiple ways of attaining righteousness/saving justification, namely the 'dispensation' of the Old Testament saints which included a neo-works righteous system and then other 'dispensations' after the time of Christ which involve righteousness purely by faith alone with absolutely not a single work involved whasoever.

3. Cf. A. Plummer (St. Luke:ICC. 9-10) who argues that δίκαιοι here when combined with ἐναντίον τοῦ θεοῦ is a Hebraism which gives righteousness here it's full soteriological import. Bovon agrees, "In the same biblical tone, Luke describes (v. 6) the righteousness of both parents (Bovon then cites the LXX Num 36:13, Deut 4:40, Gen 26:5) as imagery in the Lukan passage) for Luke, God works togather with those who love him." (Luke 1: Hermeneia. 33).

Philippians 2:12, A Hard Saying Indeed.

(St. Paul at his writing desk.)




The difficulty of Philippians 2:12 is seen in the appearance of this text in many a "hard saying of the Bible" book.¹ At first glance, the text seems to imply that we can bring about our salvation and many have used this text in this manner.² However, a natural reading of the pericope in both the micro and macro context makes the meaning of St. Paul clear.

As the context makes clear, what St. Paul is discussing here is both soteriological and ethical,³

"Only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of you that you stand firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel...this is a clear omen to them of their destruction, but of your salvation and that from God. For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake," (RSVCE 1:27-29). ⁴

Thus here, we have in an expanded form what St. Paul would narrow down upon more in (2:12). It matters not whether Paul is there or not, the lives of the Philippians should always mirror their God given salvation, through their manner of living, their works and obedience. This train of thought is not unusual or new with Paul, it is the unanimous testimony of all of Sacred Scripture both Old and New as well as the wintess of the Catholic orthodox fathers.

Our text then reads,

Ὥστε, ἀγαπητοί μου, καθὼς πάντοτε ὑπηκούσατε, μὴ ὡς ἐν τῇ παρουσίᾳ μου μόνον ἀλλὰ νῦν πολλῷ μᾶλλον ἐν τῇ ἀπουσίᾳ μου, μετὰ φόβου καὶ τρόμου τὴν ἑαυτῶν σωτηρίαν κατεργάζεσθε· ⁵

Hence again, we have what St. Paul admonished the Philippians to do above. Whether he is there or not, it matters little, they should remain steadfast in their manifestation of their salvation through their lives, in works, obedience and so forth. Furthermore, contra all Pelagians - the very reason that we can perform this fidelity is as the very next verse shows,

"For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure." (RSVCE 2:13).⁶

God given obedience exemplified in time and space - as a working out of salvation⁷. Notice the verb κατεργάζεσθε (back in 2:12) which has the basic meaning of "accomplish" with a connotation of "carrying out."⁸ There is no textual or grammatical reason to take this verb in a metaphoric sense, St. Paul is clear, work out your salvation.

Futhermore, the apodosis clause Ὥστε is best understood as a comparative sentence, thus making the imperative very strong, the protasis πάντοτε in summary giving us then the entire sequence of thought, that the Philippians continue working out their salvation in obedience to Jesus Christ. The next clause giving us the foundation for all this, namely God granting them the ability to obey in the first place.

St. Augustine, thoroughly in line with the Catholic regula fidei before him comments on this passage,

"For it is God who works in us both the will and the performance, for His good will. If we ask whether a good will be the gift of God, it were remarkable if anyone would dare answer in the negative. But because good will does not precede the call, whereas the call does precede a good will, that we do have a good will is rightly attributed to God, and that we are called cannot be attributed to ourselves."⁹




________________________

[End Notes].

1. For apparent reasons, these 'hard sayings' books are usually Protestant, i.e., R. Stein, (Difficult Passages in the Epistles).

2. As interpreted by Pelagius and others.

3. Pace many (usually Protestant) commentators (such as Dibelius ad loc) that have argued the text in question is not speaking about salvation at all, but rather strictly moral obediance to Paul. But that this is a swift acrobatic leap over the plain reading of the text is clear to all.

4. The Protestant Reformed translation ESV gives the same rendering.

5. Greek text, UBS(4). Which is translated, "Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work our your own salvation with fear and trembling" (RSVCE, 2:12). The Protestant translations render it the same for the most part.

6. Whenever I read this particular text, the voice of St. Augustine rings in my ears. It has been called Augustine's entire soteriological theology in a nutshell. For we see all the familiar landmarks of the bishop of Hippo. 1. God is the great initiator. 2. He renews our fallen will to work and cooperate with Him, why? 3. For the ultimate glory of God. All of our works are even a gift of God, Augustine writes, these works He crowns Himself with.

7. In line with this motif, (Rom 1:5, 15:18, 16:19, etc) come to mind. It is true obedience which characterizes true faith in the believer. To divorce or downplay one from the other is to micromanage and truncate the gospel. The exact opposite is that those who disobey reject the gospel and already stand condemned (by their workings in life), Cf. 2 Thess 1:8, John 3:36.

8. Romans 7:18 comes to mind where the verb has the sense of carrying out.

9. (De diversis quaestionibus as Simplicianum. 1, 2, 12).

R.E. Aguirre, Anno Domini MMVIII.

-ab umbra ad veritatem

A Review of Nick Needham's "Justification in the Early Church Fathers"

This is a review of one of the entries in the book "Justification in Perspective" published by Rutherford House, 2006. The entry is entitled "Justification in the Early Church Fathers" by Nick Needham 1. The thesis of the entry, to show how the patristic fathers held a formulation of justification in a forensic sense, "to be declared righteous."

He first gives us the target group of fathers that he will be analyzing 2. Why however Needham does not follow the convention of the field of patristics and set the terminus ad quem for the West in the seventh century and the East in the eight, we are only left to wonder 3. In the next page we are given a glimpse of the perspective of Needham on the regula fidei in general and it is not exactly optimistic in terms of unanymity 4. However, this objection must deal with the reality that the fathers themselves were consolidated concerning their harmony of doctrine 5. Other scholars have come to the exact opposite conclusion concerning the patristic data (one which takes the fathers at their words) 6. Clearly then, the field of patristics is not exempt from theological bias when evaluating the sources.

We then hear this statement by Needham, "...it seems clear that there is a very prominent strand of usage in which it (justification) has a basically forensic meaning" 7. In the next few pages in his entry Needham cites various fathers which speak of justification and faith in a symbiotic relationship. All this leads to this bold assertion, "The forensic framework of this justification language is further illustrated by another strand of patristic teaching that employs the concept of imputation - reckoning or crediting something to someone's account...Justin Martyr teaches a bold doctrine of imputed righteousness" 8 (Needham then cites a litany of fathers in support).

In the section "The Christian Life: Initial Justification" Needham now moves to explain the initial event that causes justification in the minds of the fathers, "There is a strong strand of patristic teaching that ascribes initial justification to faith - either to faith in an unqualified way, or to faith in contrast with works, or even specifically to "faith alone". " 9 Needham finally admits however that in "some of the fathers" justification is a two fold process, mediated by faith and baptism 10.

Before we continue on in Needham's treatment of the fathers let us review what he has said thus far. Surely we are given a helpful overview of one aspect of the Catholic fathers but Needham's presentation is potentially misleading. The reader not trained in patristics easily comes away with the distinct idea that in the fathers we see early exponants of later Protestant soteriological schemes. But this is far from the truth and one can wonder why Needham has not painted the full picture? The fathers do not compartmentalize salvation as the later Protestants did, dissecting salvation into an ordo salutis - a specific numbered sequence that occurs in the same fashion everytime. Salvation in the fathers is more of an organic whole and does not follow a set pattern, baptism being the principle vehicle in salvation.

St. Irenaeus can say that justification is conditioned on both the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and on the fidelity of the believer,

"Those are perfect who have the Spirit of God continuing in them, and who have preserved their souls and bodies without blame, holding fast to God, that is, to faith in God, while observing justice in regard to their neighbor" 11.

And it is baptism which is the cause of spiritual regeneration, salvation and justification,

"And again, giving the disciples the power of regenerating in God, He said to them: "Go and teach all nations, and baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit...renewing them from their old ways into the newness of Christ" 12.

Clearly not faith alone. It is in baptism (which is a gift from God) that all the spiritual gifts are transmitted to the believer, enlightenment (faith), adoption (justification), regeneration, etc, says St. Clement of Alexandria,

"When we are baptized, we are enlightened. Being enlightened, we are adopted as sons. Adopted as sons, we are made perfect. Made perfect, we are become immortal...This work is variously called grace, illumination, perfection, and washing. It is a washing by which we are cleansed of sins...an illumination by which we behold that holy light of salvation" 13.

Hence the instrument of justification is baptism not faith. Barnabas concurs, it is baptism that renews our souls,

"Since, then, He has renewed us by the forgiveness of sins, He has put a different stamp (baptism) upon us, so that our souls might be like the souls of children, as they would be if He were creating us anew" 14.

St. Cyprian bishop of Carthage continues the tradition,

"But afterwards, when the stain of my past life had been washed away by means of the water of re-birth, a light from above poured itself upon my chastened and now pure heart" 15.

St. Methodius of Philippi makes the connection clear, it is because of baptism and it's efficacy that faith is even produced,

"The illuminated take on the features and the image and the manliness of Christ. The likeness of the form of the Word is stamped upon them; and it is produced in them through sure knowledge and faith. Thus, Christ is born spiritually in each one...those who are baptized in Christ become, as it were, other Christs, through a communication of the Spirit" 16.

Thus, baptism can be said is the unifying base among the fathers that imparts justification not a declarative statement of faith alone 17. Needham's claim is based I fear, not on an objective study of the patristic testimony but on theological bias that is skewing the reading of the fathers. Much more safer is the conclusion by renown Anglican (Protestant) scholar Peter Toon on this issue,

"As dogma, justification through the imputed righteousness of Christ and by faith had not been explicitly taught in the post-apostolic, pre-Luther Church. This claim may come as a surprise to some Protestants, for it has been common to assert that the doctrine of Luther was the recovery of the doctrine taught by Augustine of Hippo or by one or other of the late medieval theologians" 18.

In the same learned article Toon goes on to trace this misunderstanding of the fathers by citing the works of G.S Faber (The Primitive Doctrine of Justification 1837) and James Buchanan (The Doctrine of Justification 1867) who are often cited in Protestant polemical works to prove the seeds of Reformational doctrine in the fathers (Needham cites both works in his article freely and with approval to give weight to his argument). But surely Needham would give a balanced picture of this disputed testimony of the nineteenth century by explaining to the reader that these conclusions of Faber and Buchanan have found virtually no consensus among patristic specialists? No such luck. In fact, Needham uses them as authoritative sources to build upon his thesis. Again Toon concludes concerning this material, "A careful study of the quotations supplied by Faber and Buchanan proves only one thing – the early Fathers believed that salvation is by grace."

Toon goes on his article with masterful precision to show how St. Augustine and St. Aquinas (the two greatest thinkers of Christian history) do not hold to justification by faith alone and as a declarative, forensic pledge. Justification before Augustine Toon notes, is not precisely formulated by the fathers but rather falls under the general doctrine of deification in the regula fidei. A doctrine that is usually misunderstood by Protestants. St. Athanasius can be quoted to give a formal definition of this doctrine in his customary eloquence,

"None other, could restore a corruptible being to incorruption but the Saviour Who in the beginning made everything out of nothing. None other could re-create man according to the image, but He Who is the father's image. None other could make a mortal being immortal, but He Who is life itself, our Lord Jesus Christ" 19.

So much for the idea that justification is to be anchored in a declarative faith pronouncement as the dominant motif in the patristic fathers. Toon goes on to explain St. Augustine's view on justification properly,

"To justify means to make righteous. The Latin term justificatio is postclassical, so no readily available interpretation existed. Augustine decided that justificari means “to make righteous,” thereby apparently treating -ficari as the unstressed form of facere, as in sanctificatio, vivificatio and glorificatio. He held that the sinner is actually made righteous in justification. He briefly considered and rejected the possibility that “to justify” could mean “to pronounce righteous” (Section 45)" 20.

Toon's conclusion of St. Augustines view of justification can be said to incorporate the view of the fathers before him en toto,

"It will be seen that while Augustine teaches the nonimputation of sin (= forgiveness from God) he does not teach the imputation of righteousness, as did Luther and Protestantism after him. Protestant writers from the sixteenth to the twentieth century have tried to find in Augustine the same doctrine of justification as is found in the Protestant confessions of the Reformation period. It has to be admitted that the great theologian of grace does not teach a “Protestant” doctrine of justification. In fact, Augustine never had more than a minimal knowledge of the Greek language and was therefore unable seriously to face the question of what dikaioō meant for St. Paul. Thus his legacy to the Latin West, which is still to be found in the Roman Catholic Church, is the interpretation of justification as both an event and process of making the unrighteous man into a righteous man." 21

In the final anlysis it can be said that Needham's presentation of justification in the fathers is wrongheaded at best and disingenuous at worse (Needham has gone on to write a three volume (and counting) theological history of Christianity) that we can only hope he has presented the data of the primary sources more faithfully. In treating justification in the fathers, Needham should have prefaced his quotations by the overall teaching of the fathers not to cut and paste what he deemed important to his thesis.

___________________

1. Lecturer in church history at Highland Theological College, Dingwall.

2. " ...I am limiting myself to the fathers of the first four centuries. My terminus ad quem among Eastern fathers is John Chrysostom,...and among Western fathers, Jerome," (Justification. 26). Needham does not interact with St. Augustine since he is treated by a whole entry in Justification by David Wright.

3. William Jurgen's, a world wide acknowledged authority in the field of patristics summarizes the consensus view among patristic scholars, "The Patristic age, by common agreement, ends in the West with the death of St. Isidore of Seville in the year 636 A.D., and in the East with the death of St. John Damascene in 749 A.D." (The Faith of the Early Fathers. Vol1. x).

4. A typical Protestant objection, "I am not convinced that these formed a monolith, and doubt whether the "consenus of the fathers" over that period extended much beyond the Apostle's Creed." (Justification. 27).

5. I can supply litany after litany of patristic quotations on the unanymity of doctrine that Needham claims does not exist but a few will suffice. St. Irenaeus can say, "As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same" (Adversus haereses. 1, 10, 2). Or St. Augustine, "But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the apostles themselves or by plenary (ecumenical) councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church" (Ad. Januar).

6. Jurgens can say regarding the patristic testimony, "Not the least of the lessons to be learned from a work of the present kind is how marvellously the Faith is a seemless robe. Cut it hear, tear it there, excise a piece from it anywhere, and the whole of it unravels. " (The Faith of the Early Fathers. V3. ix).

7. (Justification. 28). But did not Needham just claim that there seemed to be no monolithic strands in patristic thought?

8. (Ibid. 32).

9. (Ibid. 38) and again we are given a slew of patristic quotations in support.

10. (Ibid. 41-42). Needham gives only one example of this "two fold justification", St. Basil (On the Holy Spirit. 12, 28).

11. (Adversus haereses. 5, 6, 1).

12. (Ibid. 3, 17, 1).

13. (Paidagogos. 1, 6, 26, 1-2).

14. (Epistula Barnabae. 6, 11).

15. (Ad Donatum. 4).

16. (Convivium decem virginum. 8, 8).

17. I can cite much more of the Catholic fathers on this point but the sampling I give is sufficient to demonstrate my point.

18. Which can be accessed on-line at- http://www.anglicanbooksrevitalized.us/Peter_Toons_Books_Online/Doctrine/justsanct1.htm.

19. (De incarnatione Dei Verbi et contra Arianos. 20). Toon goes on to explain the patristic teaching, "When the teachers of the early Church spoke of deification or divinization, there was no intention of claiming consubstantiality with God, for, in the words of the Creed, only Christ is one in substance with the Father. The idea could rather be summarized something like this: the eternal Logos became flesh and dwelt among us in order to live our life, face. our temptations, die for us and be exalted for us; as the second Adam and thus as representative man, what he did as One who possessed our human nature he actually did for all of us – especially those of the human race who by the Holy Spirit are. in union with him. Salvation is wrought by Christ for us and is achieved in us when his Spirit dwells in our hearts. The biblical basis of such teaching was anchored firmly in the Word-flesh Christology of John’s Gospel...St. Paul’s teaching concerning becoming sons of God by adoption and possessing the Spirit as the seal of sonship (Rom. 8) was also important – even more so perhaps than the famous statement of 2 Peter 1:4 that Christians are “partakers of the divine nature” (RSV)."

20. Toon goes on giving a fair presentation of justification in St. Augustine, "Justification describes the whole Christian life. It is both the initial event and the continuing process throughout life, leading to the perfect righteousness of the eternal kingdom of God. Justification is an event in and through baptism, at which time God forgives sin. Thereafter it is the internal growth of righteousness in the life of the believing sinner. In a sermon on Romans 8 Augustine said: “We have been justified; but this justice increases, as we make advance. And how it increases I will say, and so to say confer with you, that each one of you, already established in this justification, having received to wit the remission of sins by the laver of regeneration (= baptism), having received the Holy Ghost, making advancement from day to day, may see where he is, may go on, advance, and grow, till he be consummated, not so as to come to an end, but to perfection...Justification is by faith and love. While Augustine often declared that justification is by faith, he much preferred to say that justification is by faith and love, or by love alone. This is because he took faith to be the act of believing in the sense of accepting the gospel on the authority of the Church which taught it. Such faith needed love, in terms of love of God and of neighbor, so that it was not merely a dead faith or a faith such as devils possess. Augustine wrote: “By the faith of Jesus Christ – the faith, that is, which Christ has conferred upon us – we believe that from God is given to us, and will be given yet more fully, the life of righteousness.” And, “The man in whom is the faith that works through love (Gal. 5:6) begins to delight in the law of God after the inward man; and that delight is a gift not of the letter but of the Spirit.” Also, “And this is the gift of the Holy Spirit, by which charity is shed abroad in our hearts; that charity alone which is the love of God from a pure heart and a good conscience and a faith unfeigned (1 Tim. 1:5).”16 For Augustine, amor (love) is a neutral term. When directed towards God it becomes charitas (charity). True righteousness is found when amor as charitas is directed to God and neighbor.

21. Toon then goes on to give a presentation of St. Aquinas which needless to say runs counter to Needham's position and is in line with the traditional understanding of the Catholic fathers.