Mindzoom Affirmations Subliminal Software

Powerful Affirmations for Life

Get Instant Access

The answer is that only faith in Christ fulfills it. Luther's "Preface to Romans'' is a central source for the presentation of both. Luther wrote, ''[God's] law must be fulfilled in your very heart and cannot be obeyed if you merely perform certain acts.''4 As Paul puts it in Romans 2:13, ''For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.'' The keeping of the law makes us ''righteous'' in God's eyes, but this is impossible for sinful creatures. No one can keep the law, and even those who appear never outwardly to transgress it merely keep it by ''works,'' which are insufficient. In other words, even if you obeyed all the commandments and demonstrated a thorough external obedience, you would still fail to keep the law because the law is not corporeal but ''spiritual.''5

Here is the biblical origin for Luther's doctrine of justification by faith. We are called to obey the law, but this is something more than an external corporeal observance; it is a ''spiritual'' observance, which only occurs through God's Spirit. How do we receive this Spirit? Luther stated, ''But the Holy Spirit is given only in, with, and through, faith in Jesus Christ, as Paul said in his opening paragraph.'' By this Luther refers to Paul's statement, ''Therefore, since we are justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have obtained access to this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in our hope of sharing the glory of God'' (Rom. 5:1-2). Luther concludes with a classical statement of the Protestant understanding of justification:

We reach the conclusion that faith alone justifies us and fulfills the law; and this because faith brings us the spirit gained by the merits of Christ. The spirit, in turn, gives us the happiness and freedom at which the law aims; and this shows that good works really proceed from faith. That is Paul's meaning in chapter 3 [:3i] when, after having condemned the works of the law, he sounds as if he had meant to abrogate the law by faith; but says that on the contrary we confirm the law through faith, i.e. we fulfill it by faith.6

Luther does not deny that this righteousness becomes truly ours. He goes on to write,

Faith, however, is something that God effects in us. It changes us and we are reborn from God, John 1 [:i3]. Faith puts the old Adam to death and makes us quite different men in heart, in mind, and in all our powers ... O when it comes to faith what a living, creative, active powerful thing it is. It cannot do other than good at all times. It never waits to ask whether there is some good work to do. Rather, before the question is raised, it has done the deed and keeps on doing it. A man not active in this way is a man without faith.7

This raises the question whether justification is only an imputed righteousness, something done for us, or if it is also an inherent righteousness, something done in us.

The doctrine of justification by faith is inextricably linked to how we think about Christ's righteousness and its effects on our relationship with God. As Timothy George put it, "Luther's new insight was that the imputation of Christ's alien righteousness was based, not on the gradual curing of sin, but rather on the complete victory on a cross.''8 This means that we cannot adequately explain the doctrine of justification by faith without also discussing the atonement. How does Christ's sacrifice on the cross atone for our sins and provide for our justification?

The atonement is the doctrine that seeks to show how Christ's life, death, and resurrection reconcile sinful creatures to God; it is inextricably linked to the doctrine of justification. This can be seen in a statement on justification put out by the Overseas Mission Society International:

Justification is the gracious judicial act of God fully acquitting the repenting and believing sinner (Rom. 3:24-26; 5:1). God grants full pardon of all guilt, release from the penalty of sins committed, and acceptance as righteous, not on the basis of the merits or efforts of the sinner, but upon the basis of the atonement by Jesus Christ and the faith of the sinner (Rom. 3:28; Gal. 2:16; Titus 3:7).'

Here the atonement is one of penal substitution. Jesus takes the penalty of God's wrath for us sinners upon himself and acquits us of the judgment we deserve. It is "judicial'' and moves us from a state of sin to one of grace.

Although the first seven ecumenical councils of the church laid down the proper teaching for many issues in theology, such as the triune character of God and the relationship between divinity and humanity in the single person of Jesus Christ, they did not set forth a single official teaching (or dogma) on how to explain the atonement. Evangelical theology has tended to go beyond orthodoxy and insist that Holy Scripture does warrant a particular account of the atonement called the substitutionary theory. Such theories tend to fall into two broad categories. One emphasizes objective change in the cosmos that Christ's sacrifice effects. The second emphasizes a subjective change in creatures. Anselm (1033-1109) is usually associated with the former and Abelard (1079-1142) the latter.

Their two respective theories are called "satisfaction" and "moral influence.'' However, this distinction has more to do with contemporary debates about the atonement than what Anselm and Abelard actually taught. Anselm did not deny a subjective effect from the atonement; nor did Abelard deny its objective consequence. Both Abelard and Anselm agreed that a patristic theme was improper: the devil held no right that God had to honor. Both offered a more sophisticated account of the atonement than that.

Most evangelical institutions and churches affirm a version of Anselm's satisfaction (or, later, the substitutionary) theory. For instance, the eighth affirmation and denial of the "Gospel of Jesus Christ'' states,

We affirm that the atonement of Christ by which, in his obedience, he offered a perfect sacrifice, propitiating the Father by paying for our sins and satisfying divine justice on our behalf according to God's eternal plan, is an essential element of the Gospel. We deny that any view of the Atonement that rejects the substitutionary satisfaction of divine justice, accomplished vicariously for believers, is compatible with the teaching of the Gospel.10

The crucial biblical text for this comes from Romans 3:23-25: ''since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood to be received by faith.''

This reflects a "penal substitutionary theory of the atonement,'' which was one of the five fundamentals set forth in the twentieth century to reconcile contending evangelical groups.11 All have been challenged by mainline liberal Protestant theology, but the penal substitutionary theory has especially been called into question as unworthy of a gracious God.

What is "penal substitutionary atonement'' and why is it controversial inside and outside of evangelical circles? Debates in evangelical theology have focused on the Pauline term hilasterion in Romans 3:25. Should it be translated as ''expiation'' or ''propitiation''? The latter term emphasizes ''appeasement of God's wrath'' while the former suggests ''covering of sins.''12 What does it mean to say that God's wrath must be appeased? Does this mean that God must change? Does God the Father demand that the Son die? Is this what propitiation means and expiation seeks to avoid? Must there be a ''blood sacrifice,'' and if so what does that say about the nature of God? As we will see below, any suggestion that God is appeased and changed through bloodshedding is a caricature of Anselm's theology. Its point is not to make blood-sacrifice at the heart of God's being, but to show how God takes this suffering upon himself and thus promises to put an end to it as well as make a place for our suffering in God's own impassible life.

The significance of this doctrine can be found in a sermon preached by Samuel Wells, Dean of Duke Chapel, Durham, North Carolina, after the devastation of Hurricane Katrina.

All God's anger against human depravity ... all God's anger was experienced by Jesus on the cross. But most importantly death was overcome. The horror of Nature, its death and destruction, does not have the final word. Easter has the final word. So let's never say "how can God do nothing?'' for God has already done everything. The one thing he hasn't done is obliterate us. He did that to Jesus instead. Can you believe it?13

The statement on justification and its relationship to a penal substitutionary theology of the atonement in the document "The Gospel of Jesus Christ'' was controversial because it assumes a staunchly Reformed understanding of justification as primarily "forensic.'' This means that Christ's righteousness is "imputed'' to us, but it is not "inherent'' in us. Some evangelical theologians interpreted this statement as a criticism of a document on justification set forth by "Evangelicals and Catholics together,'' which emphasized holiness and sanctification as much as imputed righteousness. The affirmations and denials in "The Gospel of Jesus Christ'' tend to make it difficult for evangelical Wesleyans and Anabaptists to sign on to it, as an examination of the historical issues, and especially the differences among Calvinist, Wesleyan, and Anabaptist evangelicals on the doctrine of justification, makes clear.14

historical issues

When Luther offered his classical statement of the doctrine of justification, he stated that "faith brings us the spirit gained by the merits of Christ.'' The term "merits of Christ'' is significant. He was reacting against the doctrine of merit in the Roman Catholic Church. Luther opposed John Tetzel, who preached indulgences and evidently stated that "when a coin in the coffer rings, a soul from purgatory springs.'' Indulgences were acts (such as offering money) that forgive sins. They were based on the Catholic doctrine of merit which assumed that a good work could release a soul from purgatory into heaven. The Catholic doctrine of merit stipulated that a Christian had to accumulate sufficient merit in order to be found righteous in God's eyes. One version of this doctrine of merit, which was taught by Gabriel Biel (1420-95) and grounded in ''nominalism,'' distinguishes two kinds of merit: meritum de condigno and meritum do congruo. The first form of merit, de condigno, or a ''merit meeting the standard of God's justice,'' is based on God's ''ordained power'' or God's established order. Here God agrees to reward the moral good for those who perform it in a state of grace.15 The second form of merit, de congruo, is ''a merit meeting the standard of God's generosity.'' God accepts this action and grants merit even though it would be performed in a state of sin.16 Here God's acceptance is based solely on God's ''absolute power'' to be generous despite how God has so ordered creation.

Luther both was influenced by this theology of merit and reacted against it. When he emphasizes that ''faith brings us the spirit gained by the merits of Christ,'' he is rejecting a doctrine of merit. Justification by faith alone through grace challenges this doctrine. But Luther, and more especially Lutheranism, could so emphasize this justification that it lost the importance of sanctification. In other words, if justification is by faith alone, is it only imputed to us? Are Christians also called to an ''inherent'' righteousness?

The Council of Trent (1545-63) was the Catholic Response to the Protestant teaching on justification. It both reformed practices in the Catholic Church that Luther exposed, and condemned what the council fathers thought were Protestant heresies in the teaching of justification. This can be seen in the thirty-three canons that were issued on the Council's sixth session, 13 January 1547.17 Canon 1 rejects Protestant interpretations of Catholic teaching. ''If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law, without divine grace through Jesus Christ let him be anathema.'' Yet Catholics continued to teach that God's righteousness must not only be imputed, but also inherent (Canon ii), that the human will must cooperate in ''disposing and preparing itself to obtain the grace of justification'' (Canon 4), and that the Law and Commandments must actually be observed (Canons 19 and 20).18 Based on these canons, the council fathers also continued to teach a doctrine of merit.

If anyone says that the good works of the one justified are in such manner the gifts of God that they are not also the good merits of him justified; or that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living members he is, does not truly merit an increase of grace, eternal life, and in case he dies in grace, the attainment of eternal life itself, and also an increase of glory, let him be anathema. (Canon 32)19

One of the important questions is how different the Protestant and Catholic positions actually were. Did Catholics caricature Luther and Protestant teaching? Did Luther and Protestants caricature Catholic doctrine? Were they closer than they thought? The "Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification by the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church,'' affirmed on 31 October 1999, suggests they were. It proclaimed "that on the basis of their dialogue the subscribing Lutheran churches and the Roman Catholic Church are now able to articulate a common understanding of our justification by God's grace through faith in Christ.'' The heart of that common understanding is found in the statement, "Together we confess: By grace alone, in faith in Christ's saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works.'' This joint declaration also addresses some of the differences between Catholics and Protestants, clarifying each position. For instance, a Catholic understanding of our cooperation in justification was clarified. "When Catholics say that persons 'cooperate' in preparing for and accepting justification by consenting to God's justifying action, they see such personal consent as itself an effect of grace, not as an action arising from innate human abilities.'' Likewise, Lutherans affirmed a doctrine of sanctification along with justification. ''We confess together that good works - a Christian life lived in faith, hope and love - follow justification and are its fruits.'' The relationship between a Catholic doctrine of merit and the connection between justification and sanctification was also emphasized.

When Catholics affirm the 'meritorious' character of good works, they wish to say that, according to the biblical witness, a reward in heaven is promised to these works. Their intention is to emphasize the responsibility of persons for their actions, not to contest the character of those works as gifts, or far less to deny that justification always remains the unmerited gift of grace.20

This joint declaration was historically significant, and should have an influence on the doctrine of justification in the evangelical tradition. It has been well received by evangelicals who embrace a strong doctrine of holiness and have a place for the sacraments in the Christian life, but some more staunchly Reformed evangelicals see in this joint declaration a concern that the Reformation's insistence on imputed righteousness is being diminished.

Menno Simons (1496-1561), from whose name the Mennonite Church arose, was a Roman Catholic priest who left the Catholics and joined the

Anabaptists. He wrote against any doctrine of merit. ''Notice my dear reader, that we do not believe nor teach that we are to be saved by our merits and words as the envious assert without truth. We are to be saved solely by grace through Christ Jesus .But he also opposed any Protestant account of justification that remained satisfied with an appeal to ''faith'' without holy living; for Menno and the Anabaptists, holiness of life was an essential part of grace.

All those who disregard this preached grace and do not accept Christ Jesus by faith; who reject His holy Word, will, commandments and ordinances; who hate and persecute; who willfully live according to their lusts, these are all through. It will avail them nothing before the Lord to boast of their faith, new creature, Christ's grace, death and blood; for they do not believe; they remain in their first birth, namely, in their earthly corrupted nature, impenitent, carnally minded, yes, utterly without the Spirit, Word and Christ.21

Menno followed the Protestants on justification by faith, but found that they often used it as an excuse for ''remaining'' content with the old, sinful nature. Here Anabaptists found an ally in the Anglican evangelical, John Wesley, who began the Methodist movement.

One of John Wesley's most important sermons, ''the Lord our Righteousness,'' takes on a theme similar to that noted by Menno. Wesley expresses his concern that many a Christian is using the important Pauline phrase ''the Lord our Righteousness'' as a ''cover for his unrighteousness.''22 Thus while Wesley recognized the Protestant emphasis on justification as an imputed righteousness, he also equally emphasized sanctification as an inherent righteousness. This provoked some Calvinists to accuse him of denying the Protestant faith for that of Catholicism. The Calvinist Hervey asked, ''But do not you believe inherent righteousness?'' Wesley responded, ''Yes, in its proper place; not as the ground of our acceptance with God, but as the fruit of it; not in the place of imputed righteousness, but as consequent upon it. That is I believe God implants righteousness in every one to whom he has imputed it.''23 Calvinist and Wesleyan evangelicals continue to be divided on this issue.

Some Wesleyan evangelicals find in contemporary manifestations of Reformed evangelicals, who reject the significance of the sacraments, emphasize justification by faith in opposition to sanctification, and consistently reject aspects of Christian tradition, more of an influence of a modern (liberal) Protestant doctrine of justification that tends to be iconoclastic. This kind of doctrine of justification can be found in the neo-Protestant teaching of Paul Tillich. He took the doctrine of justification to be the heart of his theology: ''Justification brings the element of 'in spite of' into the process of theology. It is the immediate consequence of the doctrine of atonement and it is the heart and center of salvation.''24 The ''in spite of'' character emphasized that we are always only sinners saved by grace. To assume that we have any inherent righteousness or ability to cooperate in our salvation would be to deny the heart of the Reformation. The only contribution our will makes is that ''we must accept that we are accepted'' even though our life is not transformed. Much of evangelical theology seems to assume something like Tillich's neo-Protestantism. It bears great similarities to his iconoclastic approach to Christian tradition, where everything that came before needs to be questioned, deconstructed, and removed to make room for a newer, more modern version of the Christian life. Such neo-Protestantism differs markedly from Luther and Calvin, both of whom had a stronger insistence on sanctification. This stronger insistence led both Calvin and Luther to insist on the role of the church, its liturgical life, and the sacraments as necessary means for an ongoing life of holiness. This aspect of Reformed teaching is largely missing in contemporary evangelicalism, although through the work of some contemporary critics it is being recovered.

Calvin developed the doctrine of justification by faith within the context of his Christology, based upon Christ's threefold office as ''prophet, priest and King.''25 All three Christological offices mediate Christ's sacrifice to us, and all three offices are intimately related to the life of the church. This means that the whole of Christ's life is redemptive and not just one part of it. As Calvin puts it, ''Therefore, we divide the substance of our salvation between Christ's death and resurrection as follows: through his death, sin was wiped out and death extinguished; through his resurrection, righteousness was restored and life raised up, so that - thanks to his resurrection - his death manifested its power and efficacy in us.''26 Calvin too recognized that although ''man is justified by faith alone, and simple pardon; nevertheless, actual holiness of life, so to speak, is not separated from free imputation of righteousness.''27 However, he strongly resisted assumptions about the human will's participation in holiness through the liturgical practice of penance. He opposed both the Anabaptists and Jesuits on this point.28 For Calvin, repentance was a turning from sin out of fear of God, rather than turning to God out of fear of sin. The latter does not seem to be possible given our depravity. Thus Calvin, even more so than Augustine, emphasized that sin always remains in the justified.29 Because of this, any discussion of inherent righteousness is often viewed by contemporary Reformed evangelicals as incompatible with the imputed righteousness of Christ in the doctrine of justification. This is another essential difference both among and within Reformed, Wesleyan, Anglican, and Anabaptist evangelicals.

contemporary theology, criticisms, and the current debates

Three contemporary issues challenge the doctrine of justification as often presented by evangelicals. First, does it neglect the importance of deification as taught by the Eastern and Western fathers? Second, does its connection to penal substitutionary theories of the atonement either legitimate violence or posit violence in God's being? Third, is it an adequate reading of Paul and of biblical teaching in general?

Justification and deification

Eastern Orthodox theologians question whether the Christian West's doctrine of justification betrays the church fathers' insistence on deification. Some argue that the West's doctrine is based on a model of ''criminal law'' whereas the East approaches redemption from the perspective of something more like ''civil law.''30 The end result is a different conception of salvation, the Western based on various legal ''states'' that remove guilt whereas the East emphasizes a more participatory ''recapitulation'' of our fallen humanity into Christ and the vanquishing of death. Any sharp distinction, however, between the Western and Eastern churches on these matters has been criticized by theologians standing in both traditions.3i

Protestant theologians have also recognized that a sharp distinction between justification and deification does not necessarily make sense of our tradition. Whatever one's overall assessment of it, the ''Finnish'' interpretation of Luther32 shows how Luther, like the Eastern fathers, drew on 2 Peter 1:4, which is essential to both Eastern and Western understandings of the atonement and states that we are to be ''partakers of the divine nature.''33 Both Wesley and Thomas Aquinas also placed tremendous emphasis on 2 Peter i:4.34

The Eastern Orthodox theologian David Hart challenges any easy distinction between deification, taking place primarily through the Incarnation, and Western justification, occurring through the cross. He does this by recognizing that Anselm offers us much more than juridical, punitive exchange at the heart of the atonement. Hart finds similarities among Anselm, Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, and John of Damascus35 just as A. N. Williams finds similarities between the ''Western'' Aquinas and the ''Eastern'' Gregory Palamas.

Valorizing violence?

While Hart gives a compelling account of Anselm's theology and shows its continuity with the patristic writers, other contemporary theologians find Anselm's proto-substitutionary theory of the atonement dangerous and reject it for valorizing violence. Joanne Carlson Brown and Rebecca Parker find Anselm's ''satisfaction'' theory of the atonement a sanction for suffering and violence, for God directly wills the Son's death as the means to our salvation, and thus God wills evil that good may come.36 But whether affirmed or rejected, this is a misreading of Anselm and not the basis for his theory of the atonement. No patristic or early medieval theologians would countenance the possibility that God positively wills evil. Anselm did not teach that God directly desired the Son's death. In fact, he addresses the question, ''For what justice is there in giving up the most just man of all to death on behalf of the sinner?'' And he responds, ''For God did not force him to die or allow him to be slain against his will; on the contrary, he himself readily endured death in order to save men.'' Why did he die? Not because God directly willed his death, but because of his ''obedience.'' Or as Anselm put it, ''Therefore God did not compel Christ to die, when there was no sin in him, but Christ himself freely underwent death, not by yielding up his life as an act of obedience, but on account of his obedience in maintaining justice, because he so steadfastly persevered in it that he brought death on himself.''37

In other words, Anselm does not locate Christ's obedience in his willingness to die for the sake of sacrifice itself. Anselm understands Christ's death as a consequence of his obedience to God's righteousness in a world where that righteousness is unwelcome. What redeems is Christ's obedience even in the face of death, his unwillingness to turn from God's righteousness. The substitution Christ makes for us is both as the one who fulfills our obedience (the merits of Christ) and as the one who suffers God's judgment against sin, suffering, and death on our behalf. Far from valorizing suffering and death, Anselm's theology proclaims their end.

Is justification by faith a Pauline theme?

A third issue for the Protestant doctrine of justification questions how adequate it is to biblical teaching, Paul's in particular. In his essay ''Paul and the Introspective Consciousness of the West,'' Krister Stendahl first challenged the centrality of a Protestant doctrine drawn from Paul that emphasized justification as the removal of an individual's guilt. Since then some Pauline scholars have questioned whether a Protestant interpretation of Paul should view dikaiosis (being found righteous) as referring primarily to individual guilt for sin. Such scholars find this something of a misreading, or at least an incomplete reading. Paul uses this term to explain how Gentiles are brought into union with Jews in Christ's body, which is the new community, the church. So Richard Hays writes, ''[T]he church is to become the righteousness of God: where the church embodies in its life together the world-reconciling love of Jesus Christ, the new creation is manifest. The church incarnates the righteousness of God.''38 For Hays, then, justification by faith is not primarily a statement in Paul about the removal of an individual's guilt, but about the ''being made righteous'' Christ effects in his body by bringing Gentiles and Jews together into a new community.39

These three issues will need to be addressed as evangelicals continue to offer a sound theological defense of the doctrine of justification by faith, a doctrine upon which the Holy Spirit may be leading all our ecclesial traditions into a holy and unified convergence.

Further reading

Aulen, Gustaf. Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the

Idea of Atonement. Trans. A. G. Hebert. New York: Macmillan, 1969. Boersma, Hans. Violence, Hospitality, and the Cross: Reappropriating the

Atonement Tradition. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2004. Carson, Donald A., Peter T. O'Brien, and Mark A. Seifrid (eds.). Justification and

Variegated Nomism. 2 vols. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2004. Green, Joel B., and Mark D. Baker. Recovering the Scandal of the Cross: Atonement in New

Testament and Contemporary Contexts. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000. Hill, Charles E., and Frank A. James III (eds.). The Glory of the Atonement: Biblical,

Historical and Practical Perspectives. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004. Husbands, Mark, and Daniel J. Treier (eds.). Justification: What's at Stake in the

Current Debates. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004. Karkkainen, Veli-Matti. One With God: Salvation as Deification and Justification.

Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 2004. Lane, Anothony N. S. Justification by Faith in Catholic-Protestant Dialogue: An

Evangelical Assessment. New York: T. & T. Clark, 2002. McGrath, Alister E. Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification.

3rd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Stott, John R. W. The Cross of Christ. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1986. Westerholm, Stephen. Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The ''Lutheran'' Paul and His Critics. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003.


1. Roger E. Olson, A-Z of Evangelical Theology (London: SCM, 2005), p. 223.

2. John Dillenberger (ed.), Martin Luther: Selections from His Writings (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1961), p. 20.

3. Timothy George, "Martin Luther,'' in Jeffrey P. Greenman and Timothy Larsen (eds.), Reading Romans through the Centuries: From the Early Church to Karl Barth (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos, 2005), p. 116.

9. Thomas C. Oden and J. I. Packer, One Faith: The Evangelical Consensus (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004), p. 82.

11. Brian D. McLaren, Generous Orthodoxy (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004), p. i97. (The others were the virgin birth, the verbal plenary inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and his imminent return.)

13. Samuel Wells, "Hurricane Katrina: A Sermon Preached in Duke University Chapel on Sept. 4, 2005 by the Rev'd Canon Dr. Sam Wells,'' www.chapel.

15. Heiko Oberman, The Harvest of Medieval Theology (Durham, NC: Labyrinth, i983), pp. 43, 47i.

17. John H. Leith (ed.), Creeds of the Churches, 3rd edition (Atlanta, GA: John Knox, 1982), pp. 408-24.

20. The Lutheran World Federation and the Roman Catholic Church, Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), pp. i0, i5, i7, 24, 25.

21. Menno Simons, The Complete Writings of Menno Simons, ed. J. C. Wenger (Scottdale, PA: Herald, i956), pp. 506-7.

22. John Wesley, The Works of John Wesley I, ed. Albert Outler (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, i984), p. 455.

24. Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology, 3 vols. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951-63), vol. ii, p. 178.

25. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, i950), p. 494.

30. David Hart, The Doors of the Sea: Where Was God in the Tsunami? (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), p. 33.

31. See A. N. Williams, The Ground of Union: Deification in Aquinas and Palamas (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999); David Hart, The Beauty of the Infinite: The Aesthetics of Christian Truth (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003).

32. Often associated especially with Tuomo Mannerma, in which Luther's doctrine is interpreted more ontologically and mystically than ethically or juridically.

33. Douglas Harink, "Doing Justice to Justification: Setting it Right,'' The Christian Century (14 June 2005), p. 21; Veli-Matti Kärkkainen, One With God: Salvation as Deification and Justification (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 2004).

34. See D. Stephen Long, John Wesley's Moral Theology: The Quest for God and Goodness (Nashville, TN: Kingswood, 2005), pp. 196-97.

35. Hart, Beauty of the Infinite, p. 366.

36. See Joanne Carlson Brown and Rebecca Parker, "For God So Loved the World,'' in J. Brown and C. Bohn (eds.), Christianity, Patriarchy, Abuse (Cleveland, OH: Pilgrim, 1989), pp. 1-30.

37. Anselm, Why God Became Man, in A Scholastic Miscellany, Library of Christian Classics (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1956), pp. 111-15.

38. Krister Stendahl, "The Apostle Paul and the Introspective Conscience of the West,'' Harvard Theological Review 56 (1963): 199-215; Richard B. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament (San Francisco: Harper, 1996), p. 24.

39. For alternative perspectives in biblical scholarship, see several essays in Mark Husbands and Daniel J. Treier (eds.), Justification: What's at Stake in the Current Debates (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004).

Was this article helpful?

0 0
Affirmations For Success

Affirmations For Success

Finally, The Ultimate Guide To Changing Your Life Forever. Get Your Hands On The Ultimate Guide For Live Improvement Through Affirmations For Success And Let It's Magic Change Your Life Forever. Discover How OrdinaryPeople Can Live Extraordinary Lives Through The Power Of Affirmations.

Get My Free Ebook

Post a comment