A Question of Union with Christ? Calvin and Trent on Justification

More documents

Recommendations

Info

JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 8 SESS: 16 OUTPUT: Thu Sep 11 15:00:17 2003 SUM: 574A7543 /cambridge/wts/wtj/fall2002/9ìarpenter Printer: Position pages per crop marks provided. Margins have been adjusted intentionally. 370 WESTMINSTER THEOLOGICAL JOURNAL the comm<strong>and</strong>s <strong>of</strong> God are, even for one that is justified <strong>and</strong> constituted in grace, impossible to keep: let him be anathema.’’ Finally, the Council <strong>of</strong> <strong>Trent</strong> denies that a <strong>Christ</strong>ian can be certain <strong>of</strong> his st<strong>and</strong>ing in grace, <strong>of</strong> his election, <strong>and</strong> <strong>of</strong> his perseverance except by special revelation; moreover, summarizes Godfrey, ‘‘such assurance would not be spiritually pr<strong>of</strong>itable, but would produce spiritual pride <strong>and</strong> moral indifference.’’ 20 Canons 13–17 discuss this point, as do chapters 9, 12, <strong>and</strong> 13. Compared alongside <strong>Trent</strong>’s actual decrees, Godfrey’s six-point summary quite faithfully reflects the Council’s views. There is one important facet <strong>of</strong> Rome’s position, however, that Godfrey fails to mention explicitly. It is that a <strong>Christ</strong>ian may lose the grace <strong>of</strong> justification, although subsequently regain it through the sacrament <strong>of</strong> penance (cf. chs. 14–15; canons 23, 27–29). This loss may occur in two instances: first, if faith itself is lost; second, if a mortal sin is committed while faith remains. Godfrey alludes to this in the fourth point when he says that justification depends upon the <strong>Christ</strong>ian’s maintaining a certain level <strong>of</strong> sanctification, but it is curious that nothing more is made <strong>of</strong> it, especially since <strong>Calvin</strong> himself thinks this worthy <strong>of</strong> rebuttal in his ‘‘Antidote.’’ There he counters that neither assurance <strong>of</strong> grace nor one’s justification can be lost because faith once-for-all inseparably binds, unites, links, the believer to the indwelling <strong>Christ</strong> <strong>and</strong> to the Spirit <strong>of</strong> holiness. 21 But we are getting slightly ahead <strong>of</strong> ourselves. Although <strong>Trent</strong> may have been convened in reaction to the novel theological exigencies in Europe at the time, the character <strong>of</strong> its dogmatic decrees was not so novel. As <strong>with</strong> any church council, differing opinions were represented, which forced the Council to state its doctrines, according to James Buchanan, ‘‘in vague <strong>and</strong> somewhat ambiguous terms, which everyone might interpret in favour <strong>of</strong> his own views.’’ 22 It is true that the Church had not before made any <strong>of</strong>ficial pronouncement on justification, but reasoned opinions <strong>of</strong> the doctrine were held by ecclesiastical <strong>of</strong>ficials <strong>and</strong> religious orders. So although the decrees <strong>of</strong> <strong>Trent</strong> on justification may have been characterized by reaction to the Reformation (it did seek to respond to the Augsburg Confession) <strong>and</strong> by compromise to differences in the Church (it did desire to disseminate its conclusions across <strong>Christ</strong>endom), they were in the final analysis a crystallization <strong>of</strong> the un<strong>of</strong>ficial historic Roman Catholic consensus. Whether the decrees accurately represented the doctrine <strong>of</strong> justification taught by most parish priests is another question. 23 20 Ibid. 21 E.g., John <strong>Calvin</strong>, ‘‘Acts <strong>of</strong> the Council <strong>of</strong> <strong>Trent</strong> <strong>with</strong> the Antidote,’’ in Tracts <strong>and</strong> Treatises in Defense <strong>of</strong> the Reformed Faith (ed. T. F. Torrance; trans. Henry Beveridge; Gr<strong>and</strong> Rapids: Eerdmans, 1958), 143-44 (CO 7, col. 470-71). 22 James Buchanan, The Doctrine <strong>of</strong> Justification (1867; repr., Carlisle, Pa.: Banner <strong>of</strong> Truth, 1961), 140; cf. 139. A. A. Hodge (‘‘The Ordo Salutis; or, Relation in the Order <strong>of</strong> Nature <strong>of</strong> Holy Character <strong>and</strong> Divine Favor,’’ The Princeton Review 54 [1878]: 304-21) points out a ‘‘palpable inconsistency’’ in Thomas Aquinas regarding the priority <strong>of</strong> full forgiveness <strong>of</strong> sins to infusion <strong>of</strong> grace, which Hodge suggests contaminated ‘‘after him the whole Romish Church’’ (307). 23 Buchanan ( Justification, 140) claims the practical system was worse than the Council’s decrees indicate. Further, notes Alister E. McGrath, ‘‘A point not <strong>of</strong>ten appreciated is that the Tridentine
JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 9 SESS: 16 OUTPUT: Thu Sep 11 15:00:17 2003 SUM: 543AA019 /cambridge/wts/wtj/fall2002/9ìarpenter Printer: Position pages per crop marks provided. Margins have been adjusted intentionally. CALVIN AND TRENT ON JUSTIFICATION 371 To summarize, <strong>Trent</strong> makes the meritorious work <strong>of</strong> <strong>Christ</strong> the necessary presupposition <strong>of</strong> justification, which is defined as ‘‘not remission <strong>of</strong> sin merely, but also the sanctification <strong>and</strong> renewal <strong>of</strong> the inward man, through the voluntary reception <strong>of</strong> grace, <strong>and</strong> <strong>of</strong> the gifts whereby man <strong>of</strong> unjust becomes just, <strong>and</strong> <strong>of</strong> an enemy a friend’’ (ch. 7). Its doctrine <strong>of</strong> justification then involves at least these four points: (1) the prevenient infusion <strong>of</strong> divine grace; (2) the movement <strong>of</strong> the weakened but free will toward God through the awakening <strong>of</strong> faith; (3) the movement <strong>of</strong> the free will against sin as faith is linked to love <strong>and</strong> becomes formed faith; <strong>and</strong> (4) the remission <strong>of</strong> guilt as the completion <strong>of</strong> justification. 24 Although perhaps an oversimplification, Rome teaches that renovation <strong>of</strong> the person precedes remission. The critical question, however, is what this renovation entails. III. <strong>Calvin</strong>’s View <strong>of</strong> Justification Even the very best theologians cannot extricate themselves from the times in which they live. 25 John <strong>Calvin</strong> was not immune from his contagious polemical milieu. Many <strong>of</strong> his statements about justification are set against errors he believes others to have committed. We find his views situated in contexts <strong>of</strong> controversy <strong>and</strong> shaped somewhat apophatically. But this does not mean that <strong>Calvin</strong>’s doctrine <strong>of</strong> justification lacks its own positive freshness. Just as his teaching on the real presence in the Lord’s Supper is not a mere via media between Luther <strong>and</strong> Zwingli but possesses a scripturally faithful uniqueness, <strong>Calvin</strong>’s doctrine <strong>of</strong> justification reveals his distinctive—perhaps even incisive—scriptural insight into this important issue <strong>of</strong> soteriology. Put differently, <strong>Calvin</strong> does not develop his view <strong>of</strong> justification simply over against the errors <strong>of</strong> others; rather, when he combats the errors <strong>of</strong> others he does so based on his definite view <strong>of</strong> justification. And his positive view sees justification as a key element or benefit in the soteric complex that brings a believer into an indissoluble union <strong>and</strong> communion <strong>with</strong> <strong>Christ</strong>. There may be some formal merit in discussing <strong>Calvin</strong>’s view <strong>of</strong> justification in six counterpoints to Godfrey’s summary <strong>of</strong> <strong>Trent</strong>, as Godfrey himself does in his lucid article. However, <strong>Calvin</strong>’s view is not most fully articulated in his ‘‘Antidote to the Council <strong>of</strong> <strong>Trent</strong>—1547,’’ as Rome’s view is by the Council’s <strong>of</strong>ficial decrees. A full twelve years would elapse between his ‘‘Antidote’’ <strong>and</strong> the final version <strong>of</strong> his Institutes. Although in Book 3 <strong>of</strong> the 1559 Institutes <strong>Calvin</strong> echoes expressions from his earlier polemical ‘‘Antidote,’’ the different, more decree on justification did not settle the debate on the matter <strong>with</strong>in the Roman Catholic church’’ (‘‘Justification: Barth, <strong>Trent</strong>, <strong>and</strong> Küng,’’ SJT 34 [1981]: 517-29). 24 Slightly modified from Ritschl’s History <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Christ</strong>ian Doctrine <strong>of</strong> Reconciliation, quoted in Hodge, ‘‘The Ordo Salutis,’’ 307-8. 25 For a striking (because perhaps unexpected) comment on the ‘‘historically complexioned’’ nature <strong>of</strong> creeds generally <strong>and</strong> the Westminster Confession <strong>of</strong> Faith in particular, to the effect that they may not ‘‘reflect the particular <strong>and</strong> distinguishing needs <strong>of</strong> subsequent generations,’’ see John Murray, ‘‘The Theology <strong>of</strong> the Westminster Confession <strong>of</strong> Faith,’’ in Scripture <strong>and</strong> Confession: A Book about Confessions Old <strong>and</strong> New (ed. John H. Skilton; Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian <strong>and</strong> Reformed, 1973), 126.
Page 1 and 2: JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 1 SESS:
Page 7: JOBNAME: No Job Name PAGE: 7 SESS:

A Question of Union with Christ? Calvin and Trent on Justification

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?