The Development of the doctrine in the medieval period

For the current study, it is used to demarcate the period initiated by through Alaric’s conquest of Rome in 410, and the shift of the intellectual world to northern Europe. The shift in the intellectual center also witnesses a change in theological method, i.e. the assimilation of pagan philosophy and patristic theology. This period is characterized by the accumulation of biblical and patristic material considered relevant for particular theological issues and the attempt to resolve apparent contradictions encountered in the process.
The discussion of justification developed as the most appropriate metaphor for the articulation of soteriological convictions. There are two significant developments associated with this:
1. The transference of the discussion of salvation from mythological to moral or legal plane; and
2. The incorporation of Pauline concepts into the later medieval theological discussions.
The mythological discussion of salvation was criticized because it was incongruent with the Righteousness of God, hence, the shift to moral and legal plane. God, being righteous, must act in accordance to his righteousness in the redemption of man (legal/moral propriety) and the method must also be righteous.
The use of Pauline commentaries in the early medieval period influenced the later medieval period. These brought about two pertinent theological questions: salvation of OT patriarch and the relation between faith and work, which theologians have to discuss in relation to the concept of justification. The use of Pauline commentaries contributed to the development of the concept of justification as the most important soteriological concept because it was used by Paul in connection with those soteriological issues. The systemization of theology is the second factor that enhanced the importance of justification as the metaphor for soteriological discussions.

McGrath, Iustitia Dei, 37-40

Augustine of Hippo

Augustine of Hippo has great impact upon the medieval theology of justification to such extant that all medieval theology can be considered as “Augustinian”. His discussion of the doctrine of justification is the first discussion of significance to emerge and set the framework of which future discussion is to take place.
Augustine’s discussion of justification went through significant development and the watershed is his elevation to the see of Hippo Regis in 395. His ‘first of two books to Simplicianus’ recorded his change of mind regarding his discussion of justification. We need to note also that his discussion developed before the Pelagian controversy, i.e. in a non-polemic context.
Initially, Augustine believed that man can take the initiative in his spiritual ascent to God by believing him and calling upon god to save him, however, was forced to rethink the matter after he was challenged by Simplicianus. This resulted in a change in Augustine’s thoughts about justification and among the important changes are these:
1. Man’s election is based on eternal predestination;
2. Man’s response of faith is God’s offer of grace; and
3. While man possessed free will, it is compromised by sin.
The last of these liberum arbitrium is one of the most difficult aspects of Augustine’s thought. His teaching regarding man’s free will may be regarded as anti-thesis to Pelaganism’s emphasis on the role of human free will in his justification. In his de peccatorum meritis et remissione (411) he refuted the error without denying human free will. He affirmed both grace and free will; the problem is how to relate them. Augustine maintained that man possesses free will but not freedom. Man still has free will after the fall but it is taken captive and does not avail for righteousness but to sin. This does not mean that human free will is lost but it loses its ability to desire for righteousness. The liberum arbitrium captivatum becomes liberated through healing grace. This teaching of liberum arbitrium captivatum resolves the dialectic between free will and grace.
Augustine drew a distinction between operative and cooperative grace. God operates to initiate man’s justification by giving him a will capable of desiring good, and man cooperates with this good will to bring that justification to perfection. Hence, man’s justification is an act of God’s mercy because he does not desire it nor does he deserve it.
Man’s free will is not denied in Augustine’s discussion on justification, but the free will crippled/made dysfunction by sin. God initiates the act of justification by giving man the will to desire good, and man cooperates with that good will to perfect his justification. God operates upon man in the act of justification and cooperates with him in the process of justification. After man is justified, he begins to acquire merit as a divine gift – not man’s work. Merit is God’s gift and eternal life is the result of merit. God is not under obligation to man on account of his merit; it is his liberality that that undergirds the whole idea of merit.
The ‘righteousness of God’ is center to Augustine’s thought. This righteousness is not God’s intrinsic character but that by which he justifies the sinner, i.e. God bestows it to man to make him righteous. This raise the question of theodicy: how can God, being just, justify a sinner? Augustine shows no interest in this question as he was only interested in the mission of Christ (to reveal divine love) rather than his work.
In Augustine’s understanding of justification man needs both the prevenient (operative) and perseverance grace (cooperative) to perfection his justification. This means that God could give someone prevenient grace but not perseverance grace and so the question of predestination. Grace is understood as the operative work of the Holy Spirit and the love of God is given to individual in justification. Our hearts are inflamed to love God and others.
Augustine’s understand of faith as an adherence to the Word of God introduces a strong intellectualism element into his concept of faith, which means it is possible for man to have faith without love. This, however, will not bring us to God if it is not accompanied with love. So faith by itself is inadequate to justify man, it is love rather than faith which is the power that brings about the justification of man. It is inaccurate to say that Augustine’s doctrine of justification is justification by faith; rather it is love that brought about his justification.
For Augustine, man’s righteousness is inherent rather than imputed which means that the righteousness received from God is part of his being and intrinsic to his person. By charity, God comes to inhabit the soul of the justified sinner and there’s a interior renewal of the sinner by the Holy Spirit, i.e. a participation in the divine substance itself (deification). The sinner is given the power to participate in the divine being. The righteousness man received is ontological and not relational (status), and so becomes righteous and a son of God, not just being treated as if he is righteous and a son of God.
Iustificare is understood to mean ‘to make right’ for Augustine and this is significant for his ethical and political thought. The iustitia of an act is defined by the act itself and its motivation. The correct motivation for a righteous act can come only through the work of the Holy Spirit within a believer, so an act may be good but if performed outside the context of faith, it is sterile or even sinful. An act may be moral but not meritorious.
His political thought is also closely related to his doctrine of justification. Justice in community is related to God as the one who orders the universe according to his will. Justice in community, then, is about the right order of the physical world and the right ordering of human affairs and his relationship with the rest of creation. It has nothing to do with forensic or legal categories for Augustine but the ‘right-wising’ of the God-man relationship in all its aspects.
Justification in Augustine’s thought is about ‘making just’ and primarily not about legal or moral rightness. This is where his concept and Ciceronian’s concept of justification differs. God’s righteousness is not about justifying the righteous/godly but the ungodly, and so iustitia Dei is about God’s fidelity to his promises of grace, irrespective of the merits of those to whom the promises was made.
In summary, Augustine’s doctrine of justification can be summarized in three points:
1. Justification encompass the whole process from the moment of justification to its final perfection;
2. Justification is about being ‘made just’ or ‘made to live as God intends man to live’; and
3. It has to do with the restoration of order in the universe or cosmic redemption.

McGrath, Iustitia Dei, 23-36.

Iustitia Dei (Part IV)

Introduction:

The medieval doctrine of justification is greatly influenced by Augustine, terefore, it is important to know Augustine's doctrine of justification. During this time there's also a shift in the theological focus from who is Christ to what he did- person to work.

The pre-Augustinain tradition:

The patristic era is characterised by the effort to reduce the tension between the need for a corpus as regula fidei and the need to expand the corpus in the face of opposition, and the borrowing of hellenistic culture and pagan philosophy for the proclamationof the gospel in a pagan culture. Witht the utilization of hellenistic culture and pagan philosophy, we discover that sometimes there's a subordination of the biblcal to a philosophical view of God. The zeal to preach a Hebraic gospel in a hellenistic milieu has the possibility of compromising the teachings of Christ by the Hellenism of its early followers. This is evidently so in the two major distortions which begin in the east and was transferred to the ermeging wast. These are:1. the introduction of Stoic concept of libeum arbitrium in the articulation of human response to the divine intiative in justification;2. the implicit link between sedaqa, dikaiosune and iustitia and the concept of merit inevitably correlates human effort and justification within the western church.We see a reaction against the above two since the time of Augsutine and the Palagian controversy many be seen as having highlighted teh above two points, although not exactly as it is worded above. Therefore, we have to follow late medieval theological scholarship with the differnetiation before and afte the Pelagain controversy.The early Christian were interested in chirstiology and trinitarian theology and little interest in the idea of justification. It is also evidently that teh ealy christians do not see soteriology in terms of justification. Justification was simply not a theological issue in pre-Augustinian tradition. There is no clear argument on the concept of predestination, fee will and grace as well during this period of time. It was so until controversy forced a full discussion in the church. By end of 4th century the Greek Fatehrs had formulated on the teaching of free will based upon philosophical rather than biblcal foudnations. Reacting against fatalism they avocated the total freedom of man to make his choice of good and evil. It is also with the Latin Fathers that teh idea of original sin first begin to be specualted and its implicit consequences for man's moral faculties.Pauline writing has minimal influence during thsi period can be accreditted to two factgors:

1. uncertainity to the extent of the NT canon; and

2.mainly the church faced external opposition from pagan and semi-pagan fatalism and not from Jewish Christian activist teaching works of the law which is prominent in Paul's writings.

The emphasis in the early fathers on freedom of fallen man and minimizing the concept of original sin is because Gnosticisma nd their anti-Gnostic polemic. This optimism of the capacities of fallen man fall into much suspicion as whether it is truly Christian.The pre-Augustinian period can be cahracterized by the upholding of freedom of fallen man in the face of fatalism. There were many discussions among the early fatehrs regarding the freedom of fallen man to choose good and evil, and God can't force the free will but merely influence it.The western church is slower in their thological development compared to the east, and as such the theological vocab of teh east becomes current in the west. This necessitated the translation of Greek into Latin and teh inevitable shift in sematic field. Tertullian was considered the most influential figure in the western theological traditions and it was him who introduced the term liberum arbitrium to th west. This is evidence of the weak influence of Pauline writings in the early church with the unobstructed introduction of non-biblical, non-Pauline term into the discussion of justification in the early chruch.The earliest commentry of Pauline epsitles is that of Ambrosiaster and his exposition of justification by faith is grounded in the contrast between chistianity and Judaism. It has not yet had the universal notion of justification by faith as a freedom from the works of teh law. It is discussed within the Jewish background of chistianity. Like Tertullian, he is also engrossed with the possibility of man's ability to acquire merit befroe God. For Tertullian, the man who performs good make God his debtor. The Ciceroina concept of justification (giving each man his due) underlines this teaching. This concept of divine obligation is introduced to the west rather naviely and was due to Augustine's theological genius.For teh first three hundred an dfifty years of church history, her teachings regarding justification was inchoate and ill-defined. The navivete and inexactitude reflects a lack of controversy which would force more precise definition of teh terms used. The 'works-righteousness' appraoch of justification is free from latter association during the first centuries and cesed to be innocent during the Pelagian controversy and threatened the gospel as the mesage of God's free grace.(McGrath, Iustitia Dei, 17-23 )

Iustitia Dei (Part III)

The formation of Christian thought is influenced greatly by Greek philosophy and the LXX. The term dikaiosune had by the 3rd Century acquired a generally Aristotelian sense, something quite close to iustitia distributiva. Aristotle's concept of dikaiosune is set within the context of the polis and has to do with the well being of teh city, hence the righteousness of God is irrelevant since they do not dwell in the city. Evidently, this is not what it was meant in the Heb. sedaqa. Although the LXX tried to be consistent with translating sedaqa with dikaiosune, it was impossible to do so in every occurance of the word. Therefore a second word was used to convey the strong soteriological sense of sedaqa, eleemosune. This pose a danger to the reader of LXX by opposing God's righteousness to His mercy, where in Heb. the same word is used. The western church depended on the Vulgate for the first 15th Century of the Christian milieu for their theological deliberation. Without access to the Heb. OT, they depended on the Lat bible for discussion on iustitia Dei and iustificare. Therefore, it is important to consider the difficulty in translating the Heb. term to Lat. Iustitia had already carried well established connotation by the 2nd century. The Ciceronian definition of iustitia as reddens unicuique quod suum est had become normative. This is quite similar to iustitia dustributiva, and the 'due' is being established through iuris consensus, and embodied in ius. This tension between the Lat. and Heb. is evident.The book that has great influence upon the Christian doctrine of jsutification is the Psalter. The Vulgate translation contains Jerome's second revision of Old Lat Psalter based upon Origen's recension of the LXX version. A second translaltion of Jerome was Psalterium iuxta hebraicam veritatem which was not very popular. The dofference between the two can be seen in Psalm 24.5 where Psalterium Gallicum has misericordiam and Psalterium iuxta hebraicam veritatem used iustitiam. Although there is considerable confusion this is reduced by teh following two factors:1. The Vulgate itself is not consistent in its translation of LXX.2. The two passages that have the greatest influence are Ps 31:1 and 71:2 where the psalmist appeal to God's righteouness to deliver him. A careful study of the passages in their context woudl be able to detect the strong sotriological sense of the owrd iustitia.(McGrath, Iustitia Dei, 9-12 )

The difficulty for the LXX translatation of hasdiq to dikaoun is two fold:

1. dikaioun, in classical usage, carries the meaning 'to punish' or 'to do justice to'. It is extremely unusal, though there are some occurances, for dikaioun to have the positive meaning of 'to right an injustice suffered' which is closer to the idea of hasdiq (to vindicate, to acquit, to declare to be in the right).Hence the LXX use of dikaioun is representative of a significant shift in its meaning to correspond ot the Heb term.

2. The positive meaning of dikaioun in LXX causes some passages in the Bible to be senseless if read with the understanding of dikaiounin the neagtive sense (eg. Is 5:22-3). Those without Heb background would find these passages perplexing. It seems, therefore, that the LXX use of dikaioun has assumed the meaing of the Heb hasdiq and quite distinct from its classical connotation. This should also mean that the postive meaning of dikaioun is familiar to Greek speaking Judaism else the LXX would have been incomprehsible at some points.This inherent difficulty reflects the difference in semantic field of the two words. A different difficult is encountered when translating hasdiq or dikaioun into Lat. Iustificare is a post-classical word and requires explanation. Augustine's expalnation of of iustificare as iustum facere is followed by latin speaking theologians, accepting -ficare as the unstressed form of facere. This point alone did not warrant the translation of dikaioun to iustificare, but has to do also with reference to the concept of 'merit'.The western church's idea of 'merit' is different from that of the Greek.

Greek --> merit is understood as a quality (adjectival), estimation, something that is external (i.e. the estimation in which he is held by others, and which cannot be treated like a quality)

Latin --> something that is deserved, worthy of something, internal to man's make-up (i.e what it is about him that has caused the estimation in which the individual is held by others)

The Greek verb has the primary sense of being considered or estimated as righteous, whereass the Latin verb denotes being righteous, the reason why one is considered rigteous by others.As we begin to study the development of the dovtrine of justification we must understand that the early theologians depended on the Latin versions of the bible, and approached the subject with a set or presuppositions that are dependent upon Latin language and culture than to Christianity itself. The translation from Heb. to Gk. to Lat. shifts teh focus thoelogically from iustitia coram Deo to iustitia coram hominibus, from an emphais and reference to God to taht of man. Hence, the discussion of the doctrine of justification in the western chruch surrounds the 'righteousness of man': its nature, process and means.The shift in the theological focus is due to the non-contioguous semantic traisiton of the Heb. to Gk. to Lat. which impacted greatly the shape of the discussion of justification in the western church.(McGrath, Iustitia Dei, 12-16)

Iustitia Dei (Part II)

The doctrine of justification is linked closely to the concept of righteousness, both semantically and theollogically. It is the concept that God is righteous and acts according to his righteousness, therefore, how then can a righteous God justiy a sinner. The conviction is that God is righteous, man is a sinner and God justifies man. God in his righteousness justifies sinner. The question is how is it possible for a righteous God to acquit/justify a sinner?Modern theological vocabuilaries contain a host fo Hebrew, Greek and Latin words. The words cannot be translated in which it still holds its richness within its own linguistic culture and context. Hence, the transference of the concept of justification in its Hebraic context to that of western Europe pose a great difficulty.The primary source of Christian theology is teh Bible. Therefore, a lot of Christian theology contains many important concepts orginating from the Hebraic context, and the transference of these concepts from Hebrew soil to Greek or Latin soil pose great problem. The western Europe's understandning of justice and righteous is often employed to articulate the doctrine of justification which is unsuited for the discussion of God's righteousness. Here we will look at the Heb., Gk. and Lat understanding of 'righteousness' as a preliminary to our discussion. First is the grapheme, sdq, examined using other ancient oriental language carries the idea of 'donforming to a norm' which is confirmed by the dominant sense of sedeq and sedaqah as 'right behaviour' or 'right disposition'. While Barr criticised the use of etymology to determine the meaning of words, it is acceptable in an attempt to establish their early meanings (McGrath). The oldest menaing of sedaqa is in Judges 5:1-31 which means 'victory'. God demonstrated his righteousness by defending Israel against her enemy. This is undergirded by the framework of covenant whereby God fulfils his covenant obligations to Israel (Israel was to fulfil her obligations to God) and thus a state of righteousness is establshed - 'as they should be'. The 'righteousness' of teh covenant was not threatened within Israel herself until the time of the prophets. The threat becomes increasingly apparent with the appearance of teh concept of 'conditional election'. The continuity of teh covenantal relationship btween God and Israel is based on sedaqa (righteousness). The Heb. sedaqa's conontation of 'right order of affairs' cannot be subsumed under iustitia distributiva (distributive justice) - an impartial judge who administer justice according to which a person has broken the law.Cremer gives us the fundamental insight that the basic sense of sedaqa refers to actual relationship between two person, and implies behaviour corresponding to, or is consistent with, whatever claims may arise from or concerning either party to the relationship. In the Heb. context it is teh relationship between God and Israel. Hence in Heb. sedaqa is characterised as iustitia salutifera.This soteriological tone is brought out in several passages, particularly Deutro-Isaiah. This shade of menaing cannot be brought out by the Lat. iustitia distributiva. This shows that the translation of the Heb. to a second language is very difficult. This is because the semantic field of a word includes not only it synonyms, but also its antonyms, homonyms and homophones. Hence the translation of a word into a second language will inevitably distort the semantic field, so that certain naunces and association present in the original word is lost and new nuances and association not already present make their appearance. The words used already have their own associations and nuances in their original language.This difficulty is present with the translation of sedaqa --> iustitia and hasdiq -->iustificare.(McGrath, Iustitia Dei, 4-9.)

Iustitia Dei

The central teaching of the Christian faith concerns the reconciloiation of man with God in the person of Jesus Christ or teh doctrine of justification. This doctrine is often interpreted with cultural overtones although it is independnent of culture. The church is not only interested in the what man must do to be right with God, but also the process and consequences of such a new relationship. The doctirne is also center of the Christian theological system and teh existence of the church hignes on it. The doctrine of justification has to do with the transformation of sinner into a 'justified' person; changing a man without God to one with God, for God and before God. It is the ultimate expression of the Church's conviction of the work of Christ and tied closely to the historical revelation of God. It defines the conditions under which man can be reconciled to God.Hence, Christ is known through his work and as the locus in which Gdo reconcile the world to himself. It is this soteriological context which provides the framework for teh discussion of the doctrine of justificaiton. The discussion of this doctrine must be distinguished from the discussion of teh concept of justification. The concept has to do with God's saving action toward his people as revealed in the Bible, while the doctrne concerns the method thgrough which man can be reconciled to God. The doctrien of justification is independent of Biblical origins and absent from the NT.It is interesting to note that in the discussion of justification as we hear it today is quite independent of its Pauline origins and its origin lies in an anti-Judaising polemic quite differnet from today, it is still interesting to discover why of all metaphors, justification is singled out for the explication of soteriology.It is an inccident fo history that justification instead of other soteriological methaphor cna be creditted to the following factors:1. The rise of Pauline scholarship during the 12th Century2. High regard for classical jurisprudence3. semantic relationship between iustitia and iustificatio gives rise to the rationalizing of the divine dispensation towards mankind in terms of justice4.Luther's theological difficulties concerning teh Righteousness of God as Gospel, which tied the Reformation closely to the doctrine fo justification5. reconciliation is discussed under teh ageis of doctrine of justification in teh council of TrentIt is only within the west that the doctrine of jsutification has its sphere of influence. The east talks about the concept of deification rather than justification. This is due to the difference in the understand ing of the work of the Holy Spirit, influence of neo-platonism in the east and the west's interest in Roman Law which naturally placed interest in justification.(Alister McGrath, Iustitia Dei 2nd ed., 1-4. )

Spiritual Warfare & Eph 6:10ff

Ephesians 6:10ff talks about putting on the armor of God for a warfare against the opposing forces. This passage has been misused by charismatic militia to support the idea of spiritual warfare. Attributing all wars to spiritual dimension is a way fo escape to engage in the reality of the material world, an escapist best defence for being passive in a world of injustice.True enough our struggle is not with fellow human being but with the rulers, powers, world forces of this dark world and the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenlies. Every organization and personnel that engage in work of wickedness and injustice are the lackey of these forces. They are the physical and tangible manifestation and expressions of these forces. The spiritual warfare idea is a distraction to Christian from engaging in the tangible expression and manifestation of God's salvation in the world. We are afraid to be outright in our words and actions and choose to retreat to spiritual fanfare. The declaration and fanfare of the spiritual warfare camp is interesting and entertaining with the 'passionate engagement in fervent prayer, loud declaration of victory chant, strenous praying in tongues, waving of banners, spiritual dance, prayer walking, claiming ground and territory for God'. These are but substitue for the courageous and real struggle with the forces.The armor of God is not some spiritual adornment that we put on in prayer every morning. But the real demonstration of those character of God in our daily living. Definitely we need the power of God to help us as we face the challenge ahead of us and He has given us that power - the same power that he exerted upon christ when he raised him from the dead - the power to overcome injustice and unrighteousness. The injustice suffered by christ at the hands of the authroities is reverted when God declare him just by raising him from the dead. Thsi power of Gdo is given to us that we may stand against injustice and wickedness in our world.The different pieces of the armor is not spiritual quality but things taht we should be exhibiting in our lives.
1. Belt of truth - we need to walk in truthfulness, just like God who is Truthe itself and there is no lie in Him. To put on the belt of truth means we must live a life fo truthfulness, in every area of our life, whether in relationship, business, studies, transactions, words and deeds. This defeats the enemy who is teh fatehr of lies. Teh christian church with all its pompous display of spiritual warfare are not able to overcome the enemy becaus ewe are not living in truthfulness toward each other and toward the world.
2. Breastplate of justice - we need to uphold the justice in places where there are injustice. How many of us stand up for injustice in our society, workplace, school, church, government policies etc? We would rathe rsave our own skin than to risk our neck so that the abused and misused can be freed from injustice.
3. Shoe of the rpeparation of the Gospel of peace - we must be peacemaker in a world where talk of war is more than the talk of peace. Are we always ready with the Gospel of Peace - the reconciliation of ethnic groups, countries, minorities with the majorities, man with God? Is the church an arena of war or peace? Do we seek to keep the bond of peace or destroy peace? This calls for wisdom. How to reconcile the need to fight for justice and o keep peace?
4. Shield of faithfulness - the need to trust is growing ever greater in our world today but how many is trustworthy? God is faithful and will always be faithful to his creation. But are we faithful to each other? If christian can even be faithful with each other and keep faith with each other, how can we stand against the world and the forces that belittle faithfulness. What is important is what you get from it; faithfulness is valueless.
5. Helmet of salvation - What is salvation here? Is it the salvation of our soul? eternal life? Maybe it is not. If the armor is God's, then the salvation here may refer to God's act to save those that are oppressed and imprisoned. The church has more often been the place of oppression than salvation.People may have moved from one form of bondage (sin) to another (autotarial spiritual oppression). We are to be God's agent to bring news of salvation not oppression to a world drowning in oppression and abuse and injsutice, not to add another millstone to their neck.
6. Sword of the Spirit - the Word of God is to bring release and hope to people but often it has been a word of death and oppression and control. Instead of proclaiming freedom and release, the word we declare seek to bring people under bondage, and we disguise such bondage with beautiful and religious jargon to make it soudn spiritual and nice.
Spiritual warfare is real but not in the form of the classical spiritual warfare advocate. We must in deed struggle with these forces but not in the heavenlies. It should be done here, where you move and live and have your being. The war in heaven leave it to God and his mighty angels. Let us concentrate on the war on earth. The line between a coward in the face of injusice and wickedness and true trust in God is a thin one. Do not spiritualize your cowardness but rise up to the occassion and take up your armor tostand against the tide of darkness.Will you fight or flight? Will you break heaven with prayer but not stretch out your neck for the oppressed and abused with a word?