A summary of the doctrine of justification as taught by Papal and Protestant churches (agreements and differences)

A summary of the doctrine of justification as taught by Papal and Protestant churches (agreements and differences)

This blog post will be written in theses revealing similarities and differences between the two camps. 

1. Both churches see justification as an act of grace in which God, for Christ's sake offers to the penitent sinner absolution from sins and gives him the right to eternal inheritence.

2. Romanists take the word "justification" more broadly, to include the remission of sins in the legal forensic sense, and the infusion of grace, that is the transformation and renewal of the inner man. Protestants typically use the word in a stricter sense to refer to the remission of sins. However, a disagreement in words is not a disagreement in faith, because Protestants affirm the existence of infused grace, yet label it "sanctification". 

3. In the history of the western church, from Augustine onward many have used the word "justification" to denote the infusion of grace as well as the remission of sins, and yet as far as the sense of their doctrine did not differ from the biblical teaching as the late papists did. 

4. Therefore, although biblically the protestant linguistic position on this is more accurate, from a theological standpoint believing "justification" should be taken more broadly to include being made just (e.g infused righteousness) does not necessarily cause problems. 

5. Papists understand the infusion of grace to be logically prior to the remission of sins in the legal sense, and this is a scholastic error, yet not a grave heresy. 

6. Concerning the meaning of faith, they typically think of "dogmatic/catholic faith", or in protestant terms "historical faith". And both parties agree that this faith cannot justify us before God. The romanists say that the faith that justifies is formed by charity, and since for them "faith" is defined as "an act of the intellect assenting to the things revealed". 

7. For them since true faith is equivalent to the definition given above, true faith can exist without charity and co-exist with mortal sin. This is why they say that true faith alone does not justify, unless it is formed by charity. When this true faith (mere assent to divine revelation) is formed by love, then such faith justifies. 

8. Protestants however understand true faith to include both assent and trust in the divine promise, for true faith is not just a knowledge of things revealed and an acceptance of the truths thereof, but also a trust that such truths apply to us personally (Christ is not just the Saviour of the world, but also my personal saviour). This trust is the hearts refuge in divine mercy, which Protestants consider to be necessary for true faith. Thus true faith alone justifies

9. Both parties agree that a justified person must perform good works as a result of the grace offered in this act. It is impossible for a person with living faith to not produce good works worthy of God's glory and accepted by Him gratuitously for Christ's sake. 

10. Both parties agree that God will reward our good works with eternal life, and that He is not coerced to reward from the mere consideration of the value of our works. However, the Protestants agree only with the scotist school in its doctrine on merit on which I will not insist here, but there would be more or less disagreements with the other schools in papism. However, Protestants oppose the use of the word "merit", because it seems derogatory to Christ's merit and because it sounds boastful. 

11. Similarly, both parties affirm the reality of infused, inherent justice and that believers do have this justice on account of which they are called in Scripture "just". Similarly both parties agree that justice can and must be increased as long as we are in this life, and that the pious must aim for an increase in personal justice. 

12. Concerning concupiscence, papists believe that it can be called sin in the custom of the apostle Paul in Romans 7, but that it is not truly and properly sin. Not just that it is not imputed as sin, but it does not have the nature of sin. However they would say with Augustine that when the faithful pray "forgive us our debts", concupiscence is included, because it is a defect that forbids us from being able to fulfill all the Law. 

13. The papists dogmatically teach in contrast to all Protestants that the inherent justice that exists in believers is "physically" and by its own nature pleasing to God, and that God's extrinsic favor is not needed. In other words, the inherent justice by itself makes us acceptable to God and does not need a new extrinsic favor, pact or acceptation on God's part. Furthermore, they teach this inherent justice plays a role in purging the soul from mortal sins (Vasquez, Disputation 204, ch. I-II). This is why they teach inherent justice is imperfect only as to quantity (because it can be increased as long as we are in this life), but not that there is an intrinsic wrong or defect in the justice inherent in believers that would make it inchoate (see Davenant, Disputation on Justification). 

14. Protestants unanimously deny to inherent justice the power of purging the soul from mortal sin, believing that the merit of Christ alone received by faith does this. Similarly, they unanimously affirm that our inherent justice is pleasing to God, that the good works of believers have the nature of true justice, yet inchoate and imperfect so that without God's extrinsic favor and acceptation these are filthy rags. This is where the disagreement regarding the essence of justification is concerned, "what makes us pleasing before God?". 

15. And while there are lot of semantic disagreements between the camps that have often hidden the real disagreement between them, this blog served to show where the real difference lies and hopefully we will see more polemic from both sides centered around this question.