51 comments
Leave a comment »

1. JeffB July 31st, 2012 12:00 pm :

   Very thorough Bryan (as always), thank you.

   Protestants believe in the “indwelling of the Holy Spirit”, meaning the Holy Spirit resides within us in some sense. At first glance, it seems that that idea (and the way Protestants describe what the indwelling means) is very close to the concept of infused agape. How does the Catholic church think about the idea of the indwelling of the Spirit and in particular, is there a distinction made between that idea (if actually held to) and the concept of infused agape? Throughout the essay I notice you always mention infusion *through* the Spirit without saying the infusion actually *is* the Spirit so I assume that there is a careful distinction being made.

   thanks

2. Bryan Cross July 31st, 2012 12:27 pm :

   Thanks Jeff.

   In comment #12 of the “St. Thomas Aquinas on Penance” thread I explained how St. Thomas shows that agape must be a virtue in the soul, and cannot be merely the indwelling Spirit. If the answer I give there is not sufficiently clear, please let me know. (See also comment #174 in the “Does the Bible Teach Sola Fide?” thread.)

   In the peace of Christ,

   – Bryan

3. JeffB July 31st, 2012 1:04 pm :

   Thank you, Bryan (#2). I will peruse and also try to read the larger context of the Aquinas references you cite in the first thread.

4. Jeremy McLellan July 31st, 2012 2:36 pm :

   The argument regarding ecclesial deism is one I find compelling in my sensibilities, though if pressed on it, I have the following reservations:

   1. The Protestant hermeneutic would just say that even in Scripture, lots of folks were falling away, heresies were prevalent among the churches, etc. (you know the verses by now of course) so what an Apostolic Father said isn’t REALLY authoritative unless it’s a logical extension of what the Apostles said/taught, and in the end all we have is the Bible. A Catholic might find the logic quite probable given the short distance between the Apostles and Irenaeus, but while you might find it convincing to say “Given what their followers all said about justification, it’s quite probable that Paul/James meant that too, which means the Protestant interpretation of the writings of Paul/James is incorrect,” the Protestant (especially a historian) would not find it appropriate to impute (or infuse!) the follower’s beliefs onto the master’s writings. One typically doesn’t do that with other sources, like Marx or Locke, do they?

   2. The lack of controversy about justification before the Reformation doesn’t actually mean that what was said during that time was correct. In fact, controversies are exactly where orthodoxy comes from. We wouldn’t even have a doctrine of the Trinity without a history of arguments and loads of heresies. If no alternative understanding is around, my statements about “belief x” are quite slippery. If I’m arguing with a Zwinglian, my statements about the Eucharist sound cannibalistic–“I do eat Jesus every Sunday”–though if a Catholic is in the room, I might back up and say something like “I eat Jesus through the Holy Spirit, but a dog wouldn’t be eating Jesus.”

   3. As I’m sure you know (but I want to point out to anyone who is reading) Reformed folks have no problem with everything Catholics mean when they say “justification,” it’s just that we call that “sanctification” and it comes after the monergistic irreversible declaration and imputation of Christ’s alien righteousness and our regeneration in the Spirit. Obviously, there are differences among Reformed folks too (FV and NPP and all that) but we’d unanimously say that justification/regeneration is something initial, monergistic, and permanent.

   4. I’m not entirely convinced that it matters in our Christian lives, since we all agree that we’re currently synergistically being made holy through the infusion of agape, and any initial declaration is only known for sure afterwards. Reformed people make a big deal about our assurance vs. the Catholics, but we only know that “those who have truly been justified/regenerated will be sanctified and will die Christians,” not that we are one of those people. In my opinion, we have the same level of assurance. I’ve heard converts to both sides say they are more certain in their new camp.

   I also have a few nitpicks that don’t affect your main argument.

   First off, Martyrdom does not mean correct. There’s lots of heretical martyrs throughout the centuries. I think it’s fair to say that they were following Christ, though all sides would disagree with where that led them. Jeremy Tate says this well in the post before yours.

   Secondly, there’s a typo in the Conclusion here: “Justification is by the infusion of righteous, that is, the pouring out of agape into our hearts, because agape is the fulfillment of the law.” That should say “infusion of righteousness” (Actually it should say “Sanctification is…” but that’s another matter altogether.)

   Thanks,
   Jeremy-PCA (on DGH’s blog he kept getting us mixed up)

5. Garrison July 31st, 2012 6:36 pm :

   Jeremy (#4),

   1. We’re not talking about a heretic, though (unless you subscribe to the idea that the earliest Church Fathers didn’t know what they were talking about or were actually heretics). This is Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp, a disciple of John. If he has no authority to speak, then no Protestant minister does, either. We’re not imputing Irenaeus’ beliefs onto Paul (or John); what we’re saying is that he is in a much better position to know what Paul meant than we can just reading Paul ourselves, even with aid (lexica, grammars, etc.). The thing is, I don’t know of any Marxists who claim “solo Marx”. ;)

   2. If controversy is how we determine orthodoxy, and if there was no controversy over this teaching (infused righteousness as part of justification), then it is heavily implied that it is orthodox. Regardless, if this teaching is as evil as the Reformers made it out to be, the Church was in apostasy until the Reformation.

   A heretical martyr is an oxymoron. Who would you consider to be one? This does not mean that every martyr was always correct, however, as that is not what a heretic is. A heretic knows the truth and willfully rejects it.

   IC XC NIKA

   Garrison

6. Bryan Cross July 31st, 2012 11:58 pm :

   Jeremy M, (re: #4)

   Thanks for your comment, and for catching the typo. I agree with you that in Scripture we see certain individuals falling away from the faith. We even see particular Churches falling into error in the book of Revelation. In my “Ecclesial Deism” article I provided some reasons for believing that Christ would not allow this to be true of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church He founded, that is, the universal Church. I showed that embracing ecclesial deism has deeply problematic implications, and I won’t repeat those reasons here.

   Regarding the doctrine of justification, the relevant passages of Scripture can be interpreted according to these two interpretive frameworks: Protestant and Catholic. Obviously you agree that Scripture can be interpreted according to a Reformed framework as spelled out by the Westminster Confession of Faith. All those very same passages of Scripture can alternatively be interpreted according to a Catholic interpretive framework. In “Does the Bible Teach Sola Fide?” I went through the various New Testament passages that treat the subject of justification by faith and showed that they could all be interpreted according to the Catholic paradigm, where ‘faith’ refers to faith-informed-by-agape, and justification is by infusion, not by extra nos imputation.

   Of course, I understand that you might object to that article, by claiming that the meaning of these biblical terms (e.g. faith, justification) is properly governed by their lexical sense, as determined by their usage by their contemporaries. My response to that can be found in “The Tradition and the Lexicon,” in which I show that such a claim presupposes the Protestant paradigm. So in the Catholic paradigm, our understanding of terms like ‘justification’ is informed and guided by the way those terms have been used in the community that received these books and recites them in its liturgy and prayers. That is, the meaning of a communal text is best known from within the community within which that text was written and received. The text itself does not settle the question which of these two interpretive paradigms/methodologies is correct.

   So the inquirer, trying to determine which of these two paradigms (i.e. Catholic or Protestant) is correct regarding justification, has to evaluate each paradigm as a whole paradigm, without presupposing the other paradigm in the criteria by which he evaluates the paradigm in question. The notion that “what an Apostolic Father said isn’t really authoritative unless it’s a logical extension of what the Apostles said/taught” already presupposes that we know what the Apostles said/taught. If we are trying to determine which interpretive paradigm is correct, we are precisely not yet in a position of knowing what they said/taught, at least not knowing which of the two interpretive paradigms is the authentic meaning of what they said. That’s why using one’s own interpretation of Scripture to determine that, say, St. Irenaeus is right or wrong about justification already presupposes one of these interpretive paradigms, namely, the Protestant interpretive paradigm.

   Given the information I’ve provided above regarding St. Irenaeus’s doctrine of justification, the Protestant paradigm requires a highly unlikely hypothesis, as I described in the last paragraph of the article. It requires that all throughout the entire reaches of the Church throughout the world, the same massive error concerning a doctrine at the very center of the gospel was, without even the slightest protest or conflict, accepted by men and women who in every other respect exemplified their fidelity to Christ by shedding their blood even unto death. The Catholic paradigm, by contrast, is much more plausible with regard to the historical data. According to this paradigm, there having been no internal conflict about the doctrine of justification since the middle of the first century, the doctrine of justification taught in the Church all over the world in AD 180, is the doctrine handed down by the Apostles to the apostolic Churches, and therefore provides the interpretive framework within which we determine the meaning of the relevant passages within the New Testament concerning the doctrine of justification.

   You wrote:

   The lack of controversy about justification before the Reformation doesn’t actually mean that what was said during that time was correct. In fact, controversies are exactly where orthodoxy comes from. We wouldn’t even have a doctrine of the Trinity without a history of arguments and loads of heresies.

   Controversies concerning doctrine are typically the occasion for the Church to clarify definitively what is orthodoxy, and what is heresy. But, orthodoxy does not come from controversy per se. Orthodoxy comes from Christ, through the Apostles, as the deposit of faith entrusted to the saints once and for all. So orthodoxy doesn’t come out of nothing, supervening upon controversies. Rather, orthodoxy is always there in the deposit, but the controversy compels the Church to clarify more precisely the content of this deposit, distinguishing the orthodoxy of the deposit from the heretical novelty. So when a doctrine goes undisputed within the Church for many centuries, that does not mean that there is no orthodoxy regarding that doctrine during this time period. It means rather that what is orthodox (and what is not) with respect to this doctrine is so clear within the Church that there is no dispute about it. A subsequent controversy concerning that doctrine does not mean that there was no prior orthodoxy regarding that doctrine, only that the prior orthodoxy was not sufficiently specific to prevent the present controversy. For this reason, if what St. Irenaeus teaches concerning justification was the doctrine taught throughout the Church spread around the world, and there had been no controversy concerning this doctrine, then we should believe his doctrine to be the Apostles’s doctrine.

   I understand that Reformed theology distinguishes between justification (defined as a forensic, extra nos imputation) and sanctification. One difficulty for Reformed theology is that this distinction (so defined) cannot be found in the Church Fathers. They, like St. Irenaeus, distinguish between initial justification, and growth in justification. The primary difference between the Reformed conception of justification and the patristic conception of justification is that none of the Church Fathers believed that justification was by an extra nos imputation of an alien righteousness. They believed that in baptism, our soul is washed clean by the infusion of grace and agape. Because they understood the infusion of grace and agape to be justification, and because they believed it is possible to grow in one’s portion or share of grace and agape they believed that sanctification is growth in justification.

   I agree with what you say about assurance. I would add that the way in which this disagreement (concerning justification) matters ecumenically, is that the doctrine of justification was the primary point of disagreement between Protestants and Catholics. Reaching agreement on this doctrine would be a major step toward reconciling Protestants with the Catholic Church after a schism that has now lasted almost 500 years.

   I also agree with you that just because a person is a martyr, that does not mean his doctrine was correct. My point was that in the first two centuries of Church history, we find no shortage of Christian martyrs under the fiercest persecutions. St. Polycarp’s is just one example, someone St. Irenaeus knew personally. St. Polycarp’s willingness to be martyred for the sake of Christ does not in itself guarantee his orthodoxy, but it does tell us something about his fidelity to what he had received. (And he had received his understanding of the gospel from the Apostle John.) If St. Polycarp was willing to give up his life, to be loyal to Christ, then a fortiori he would not knowingly corrupt or abandon the gospel he had received from the Apostle John. Nor would he remain silent, as the bishop of Smyrna, if he saw others within the Church corrupting the apostolic doctrine of justification. The presence of Christians of such character and courage throughout the Church of the first centuries gives a greater evidential weight to the fact of silence concerning any controversy regarding the doctrine of justification. Such persons would not have been silent had there been some corruption of the Apostolic doctrine within the Church; they would have fought it vigorously, just as St. Irenaeus fought against gnosticism in his work Against Heresies. So their silence, in view of their character, and the ubiquity in AD 180 of the conception of justification we find in St. Irenaeus’s writings, indicates that the doctrine St. Irenaeus taught concerning justification was nothing less than that handed down by the Apostles.

   In the peace of Christ,

   – Bryan

7. William Scott August 1st, 2012 11:34 am :

   Thanks for the article Bryan. I affirm sola fides and I also agree with St. Irenaeus.

   I don’t find him to contradict reformation statements–such as the Anglican Homily of Good Works (from the Anglican Book of Homilies which flesh out the doctrine of the 39 Articles–see Article 25):
   Saint Chrysostome in this wise, (Pseudo-Chrysostom, De Fide et Lege Naturae 1 [PG 48. 1081-82], In sermone de fide, lege, & spiritu sancto). You shall find many which haue not the true faith, and bee not of the flocke of Christ , and yet (as it appeareth) they flourish in good works of mercy: you shall finde them full of pitie, compassion, and giuen to iustice, and yet for all that they haue no fruit of their workes, because the chiefe worke lacketh. For when the Iewes asked of Christ what they should doe to worke good workes: hee answered, This is the worke of GOD, to beleeue in him whom hee sent (John 6.29): so that hee called faith the worke of GOD. And as soone as a man hath faith, anone hee shall florish in good workes: for faith of it selfe is full of good workes, and nothing is good without faith. And for a similitude, he saith that they which glister and shine in good workes without fayth in GOD, bee like dead men, which haue godly and precious tombes, and yet it auayleth them nothing. Faith may not bee naked without good workes, for then it is no true faith: and when it is adioyned to workes, yet it is aboue the workes. For as men that are very men indeed first have life and after are nourished, so must our faith in Christ go before, and after be nourished with good works. And life may be without nourishment, but nourishment cannot be without life. A man must of necessity be nourished by good works, but first he must have faith. He that does good deeds, yet without faith he has no life. I can show a man that by faith without works lived and came to heaven, but without faith, never man had life. The thief that was hanged when Christ suffered did believe only, and the most merciful God justified him. And because no man shall say again that he lacked time to do good works, for else he would have done them, truth it is, and I will not contend therein, but this I will surely affirm, that only faith saved him. If he had lived and not regarded faith and the works thereof, he should have lost his salvation again. Here you have heard the mind of Saint Chrysostom, whereby you may perceive that neither faith is without works (having opportunity thereto), nor works can avail to everlasting life without faith.

   …What maner of workes they be which spring out of true faith, and leade faithfull men vnto euerlasting life. This cannot bee knowen so well, as by our Sauiour Christ himselfe who was asked of a certain great man the same question;, What works shall I do (said a prince) to come to euerlasting life? To whom Iesus answered, if thou wilt come to euerlasting life, keepe the Commandements (Matthew 19.16-17). But the prince not satisfied herewith, asked farther, Which commandements? The Scribes and Pharisees had made so many of their owne lawes and traditions, to bring men to heauen, besides GOD’S commandements, that this man was in doubt whether he should come to heauen by those lawes and traditions or by the law of GOD, and therefore he asked Christ which commandements hee meant. Whereunto Christ made him a plaine answere, rehearsing the commandements of GOD, saying, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adulterie, Thou shalt not steale, Thou shalt not beare false witnesse, Honour thy father and thy mother, and loue thy neighbour as thy selfe (Matthew 19.18-19). By which wordes Christ declared that the lawes of GOD bee the very way that doeth leade to euerlasting life, and not the traditions and lawes of men.
   https://www.anglicanlibrary.org/homilies/bk1hom05.htm

   Further, although Calvin and those who followed him denied the possibility of deadly sin/falling from Salvation–leading English and Lutheran reformers (most notably Luther himself) affirmed this Scriptural truth–as noted in post 7 of the following thread:
   “Why John Calvin did not Recognize the Distinction Between Mortal and Venial Sin.” Although the Reformers affirmed with great catholic fathers like

   Additionally, the reformers noted that the term dikaioun could be used more broadly than in the strictly forensic sense (e.g. Calvin applied a non-forensic sense to dikaioun in his commentary on Romans 6:7 ). However, as the ARCIC joint Roman Catholic/Anglican statement notes, the predominant usage of the term in New Testament is in relation to the forensic aspect of our Salvation:

   Roman Catholic interpreters of Trent and Anglican theologians alike have insisted that justification and sanctification are neither wholly distinct from nor unrelated to one another. The discussion, however, has been confused by differing understandings of the word justification and its associated words. The theologians of the Reformation tended to follow the predominant usage of the New Testament, in which the verb dikaioun usually means “to pronounce righteous”. The Catholic theologians, and notably the Council of Trent, tended to follow the usage of patristic and medieval Latin writers, for whom justificare (the traditional translation of dikaioun) signified “to make righteous” Thus the Catholic understanding of the process of justification, following Latin usage, tended to include elements of salvation which the Reformers would describe as belonging to sanctification rather than justification.

   https://www.prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/arcic/doc/e_arcicII_salvation.html

   Of course, St. Ireneaus and all the other Church fathers clearly affirm the central forensic aspect of our Salvation (in the acquital of our guilt/remission of our sins (committed and omitted) through the covering of the righteous blood of Christ received through faith and the Baptismal washing of regeneration).

   Much of this is an argument over semantics. When the reformers use the term justification they are referring to this forensic aspect of our Salvation which is received through the instrument of a true or living faith alone (which is always accompanied by love). Clearly, if we were to include our sanctification in the definition of justification then love would be “instrumental” as well as faith.

   As for the imputation of the active righteousness of Christ–this is required by the fact that Christ received the declaration of justification from the Father (for Himself and all in Him) in the Father raising Christ from the dead–not on account of any righteousness we performed but solely on account of the perfect righteousness of Christ’s Life.

   God Bless,
   WA Scott

8. William Scott August 1st, 2012 12:30 pm :

   p.s. Some modern reformed have sought to say that forgiveness basically makes you accounted as neutral (versus perfectly righteous) and you need a separate imputation of Christ’s d active righteousness to be accounted as perfectly righteous. The reformers, however, held that forgiveness was the whole of imputation (i.e. sin is anything that fails to perfectly fulfill God’s Law–and thus to be forgiven is to be accounted as having not sinned and therefore to be accounted as having perfectly fulfilled the Law).

   The imputation of Christ’s active righteousness and the forgiveness of sins are different sides of the same coin. i.e. to be forgiven is to have the perfectly righteous Blood of Christ cover all failings before God so that one stands as sinless/perfectly righteous before the Lord apart from imperfect good works. (St. Bernard calls all the good works of a Christian “filthy rags” in comparison to the awesome holiness of God).

   As the Anglican Homily of Justification notes with St. Bernard (cited in Article 11 of the 39 Articles):
   …we must renounce the merit of all our said virtues, of faith, hope, charity, and all other virtues and good deeds, which we either have done, shall do, or can do, as things that be far too weak and insufficient, and imperfect, to deserve remission of our sins, and our justification, and therefore we must trust only in GODS mercy, and that sacrifice which our high Priest and Savior Christ Jesus the son of GOD once offered for us upon the Crosse, to obtain thereby GODS grace, and remission, as well of our original sin in Baptism, as of all actual sin committed by us after our Baptism, if we truly repent, and turn unfeignedly to him again.
   https://www.anglicanlibrary.org/homilies/bk1hom03.htm

9. mateo August 1st, 2012 1:39 pm :

   William Scott, you write:

   The reformers, however, held … to be forgiven is to be accounted as having not sinned and therefore to be accounted as having perfectly fulfilled the Law …

   In other words, the Reformers taught that “justification” is a legal fiction whereby God “accounts” a guilty man to be righteous even though the man is not really righteous. In Matthew’s Gospel, we have an example kind this kind of legalistic “justification”:

   And they had then a notorious prisoner, called Barabbas. So when they had gathered, Pilate said to them, “Whom do you want me to release for you, Barabbas or Jesus who is called Christ?” For he knew that it was out of envy that they had delivered him up. … Now the chief priests and the elders persuaded the people to ask for Barabbas and destroy Jesus.
   Matthew 27:15-20

   When Pilate released Barrabas, Pilate violated God’s justice by imputing to Barabas a legal verdict that made Barrabas “not guilty” in the eyes of the law. Pilate, as the governor of Judea, had the legal power to declare a guilty man to be accounted as “not guilty”, but by doing that, Pilate proved himself to be a corrupt man that abused his legal power (a legal power that he would not have unless God allowed him to have it!). And that, it seems to me, is why the Protestant view of legal justification cannot possibly be correct, since it makes God no different than Pontius Pilate.

   Justifying grace must make a man actually righteous, otherwise, God would be acting against divine justice in legally declaring us to be righteous even though we aren’t.

10. Faith and Love « The Lonely Pilgrim August 1st, 2012 4:20 pm :

    […] really thought about what it is that is actually occurring in us as this happens. Last night I read a piece by Bryan Cross of Called to Communion that has profoundly affected me; provided me with this […]

11. William Scott August 2nd, 2012 12:25 am :

    All the reformers affirmed that those who are justified have a real and growing “infused” righteousness within them. Also, the leading English and Lutheran reformers made clear that if at any point this infused righteousness is overcome by sin in a believer–then the believer ceases to be saved.

    However this infused righteousness (or sanctification) is far from perfect in this life. Therefore, the believer does not and cannot perfectly fulfill the Holy Law of God (as the Church Fathers note). Rather, every believer disobeys the Law of God (summed up in the 2 Great Commandments) and thus according to works every believer daily stands guilty and condemned before God’s Holy Law for his disobedience (again, as the Church Fathers note).

    (Just to hammer in this point) Can any Christian honestly claim for even one hour, let alone a day, to have perfectly loved God with all his being and perfectly loved (in thought, word, and deed) his neighbor as himself? This is what God’s Law requires of every soul continuously. Therefore, you and I stand condemned under God’s Perfect Law every hour of every day for our disobedience. Thus, we are compelled to seek a righteousness apart from our works–namely the righteousness we obtain before the Throne through the righteous Blood of Christ covering our many sins.

    This is the blessing of being reputed just without works:
    Rom 4:6 As David also termeth the blessedness of a man, to whom God reputeth justice without works:
    7 Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
    8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord hath not imputed sin. (Douay Rheims)

    This is one of the most amazing truths of the Catholic and Scriptural faith–that one who is guilty according to works (as noted above–anyone who has failed at any moment to love God perfectly or has ever loved himself more than his neighbor) is accounted sinless/perfectly righteous through the Righteous Blood of Christ covering his sins.

    As St. Augustine notes in his Retractions (Book 1, 19:3): “All the commandments of God are kept when what is not kept is forgiven.”

    Because sin is the failure to perfectly fulfill the Law of God (to love God perfectly at every moment and to never love yourself more than your neighbor)–to be forgiven is to be reckoned as though you had not sinned (i.e. as though you had completely fulfilled the Law–as St. Augustine notes above).

    In other words, the remission of sins (i.e. our forensic justification before God apart from the true deserving of our works) not only covers our commissions but also our omissions.

    God Bless,
    WA Scott

    p.s. It will be at least a week or two before I’ll have time to respond further on this site. God Bless.

12. David waltz August 2nd, 2012 1:34 pm :

    Hi Bryan,

    Excellent post! This thread on Irenaeus is of particular interest to me, for last month, I started ‘work-in-progress’ series of posts on Irenaeus (LINK).

    As for Irenaeus’ soteriology, have you read the following Doctoral thesis:

    Blackwell, Benjamin, Durham , 2010, Christosis: Pauline Soteriology in Light of Deification in Irenaeus and Cyril of Alexandria

    Grace and peace,

    David

13. Bryan Cross August 2nd, 2012 2:24 pm :

    Hello David,

    Thank you. I found Blackwell’s work helpful and well-researched. His focus is more on theosis than on justification proper, but obviously the doctrines overlap. In the matter of theosis, the Protestant position is faced with the same problem I described in the last paragraph of the article above. It is a doctrine found throughout the Fathers, and very early, and yet incompatible with Protestantism. See chapter 18 of Horton’s The Christian Faith, in which he defines union with Christ as only covenantal, and rejects an ontological union, which, seemingly, he can only conceive as ‘fusion,’ and the loss of individual identity. He holds this position, I believe, because the concept of ‘participation’ in Christ, and in the work of Christ, is almost entirely absent from Protestant theology. This is why Catholic (and Orthodox) notions and practices are construed by such Protestants as ‘denying the finished work of Christ,’ or as implying that Christ’s work was somehow inadequate or insufficient. That’s why I think it important to conceive of these positions paradigmatically, because in paradigms in which the possibility of participation is recognized, such objections fall flat.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

14. mateo August 2nd, 2012 4:12 pm :

    William Scott you write:

    All the reformers affirmed that those who are justified have a real and growing “infused” righteousness within them. Also, the leading English and Lutheran reformers made clear that if at any point this infused righteousness is overcome by sin in a believer–then the believer ceases to be saved.

    The Lutherans and Episcopalians that I know make the distinction between mortal sin and venial sin. And because that distinction is made, I believe that it is wrong to say that Lutherans and Episcopalians learned from the founders of their religion the doctrine that willfully committing a venial sins entails the consequence of ceasing to be saved.

    However this infused righteousness (or sanctification) is far from perfect in this life. Therefore, the believer does not and cannot perfectly fulfill the Holy Law of God …

    If, as you say, “infused righteousness (or sanctification) is far from perfect in this life”, then whose fault is it if I do not fulfill these commandments from Christ:

    You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
    Matthew 5:48

    A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; even as I have loved you, that you also love one another.
    John 13:34

    If Christ gives me the command to “be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect”, and God does not give to me the sufficient sanctifying grace so that I can obey this commandment of Christ, then it is God’s fault, and not my fault, for failing to love as Christ loves. But I have a very big problem with the idea that my numerous failings to love as Christ loves are somehow God’s fault. If I fail to manifest a love that is not mercenary, then I need to confess that sin and be forgiven. What I must never do is blame God as the cause of my failings to manifest selfless love.

    Can any Christian honestly claim for even one hour, let alone a day, to have perfectly loved God with all his being and perfectly loved (in thought, word, and deed) his neighbor as himself?

    Perhaps you have never done this, and perhaps I have never done this, but that doesn’t mean that there have never been Christians that have loved selflessly in thought word and deed.

    This is what God’s Law requires of every soul continuously. Therefore, you and I stand condemned under God’s Perfect Law every hour of every day for our disobedience.

    I disagree. The fact that I fail to love perfectly at times only proves to me how how utterly dependent I am upon the grace of God to live as he desires me to live (and what God desires for me, is what he desires of everyone – to become a great saint). I have a long way to go become what God wants me to become, but I don’t feel that there is a angry God that is condemning me as I stumble and fall along the hard way that leads to life. If I didn’t believe with all my heart and soul that God was on my side in the struggle to be holy, then I would have given up the hard way a long time ago!

    “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.
    John 14:15

    “Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few.”
    John 7:13-14

    “What is impossible with men is possible with God.”
    Luke 18:27

    He who abides in me, and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing.
    John 15:5

    Apart from Christ, I can do nothing that is perfectly pleasing to God, but with God, all things are possible. Amazing grace that saves a wretch like me!

15. Chaka August 2nd, 2012 6:24 pm :

    Hi Bryan,
    Great article.I noticed all your quotes from Irenaues work on the subject were only from “Against Heresies”. I feel he also commented on the subject in his other extant work “Proof of the Apostolic Preaching”. Like the quote below:

    “Now, that we may not suffer ought of this kind, we must needs hold the rule of the faith without deviation, and do the commandments of God, believing in God and fearing Him as Lord and loving Him as Father. Now this doing is produced by faith: for Isaiah says: If ye believe not, neither shall ye understand.And faith is produced by the truth; for faith rests on things that truly are. For in things that are, as they are, we believe; and believing in things that are, as they ever are, we keep firm our confidence in them. Since then faith is the perpetuation of our salvation, we must needs bestow much pains on the maintenance thereof, in order that we may have a true comprehension of the things that are. Now faith occasions this for us; even as the Elders, the disciples of the Apostles, have handed down to us. First of all it bids us bear in mind that we have received baptism for the remission of sins, in the name of God the Father, and in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was incarnate and died and rose again, and in the Holy Spirit of God. And that this baptism is the seal of eternal life, and is the new birth unto God, that we should no longer be the sons of mortal men, but of the eternal and perpetual God; and that what is everlasting and continuing is made God;and is over all things that are made, and all things are put under Him; and all the things that are put under Him are made His own; for God is not ruler and Lord over the things of another, but over His own;and all things are God’s; and therefore God is Almighty, and all things are of God.” [Proof of the Apostolic Preaching III]

    Peace. With love from Africa

16. joey_henry August 2nd, 2012 8:06 pm :

    Bryan,

    I’ll let Irenaeus be Irenaeus thus I don’t have an agenda to make him a protestant. But, even with the quotes above, I have no problem with what Irenaeus is saying. The twin doctrine of justification is sanctification. In covenant theology, we are commanded to fulfill the law through love (Rom 13). Protestant theology has not backed down on the necessity of the Law in the christian life. That is why our catechism includes a full section about it. We also have no problem saying that those who are redeemed by Christ are continuously changed inwardly by Him such that we are growing in righteousness (some of us call it progressive sanctification).

    Our Confession echoes the same (WCF 19):

    5. The moral law, however, does pertain to everyone, saved and unsaved, forever, not just with
    respect to its content but also in relationship to the authority of God, the Creator, who gave it.
    In the gospel Christ does not in any way remove this obligation, but rather strengthens it

    6. Although true believers are not justified or condemned by the law as a covenant of works,10 the
    law is nevertheless very useful to them and to others. As a rule of life, it informs them of God’s
    will and of their obligation to obey it. It also reveals to them the sinful pollution of their
    nature, hearts, and lives, so that, examining themselves from its point of view, they may
    become more convinced of the presence of sin in them, more humiliated on account of that sin,
    and hate sin the more. Thus they gain a better awareness of their need for Christ and for the
    perfection of his obedience. The prohibitions against sin in the law are also useful in
    restraining believers from pursuing the desires of their old nature, and the punishments for
    disobedience in the law show them what their sins deserve and what afflictions they may expect
    for them in this life, even though they have been freed from the curse threatened in the law.
    The promises of the law similarly show them that God approves obedience and that blessings
    may be expected for obedience, although not as their due from the law as a covenant of
    works. The fact that the law encourages doing good and discourages doing evil does not mean
    that a person who does good and refrains from evil is under the law and not under grace.

    7. None of these uses of the law is contrary to the grace of the gospel. They rather beautifully
    comply with it, because the Spirit of Christ subdues and enables the will of man to do
    voluntarily and cheerfully what the will of God, revealed in the law, requires to be done.

    Add to these our confession regarding sanctification and good works. It does not in all angles fit with how Irenaeus states his position as he is answering in his works a very different set of context regarding the Law and that God is one and the same with Old and New Covenant contra some heretics. But it does share his view regarding obedience to the Law and the duty of the Christians to fulfill it through love. Our doctrine of sanctification accounts for inner transformation.

    Our doctrine of Justification accounts also for the view that it was Christ’s Righteousness that reverses the verdict of God for the condemned. It is not a legal fiction as some suggested but real substitutionary activity in which God redeems us through the Obedience of Christ that is ours by faith not by works of righteousness (if one wants to dialogue with me on this point, I welcome it). Iraneaus also does not deny the substitutionary atonement of Christ in that what he accomplished is ours by faith (esp. His Obedience). He writes: “As a man caused the fall, so a man must cause the restoration. He must be a man able to sum up (recapitulare) all the human species in Himself, so as to bear the punishment of all, and to render an obedience that will compensate for their innumerable acts of disobedience.”

    Protestants does not choose an either or for the imputation of Christ’s rigteousness and the infusion of righteousness. These are twin doctrines that we have held for a long time. The Roman Catholic however has to deny the imputation of Christ’s righteousness and therefore for you, it is an either/or. The reformation can fully account for both perspective.

    Regards,
    Joey

17. Bryan Cross August 3rd, 2012 1:03 am :

    Joey,

    I agree that Reformed soteriology affirms a role for the law in sanctification, and recognizes an interior transformation. Quite so. The problem presented by St. Irenaeus, however, is that he does not draw the Protestant distinction between justification and sanctification. It isn’t just an absence; he describes justification as something that increases, through works done in agape. Nor does he conceive of justification as the extra nos imputation of an alien righteousness. Nor does he hold that justification can never be lost. He teaches justification by infusion of grace and agape: both an initial justification by infusion, and then growth in justification through works done in agape. He doesn’t teach that Christ’s obedience is imputed to us, as though God (who is Truth) could treat one person’s acts as having been carried out by another person. In short, he teaches a Catholic conception of justification.

    I also he agree that he teaches substitutionary atonement, but for St. Irenaeus, “bear the punishment of all” means bear the punishment of death, which we all now suffer, because of sin. He is not claiming that Christ bore the full punishment for each particular sin we have committed. So he doesn’t hold penal substitution in that sense. When he says ‘compensate,’ he means that Christ offered a more perfect sacrifice of love for us, that outweighs in its goodness all the evil of our sins, and so makes satisfaction. I have explained that in more detail in “Catholic and Reformed Conceptions of the Atonement.” So on this point too St. Irenaeus holds a Catholic conception of the atonement.

    You wrote:

    Protestants does not choose an either or for the imputation of Christ’s rigteousness and the infusion of righteousness.

    But the Protestant conception of infusion makes it incapable of saving a person. That’s precisely when extra nos imputation must be added on, because the infusion always leave the person still damnable in the eyes of God, until after glorification at the moment of death. My point here, in this article, is that that notion is altogether foreign to St. Irenaeus. For St. Irenaeus, Christ makes us truly righteous now, in baptism, through the gift of infused agape. We’re not merely called righteous while still internally unclean. So what he presents is very much in agreement with the Catholic doctrine of justification. And from a Protestant point of view this raises the difficulty I describe in the last paragraph of my article.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

18. Joey Henry August 3rd, 2012 8:24 am :

    Bryan,

    I don’t expect a full blown doctrine of justification and sanctification in St. Irenaeus writings. If I were to deman the same towards Roman Catholicism “justification” doctrine I think we would both find him unsatisfactorily stating all its concepts. I don’t demand from him that he would, in his discourse, discuss the distinction about sanctification and justification. To do so is anachronistic and will murder the whole context of Iranaeus’ discourse. I think, you should also note that you are merely equivocating terms here. You would like to say that Iraneaus is describing “justification” in the Roman Catholic understanding of it. I would say, Iraneaus statements fits “sanctification” in the Protestant understanding of it. I don’t even blink when I say, we believe that “righteousness” have degrees… Our confession says that in sanctification:

    “The power of sin ruling over the whole body is destroyed, and the desires of the old self are more and more weakened and killed. At the same time the ability to practice true holiness, without which no one will see the Lord, is brought to life and strengthened by all the saving graces.”

    Further,

    “Although the old nature temporarily wins battles in this warfare, the continual strengthening of
    the sanctifying Spirit of Christ enables the regenerate nature in each believer to overcome.9 And
    so the saints grow in grace, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.”

    Thus, I can easily harmonize Irenaeus’ statements about righteousness (justificare – make righteous) under our concept of sanctification. It is sad to note that a convert of your caliber, does not understand soteriology of the reformers when you said: “We’re not merely called righteous while still internally unclean.” Perhaps this is just a poor choice of wordings. But just to remind you, when we are justified, we are also sanctified. Such sanctification is a process but nevertheless the sanctified exhibit a life of holiness or righteousness from the moment he receives that “new life”. In Calvin’s words,

    “Since faith embraces Christ, as offered to us by the Father – that is, since he is offered not only for righteousness, forgiveness of sins, and peace, but also for sanctification and the fountain of the water of life – without a doubt, no one can duly know him without at the same time apprehending the sanctification of the Spirit. Or, if anyone desires some plainer statement, faith rests upon the knowledge of Christ. And Christ cannot be known apart from the sanctification of his Spirit. It follows that faith can in no wise be separated from a devout disposition.”

    At another point, Calvin wrote:

    “For Christ washes us when he removes the guilt of our sins by his atoning sacrifice, that they may not come into judgment before God; and on the other hand he washes us when he takes away by his Spirit the wicked and sinful desires of the flesh.”

    And this also, Calvin wrote:

    “How this is done is easily explained, if we turn to Christ only, to whom our faith is directed and from whom it derives all its power. Why, then, are we justified by faith? Because by faith we apprehend the righteousness of Christ, which alone reconciles us to God. This faith, however, you cannot apprehend without at the same time apprehending sanctification; for Christ “is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption,” (1 Cor. 1:30). Christ, therefore, justifies no man without also sanctifying him. These blessings are conjoined by a perpetual and inseparable tie. Those whom he enlightens by his wisdom he redeems; whom he redeems he justifies; whom he justifies he sanctifies. But as the question relates only to justification and sanctification, to them let us confine ourselves. Though we distinguish between them, they are both inseparably comprehended in Christ. Would ye then obtain justification in Christ? You must previously possess Christ. But you cannot possess him without being made a partaker of his sanctification: for Christ cannot be divided. Since the Lord, therefore, does not grant us the enjoyment of these blessings without bestowing himself, he bestows both at once but never the one without the other. Thus it appears how true it is that we are justified not without, and yet not by works, since in the participation of Christ, by which we are justified, is contained not less sanctification than justification.”

    In the perspective of justification, indeed our whole existense has been held guilty by the presence of sin (the transgression of God’s Law) and only Christ’s Righteousness for us can reverse that verdict. But in the perspective of sanctification, it is never true that we “remain unclean”. And since we receive both acts of God, it is myopic to say that, “We’re not merely called righteous while still internally unclean.” Indeed we are declared righteous in justification and made righteous in sanctification. We have no either/or concept unlike Romanism’s offer.

    I do not in any way intend to make Irenaeus a proto protestant. But on the subject of “fulfilling the Law through Love”, protestants can account for Ireneaus’ statement. Moreso, justification through the Righteousness of Christ is also present in it’s early form in Ireneaus’ statements such as:

    “And because in the first created Adam we were all chained and bound to death by his disobedience, it was necessary and fitting that by the obedience of the one who became man for us, death should be abolished.”

    Ireneaus also said:

    “And then again, this Word was manifested when the Word of God was made man, assimilating Himself to man, and man to Himself, so that by means of his resemblance to the Son, man might become precious to the Father. For in times long past, it was said that man was created after the image of God, but it was not shown, for the Word was as yet invisible, after whose image man was created. Wherefore also he did easily lose the similitude. When, however, the Word of God became flesh, He confirmed both these: for He both showed forth the image truly, since He became Himself what was His image; and He re-established the similitude after a sure manner, by assimilating man to the invisible Father through means of the visible Word. And not by the aforesaid things alone has the Lord manifested Himself, but also by means of His passion. For doing away with that disobedience of man which had taken place at the beginning by the occasion of a tree, “He became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross” (Phil. 2:8); rectifying that disobedience which had occurred by reason of a tree, through that obedience which was [accomplished] upon the tree [of the cross]. Now He would not have come to do away, by means of that same [image], the disobedience which had been incurred towards our Maker if He proclaimed another Father. But inasmuch as it was by these things that we disobeyed God, and did not give credit to His word, so was it also by these same that He brought in obedience and consent as respects His Word; by which things He clearly shows forth God Himself, whom indeed we had offended in the first Adam, when he did not perform His commandment. In the second Adam, however, we are reconciled, being made obedient even unto death. For we were debtors to none other but to Him whose commandment we had transgressed at the beginning.”

    “And therefore in the last times the Lord has restored us into friendship through His incarnation, having become “the Mediator between God and men;”(I Tim. 2:5) propitiating indeed for us the Father against whom we had sinned, and cancelling (consolatus) our disobedience by His own obedience; conferring also upon us the gift of communion with, and subjection to, our Maker. For this reason also He has taught us to say in prayer, “And forgive us our debts;” (Matt. 5:12) since indeed He is our Father, whose debtors we were, having transgressed His commandments.”

    Finally,

    “For it behoved Him who was to destroy sin, and redeem man under the power of death, that He should Himself be made that very same thing which he was, that is, man; who had been drawn by sin into bondage, but was held by death, so that sin should be destroyed by man, and man should go forth from death. For as by the disobedience of the one man who was originally moulded from virgin soil, the many were made sinners, (Rom. 5:19) and forfeited life; so was it necessary that, by the obedience of one man, who was originally born from a virgin, many should be justified and receive salvation.”

    It is not necessary to read the exact words like “imputation”, “extra nos”, “alien righteousness” or “active obedience” to make sense that in some manner, Irenaeus believed that the Obedience of Christ (not ours, therefore alien) procured for us the acceptance of God and verdict of our disobedience. His connecting of the First Adam and the Second Adam –> their disobedience and obedience –> FOR the guilty man which effects the rejection and acceptance of God is clear. These explanations from Ireneaus we can fully account under our perspective of justification.

    Your claim that – “He [Ireneaus] is not claiming that Christ bore the full punishment for each particular sin we have committed. So he doesn’t hold penal substitution in that sense.” – remains a fallible interpretation of Ireneaus statement. You may have a problem of penal substition but some modern Roman Catholic converts have no problem penal substitution.

    “It seems impossible for God to solve the dilemma of justice versus mercy, but we know from the Gospel account how he does it. The problem is that he cannot, it seems, do both; he must either exact the just penalty for sin – death – or not. Mercy seems a relaxation of justice, and justice a refusal of mercy. Either you punish or you don’t. The laws of logic seem to prevent God from being both just and merciful at the same time… God solves this dilemma on Calvary. Full justice is done: sin is punished with the very punishment of hell itself – being forsaken of God (Mt 27:46). But mercy and forgiveness are also enacted. The trick is to give us the mercy and him the justice” (Handbook of Christian Apologetics by Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli, p. 127).

    In conclusion, Irenaeus is not protetant. To label him such is to engage in anachronism. Is he a modern roman catholic where he believes in the full doctrine of indulgences, purgatory and the sacramentalism of Romanism to gain salvation? I think we know the answer to that question. There may be some points where I disagree with Irenaeus especially with his handling of exegesis of some biblical text, but the concepts he presents above is not disagreeable to me given our twin doctrines of justification and sanctification.

    By the way, Is there an official statement from you Magisterium condemning the theory of penal substition?

    Regards,
    Joey

19. Bryan Cross August 3rd, 2012 9:35 am :

    Joey, (re: #18)

    You wrote:

    I don’t expect a full blown doctrine of justification and sanctification in St. Irenaeus writings.

    The problem I’m pointing out, as I explained in my previous comment and in the article, has nothing to do with development, because St. Irenaeaus’s doctrine of justification is already contrary to the Protestant conception of justification.

    I don’t demand from him that he would, in his discourse, discuss the distinction about sanctification and justification.

    Again, the problem is not in what he does not say, but in what he does say.

    I think, you should also note that you are merely equivocating terms here. You would like to say that Iraneaus is describing “justification” in the Roman Catholic understanding of it.

    It is not what “[I] would like to say.” It is what St. Irenaeus himself says about justification, as I explained in the article.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

20. Joey Henry August 3rd, 2012 10:29 am :

    Bryan,

    Thanks for the conversation. But our doctrine of justification and sanctification can agree with Irenaeus as explained above. We don’t need to choose between infused righteousness and imputed righteousness as your Romanist doctrine demand. We don’t see direct statements from Ireneaus stating that the ground or basis of our acceptance with God as righteous having transgressed the law is our own inherent righteousness gained through the 7 sacraments. That is merely inferred and imposed on the text. While protestant soteriology affirms that we are made righteous by our following and obeying the law in love in the process we call sanctification but also recognize that only the obedience of Christ in our behalf can reverse the verdict of the fall in justification by faith by it’s substitutionary nature. Both concepts are present in Ireneaus thus the protetant soteriology has greater explanatory power than what your article claims to portray.

    Regards,
    Joey

21. Bryan Cross August 3rd, 2012 10:46 am :

    Joey, (re: #20)

    You wrote:

    But our doctrine of justification and sanctification can agree with Irenaeus as explained above.

    St. Irenaeus says, “And that the Lord did not abrogate the natural [precepts] of the law, by which man is justified.” But such a notion is incompatible with Protestant doctrine. And elsewhere he says, “He [God] exhorts and advises them to those things by which man is justified and draws near to God.” Again, the notion that man can do something to be justified before God is incompatible with Protestant soteriology.

    We don’t need to choose between infused righteousness and imputed righteousness as your Romanist doctrine demand.

    You do need to choose which of them is the basis of justification. Protestantism makes justification based on extra nos imputation, not infused agape. But St. Irenaeus makes justification depend on infused agape.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

22. William Scott August 7th, 2012 10:50 am :

    Hello Mateo (post 14),

    You said:
    “I believe that it is wrong to say that Lutherans and Episcopalians learned from the founders of their religion the doctrine that willfully committing a venial sins entails the consequence of ceasing to be saved.”

    I apologize for being unclear. The leading English and Lutheran Reformers would definitely say that only mortal sin causes the loss of Salvation (otherwise, it wouldn’t be mortal).

    [Of course, as I noted in post 7 of the Calvin and Mortal/Venial Sin thread–although Luther affirmed that certain sins/states of sin caused the loss of Salvation (and thus are mortal) while others didn’t (and thus are venial)–he did not like to use the terms “mortal” and “venial” sin because of the Scriptural truth that all sins (venial and mortal) are against an infinite God and thus incur an infinite debt that can only be paid by the Blood of Christ.]

    As for the fact that all those who follow Christ still sin:

    Catholic Catechism (quoting St. Augustine):

    While he is in the flesh, man cannot help but have at least some light sins. But do not despise these sins which we call “light”: if you take them for light when you weigh them, tremble when you count them. A number of light objects makes a great mass; a number of drops fills a river; a number of grains makes a heap. What then is our hope? Above all, confession.

    https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a8.htm

    The above quote was taken from St. Augustine’s Homily 1 on the Epistle of John:

    6. For see what He says; If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 1 John 1:8 Consequently, if you have confessed yourself a sinner, the truth is in you: for the Truth itself is light. Your life has not yet shone in perfect brightness, because there are sins in you; but yet you have already begun to be enlightened, because there is in you the confession of sins. For see what follows: If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to purge us from all iniquity. 1 John 1:9 Not only the past, but haply if we have contracted any from this life; because a man, so long as he bears the flesh, cannot but have some at any rate light sins. But these which we call light, do not make light of. If you make light of them when you weigh them, be afraid when you count them. Many light make one huge sin: many drops fill the river; many grains make the lump. And what hope is there? Before all, confession: lest any think himself righteous, and, before the eyes of God who sees that which is, man, that was not and is, lift up the neck.

    https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/170201.htm

    The whole discourse of St. Augustine in his work On Man’s Perfection in Righteousness addresses this issue. Here are a couple of excerpts:

    Chp 17
    “…For in Your sight shall no man living be justified (Psalm 143:3). The meaning of these words is plain enough, receiving as it does additional light from the preceding clause: Enter not, says the Psalmist, into judgment with Your servant, for in Your sight shall no man living be justified. It is judgment which he fears, therefore he desires that mercy which triumphs over judgment. James 2:13 For the meaning of the prayer, Enter not into judgment with Your servant, is this: Judge me not according to Yourself, who art without sin; for in Your sight shall no man living be justified. This without doubt is understood as spoken of the present life, while the predicate shall not be justified has reference to that perfect state of righteousness which belongs not to this life.”

    Chp 21
    “He, moreover, who says that any man, after he has received remission of sins, has ever lived in this body, or still is living, so righteously as to have no sin at all, he contradicts the Apostle John, who declares that If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. 1 John 1:8 Observe, the expression is not we had, but we have.”

    https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1504.htm

    There are many other passages where St. Augustine and the other Church Fathers likewise address this issue. [St. Augustine (unlike St. Chrysostom and other Church Fathers) makes exception to the rule that all Christians sin in the case of the Blessed Virgin Mary]

    All of that said, I agree completely with you on the ability (and necessity) of the Christian to be truly victorious over sin in this life through God’s grace.

    God Bless,
    WA Scott

23. William Scott August 7th, 2012 11:13 am :

    Hello Bryan.

    You said
    “You do need to choose which of them is the basis of justification. Protestantism makes justification based on extra nos imputation, not infused agape. But St. Irenaeus makes justification depend on infused agape.”

    Exactly, St. Irenaeus uses the term “dikaioun” or “justified” according to its common patristic usage—namely, in reference to being “made righteous” or “sanctified” (in normal Protestant terminology), rather than simply applying it to the forensic aspect of Salvation (blotting out of guilt by the Blood). As noted above, the reformers themselves acknowledge such a usage of the term dikaioun (e.g. Calvin with Romans 6:7). [See quote from the ARCIC joint Roman Catholic/Anglican statement in post 7]

    Further, although different terms are used all parties agree:
    1. With the absolute necessity of forensic justification [clearing of guilt before the Throne through the covering of Christ’s Righteous Blood—so that we are reckoned as perfectly innocent/righteous apart from the true deserving of our works—again, as St. Augustine notes in his Retractions (Book 1, 19:3): “All the commandments of God are kept when what is not kept is forgiven.”]
    2. With the absolute necessity of the “justification” of infused agape/sanctification.

    I likewise affirm that we are “dikaioun” or “justified” on the basis of infused agape when the term is being used in the broader sense that St. Irenaeus and the Church Fathers typically use it.

    God Bless,
    WA Scott

24. David DeJong October 15th, 2012 1:48 pm :

    Bryan 17

    The problem presented by St. Irenaeus, however, is that he does not draw the Protestant distinction between justification and sanctification. It isn’t just an absence; he describes justification as something that increases, through works done in agape. Nor does he conceive of justification as the extra nos imputation of an alien righteousness. Nor does he hold that justification can never be lost. He teaches justification by infusion of grace and agape: both an initial justification by infusion, and then growth in justification through works done in agape.

    As Joey has said there is no need for any Protestant to disagree with Irenaeus here. The fact that his understanding of justification is so thoroughly juridical in character agrees with Protestant tradition. You say, “he describes justification as something that increases.” But I don’t see this anywhere in any of the quotations from Irenaeus that you supplied. Could you point me to a place where Irenaeus says that justification is something that increases?

25. David DeJong October 15th, 2012 1:53 pm :

    From the article:

    But God, through Christ, has in the New Covenant granted to us “to know God the Father, and to love Him with the whole heart, and to follow His word unswervingly, while [we] abstain not only from evil deeds, but even from the desire after them.” No Protestant could say this. This is, according to Protestantism, precisely what Christ has not granted to us in this life, but only in the life to come.

    Again this is an unhelpful generalization. Many many Protestants can (and do!) say this.

26. Bryan Cross October 15th, 2012 2:07 pm :

    David (re: #25),

    If you are thinking of folks in the Wesleyan holiness tradition, then I grant you that; I should have made clear that here I’m speaking of Protestants in the tradition of the magisterial reformers. No Reformed Protestant claims that in the present life God has granted us the ability to love Him with the whole heart, to follow His word unswervingly, to abstain from evil deeds, and from the desire for evil deeds.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

27. David DeJong October 15th, 2012 2:47 pm :

    Bryan 26,

    Well, yes, the Wesleyan holiness tradition certainly applies, but I think many of the magisterial reformers would also affirm that. If you read the quotations Joey supplied from Calvin (in comment 18) you will see that he speaks about the renovation of our desires. And I’m sure if you look up some Reformation-era commentaries on the love-command in the gospels, you will be surprised at what Protestants can say.

    There are real differences between Protestants and Catholics on justification. But 1) these differences are not already present at the time of Irenaeus (unless you can show me that he does indeed speak of an increase in justification); 2) these differences are often semantic (the catholic term for “justification” covers “justification” and “sanctification” in the Protestant sense, and a good deal of agreement is underneath the difference in semantic usage); 3) this is also historically evident by the near compromise at Regensburg in 1541.

28. St. Irenaeus’s Testimony to the Apostles | The Lonely Pilgrim June 29th, 2013 1:42 am :

    […] Thanks to Bryan Cross and Called to Communion for these quotations, and for a splendid exposition of justification in the thought of St. Irenaeus. […]

29. JohnD December 14th, 2013 9:12 pm :

    Bryan,

    This is an excellent article.

    How do you respond to the common Protestant response that Irenaeus cannot be trusted regarding specific Apostolic teaching because he thought Christ was 50 years old when he died?

    Peace,
    John D.

30. Bryan Cross December 14th, 2013 9:50 pm :

    JohnD (re: #29)

    I’ve addressed that (very briefly) in comment #271 of the “Why Protestantism has no visible catholic Church” thread.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

31. JohnD December 14th, 2013 10:30 pm :

    Bryan (re:#30),

    In that comment, you said:

    We don’t just go by one claim. We follow the moral consensus of the Fathers.

    I agree that such consensus reveals the falsity of the claim that Jesus was 50 years old when He died. But, unfortunately, that seems to undermine Irenaeus’ credibility when it comes to handing on Tradition.

    The Protestant objection still goes through. If Irenaeus couldn’t get this basic point correct, then can we really believe that he knew the correct teaching on justification, learned John the Apostle, and got the list of Popes right?

    Peace,
    John D.

32. Bryan Cross December 14th, 2013 10:34 pm :

    JohnD (re: #31)

    A person’s credibility does not depend on his being infallible.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

33. Craig Ostrowski December 14th, 2013 10:39 pm :

    John D & Bryan,

    Mark Bonocore wrote an interesting article about Irenaeus and his supposed belief that Jesus lived to be fifty years old.

    – Craig

34. JohnD December 15th, 2013 11:31 am :

    Craig (re:#33),

    Unfortunately, Bonocore’s article looks strained and unconvincing in light of James White’s response here: https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php/2005/01/13/more-in-response-to-mark-bonocore/

    The passage most convincing that Irenaus actually believed Jesus was much older than 33 is the following:

    But, besides this, those very Jews who then disputed with the Lord Jesus Christ have most clearly indicated the same thing. For when the Lord said to them, ‘Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad,’ they answered Him, ‘Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?’ Now, such language is fittingly applied to one who has already passed the age of forty, without having as yet reached his fiftieth year, yet is not far from this latter period. But to one who is only thirty years old it would unquestionably be said, ‘Thou art not yet forty years old.’…For it is altogether unreasonable to suppose that they were mistaken by twenty years, when they wished to prove Him younger than the times of Abraham.

    So, it seems the Protestant objection still stands that Irenaeus’ preservation of authentic apostolic teaching is flawed at the level of basic facts. So, the inference is warranted that he cannot be trusted to present an accurate list of popes, an apostolic understanding of justification, and other things.

    Peace,
    John D.

35. Bryan Cross December 15th, 2013 11:43 am :

    JohnD (re: #34)

    So, it seems the Protestant objection still stands …

    Unless what I said in #32 is true.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

36. JohnD December 15th, 2013 11:51 am :

    Bryan (re: #32)

    A person’s credibility does not depend on his being infallible.

    Agreed, but that doesn’t answer the objection.

    You say:

    Here we see how St. Irenaeus’s proximity to the Apostles informed his theology, because he understood himself to be the recipient of teaching handed down from the mouth of the Apostles, through men whom he know personally, who either knew the Apostles themselves, or knew men who knew the Apostles immediately. . .His proximity to the Apostles thus gives testimonial weight to his exposition of the gospel and his doctrine of justification.

    The objection is:

    (1) If a person really knew men who knew Apostles and remembered their teaching accurately, then he would not make an elementary blunder regarding the life of Jesus.
    (2) Irenaeus makes an elementary blunder regarding the life of Jesus.
    (3) It is not the case that Irenaeus really knew men who knew Apostles and remembered their teaching accurately. [From 1 and 2]
    So, it seems Irenaeus’ proximity to the Apostles does not yield that much testimonial weight after all.

    I’m just not sure how a Catholic ought to answer this charge.

    Peace,
    John D.

37. Bryan Cross December 15th, 2013 12:37 pm :

    JohnD (re: #36)

    Your calling it an “elementary blunder” begs the question. A person’s credibility regarding the Apostolic Tradition does not depend on being infallible about all the details of Christ’s life, including His age at death. But perhaps you’re not being adequately charitable in your interpretation of St. Irenaeus. He never says that Jesus was fifty when He died. If you look at what at what he actually says, you won’t find a statement that is false, unless you read into it what he does not say. He is making a theological argument, based on the fact that Jesus exceeded the age of thirty, against those who were claiming that Jesus was crucified at the age of thirty. But this does not entail that St. Irenaeus believed Jesus was not thirty-three when He died. Even if it is true that such language (i.e. “Thou art not yet fifty years old”) is fittingly applied to one who is already past the age of forty, it does not entail that St. Irenaeus believed that Jesus was actually older than forty if St. Irenaeus believed that (a) the Jews were not attempting to claim that Jesus was already in His forties, but were attempting to claim by way of an a fortiori argument that He was not even yet to *that* period, and (b) that the one who has exceeded the age of thirty already begins thereby to taste of older age, which is only manifested more fully as one advances from forty to fifty. So given that this more charitable reading is available, it would be uncharitable to presume unnecessarily that he was ignorant on this point. But again, even if he did believe that Jesus was older than forty, this does not discredit him as a patristic witness, nor does it make impossible a moral consensus of the Fathers regarding the Apostolic Tradition.

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

38. JohnD December 16th, 2013 5:56 am :

    Bryan (re:#37),

    Thanks for the reply. I will revisit the full context of the statement and the more charitable reading you articulated. I would agree that if a more charitable reading is available, then we ought not to assume ignorance of basic facts.

    I never say such a blunder makes impossible a moral consensus of the Fathers regarding the Apostolic Tradition. But, I suppose we disagree about the extent to which the mistake would discredit Irenaeus’ testimony to Apostolic teaching. I guess it’s hard to really pinpoint the degree to which it would discredit him, but I think such a mistake makes it reasonable to question him on things that are not confirmed by other writers around his time.

    Peace,
    John D.

39. Johannes December 16th, 2013 7:33 am :

    There is another possible reading of Irenaeus’ text, in that he is not taking into account that fifty years was, for the jews at that time, a kind of milestone age. Therefore he is basically misreading the statement ‘Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?’ as if the jews uttering it were thinking that Jesus’ age was actually close to fifty.

    Fidelity in the preservation of Apostolic Tradition does not entail infallibility in understanding idiomatic expressions of other cultures.

40. Craig Ostrowski January 9th, 2014 7:59 pm :

    Here is something else to consider regarding Irenaeus’ beliefs about the age Jesus attained. In Against Heresies 3.21.3 he wrote that “our Lord was born about the forty-first year of the reign of Augustus.” This would place the birth of Christ, according to Irenaeus, in 14 A.D.. While this year does not fall within the range commonly accepted, it is, nevertheless, interesting because of how Irenaeus dates the crucifixion. In The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching 74 he writes that “Pontius Pilate, the governor of Claudius Caesar… condemned Him to be crucified.” Since Claudius ruled from 41 to 54 A.D. that would place the age of Jesus anywhere from 27 to 40 years old. Obviously the age of 33 years falls well within that range. So while all of Irenaeus’ historical details don’t exactly add up, there is, nevertheless, a simple way to reconcile Irenaeus’ beliefs regarding the age of Jesus with the scriptural data.

    Best regards,
    Craig

41. JohnD January 9th, 2014 11:19 pm :

    Craig (re:#40),

    Thanks for your insight.

    So while all of Irenaeus’ historical details don’t exactly add up, there is, nevertheless, a simple way to reconcile Irenaeus’ beliefs regarding the age of Jesus with the scriptural data.

    I did have some trouble getting your links to work…

    Peace,
    John D.

42. Laura February 14th, 2014 3:15 am :

    John Wesley teaches that we can “go on to perfection” in love in this life. Look at his sermons “On Christian Perfection” and “The Character of a Methodist.”

43. Kyle June 5th, 2015 6:47 pm :

    Hi! Thank you for the well written article! I think you are mis-representing the Protestant view when you say:
    “Here too St. Irenaeus presents a very Catholic principle: He says that the more we have loved Him in this life, the more glory we shall receive from Him in heaven. This is not the Protestant notion that God loses glory if man receives glory, as if glory is a limited commodity. This is the Catholic principle that God is most glorified in His saints when His saints are made glorious through Him. As St. Irenaeus says in the following chapter, “we do participate in the glory of the Lord, who has both formed us, and prepared us for this, that, when we are with Him, we may partake of His glory.” (Against Heresies IV.14.1)”
    See Baptist Pastor John Piper’s works (desiringgod.org) where one of his primary themes is that “God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied (joyful, glorified) in Him” (along with Jonathan Edwards and he also gives credit to CS Lewis). I believe he would completely agree when you claim: “God is most glorified in His saints when His saints are made glorious through Him”. But I don’t think it is fair to say that idea is Catholic and not Protestant. Thank you again for your work! Kyle

44. Bryan Cross June 6th, 2015 12:08 am :

    Hello Kyle, (re: #43)

    I’ve read Piper’s works, and his is still a zero-sum conception of glory in relation to soteriological causation. (A commonly used expression by early Protestants was Soli Deo gloria, i.e. to God alone be the glory, one of the five ‘solas’ of the Reformation.) I’ve discussed that conception of the relation of glory and causation in “The Gospel and the Paradox of Glory,” and again in “Trent and the Gospel: A Reply to Tim Challies.”

    In the peace of Christ,

    – Bryan

45. Kyle June 6th, 2015 10:25 am :

    Hi Bryan,
    Thank you so much for the quick response. I will read your articles and look further into what your reply involves. I appreciate it much! Have a blessed weekend. Kyle

46. Paul Owen December 18th, 2017 4:12 pm :

    I have noticed that the debate over Irenaeus and the age of Jesus has been coming up on the internet lately, so I thought I would add a few thoughts to what has been mentioned here. First of all, if one looks carefully at the argument of Against Heresies 2.22.4-6, Irenaeus is arguing against the position held by some heretics, that Jesus died in his 30th year, and insists that Jesus reached his 40th year, as seen in John 8:56-57 (a view which he says is confirmed by the elders who knew St. John). Irenaeus absolutely does not say that Jesus was almost 50 in the narrow sense of someone being closer to 50 than 40, but only in the broader sense of someone well past the age of 30, so that Jesus was judged by the Jews to be, not less than 40 (as one might say of a 30-year-old), but rather less than 50. It would be evident that a 30-year-old was not yet 40, but Jesus was old enough that it was only evident that he was not yet 50 (something which would NOT be true of a person well on into their 40’s). So Irenaeus did apparently believe that Jesus reached his 40th year, but he never implies that Jesus lived to be almost 50 (again unless in the broader sense of being well past the age of 30). People expand this to the claim that Irenaeus thought Jesus lived to be about 50 in order to make him look silly and unreliable, when the fact is the observation based on John 8:56-57 only works if Jesus is closer to 40 than 50 (otherwise the Jews would have accused him of being only 50 years old or so, rather than being clearly less than 50).

    But secondly, what is almost always left out of these discussions is the wide range of opinion regarding the chronology of the life of Jesus. See for example the discussions in Harold Hoehner’s, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ. Scholarly consensus puts the birth of Jesus at somewhere between 3/2 BC and 7/6 BC, although one can find dates as late as 1 BC and as early as 20 BC (with 11-9 BC being another outside possibility raised in the literature). While many favor a date between 6-4 BC, there remains quite a spectrum of learned opinion some 2,000 years (and countless books and dissertations) later, because it is simply difficult to say with complete certainty what year Jesus was born. I happen to favor a date of December, 5 BC, but Jesus could well have been born several years before or after this date. Likewise with the death of Jesus, scholarly opinion ranges anywhere from the years AD 21-36, with most scholars favoring a date of 27, 28, 29, 30, 32 or 33 (with 30 and 33 the favorite picks). As anyone can see, there remains quite a range of modern opinion, even with all of the resources for scholarly reconstruction at our disposal.

    So if Jesus could have been born anywhere from 2-7 BC (taking only centrist opinion as representative) and most likely died somewhere between AD 27-33, we should probably allow Irenaeus (and the unnamed “elders”) some leeway in terms of the precision of Jesus’ age, since Irenaeus was born about 100 years after the death of Jesus, and did not have convenient access to the internet or modern Bible dictionaries. If for example, Jesus was born in December of 7 BC (entirely possible), and died in AD 33 (quite likely in fact), then Jesus would have passed the mark of 39 years (having turned 39 the previous December, AD 32) and so would have been in his 40th year of life. If Jesus was born in 8 BC (still reasonable), then Jesus would have hit the full age of 40 years in December of AD 32, a few months before his death in AD 33. If, as seems more likely, Jesus was born in December of 6 or 5 BC, then Jesus would have died at the age of 37 or 38. That hardly makes Irenaeus’ opinion that Jesus reached the age of 40 something worthy of ridicule. By any fair standard of precision, whether ancient or modern, Irenaeus was certainly in the ballpark. The same holds true if you shift the dates a bit and have Jesus born in 4-3 BC and dying in AD 34 for example (other possible dates); Jesus would have lived on earth according to those chronologies to the age of 36 or 37, still in the ballpark of 40 (if you round numbers past 35 up). At the end of the day, it does appear likely (though not certain) that Irenaeus was off by about 3 years in his opinion about Jesus’ life span, an error which is rather inconsequential considering that Our Lord could have been born as early as 20 BC and died as late as AD 36 according to the wisdom of modern biblical scholarship.

47. JohnD December 19th, 2017 11:58 pm :

    Paul (re: #46),

    This is very interesting.

    First of all, if one looks carefully at the argument of Against Heresies 2.22.4-6, Irenaeus is arguing against the position held by some heretics, that Jesus died in his 30th year, and insists that Jesus reached his 40th year, as seen in John 8:56-57 (a view which he says is confirmed by the elders who knew St. John).

    In comment #37 above, Bryan offers a reading that would not entail Irenaeus thought Jesus was at least 40. Do you disagree with this possibility? If so why?

    Also, Paul, I’m curious if you think Irenaeus’ basic error undermines his credibility regarding the life and teachings of Jesus.

    Peace,
    John D.

48. Ken Temple December 21st, 2017 7:45 pm :

    Hi Paul,
    How would all of that (comment # 46 above) square with Luke 3:23, which says that Jesus was about 30 years old when He started His ministry?

49. Paul Owen December 22nd, 2017 3:25 pm :

    John D,
    I agree that Bryan’s reading is possible. Irenaeus says, “from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed.” And again in regard to John 8:56-57, “Now such language is fittingly applied to one who has already passed the age of forty.” Bryan takes this to mean that Jesus reached the proximity of the period of old age in that he was clearly well past 30 (when youth begins to wane); and it is just possible that Irenaeus only means that the Jews plausibly conjectured that Jesus had reached the age of forty (a conjecture which would be fitting for any man well into his 30’s). The main reason I do not take this view is because Irenaeus thinks it possible that the Jews took Jesus to be passed 40 years because they “had ascertained this out of the entry in the public register.” But this would mean they were correct, which requires at the least that Irenaeus thought Jesus might have reached forty, meaning then that Irenaeus was quite confident Jesus was not in his early 30’s. On the whole it seems more natural to read Irenaeus as saying that Jesus reached 40 before he died, though I don’t think he would be shocked to find out Jesus was only in his late 30’s, or around 40, which could well be all that the elders had claimed to start with.

    And no, I don’t think this effects Irenaeus’ credibility at all. Jesus well may have reached 40, even by modern estimates! And even if he did not, it is entirely possible, if not likely, that Jesus reached his mid to late 30’s, which means he did in fact die around 40 years of age. To illustrate how close to the mark Irenaeus was, most modern scholars think Jesus died in AD 30 or AD 33 and was born between 4-6 BC, though some say 2-3 BC. That is a range of several years on either end, meaning some modern scholars are off three or more years in their calculations; and I’m not even including the wider ranges of dates I mentioned above! But does that mean the scholars who have the wrong dates are unreliable? Of course not, yet Irenaeus (without access to modern research tools) is only a few years off as well, if Jesus died in his mid to late 30’s. Let’s not forget that scholars of unquestioned ability disagree on the date of the exodus by a couple of centuries! And Jeremiah under prophetic inspiration predicted 70 years of Babylonian captivity, whereas the exile only lasted from 605-538 BC (67 years). We have to allow for rounded numbers and approximations when it comes to years and dates in antiquity. I should add that this problem is exacerbated by the typo in the heading for Against Heresies, 2.22 (ANF Vol. I, p. 390), which reads in summary that Christ “was more than fifty years old when he died.” That is quite obviously a mistake, reading “fifty” where it should say “forty.” Irenaeus does NOT claim Jesus lived to be more than 50, but only that he lived to be nearly 50, and only in the sense that a person of 40 years is 4/5ths of the way to 50.

50. Paul Owen December 22nd, 2017 3:39 pm :

    Ken,
    I’m not sure what specifically you are getting at in terms of the points I raised, but Luke says Jesus was “about” (Gk. hosei) 30, which could be taken in a stricter sense (late 20’s to early 30’s) or a looser sense (30 something, or in his 30’s). My view would require the stricter sense, whereas Irenaeus’ view would need the looser sense.
    Hope that helps!

    In Christ and Our Lady,
    Paul

51. Fullness of the Truth Pt. 2.3: Sola Fide - Folly of the Cross September 17th, 2020 9:05 am :

    […] For more on this, see Dr. Bryan Cross’s article St. Irenaeus on Justification. https://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/07/st-irenaeus-on-justification/#jbf ↩ […]

Leave Comment

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Δ

Called to Communion

Called to Communion on Facebook

Stay Informed

Subscribe to all posts
Subscribe by email
Subscribe to comments

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

The Obscurity of Scripture

A Thai Lesson in Ecumenism

A Response to Steven Nemes’s “Why Remain Protestant?”

Open Forum

Casey Chalk Discusses TULIP on the Creedal Catholic Podcast

That There Be No Schisms Among You

Alister McGrath’s Conversion on Justification

Does the Devil Make You a Catholic?

John Calvin on Dead Faith

St. John Chrysostom on Sola Fide

St. Ambrose on Sola Fide

How Are We Saved?

Authors

Barrett Turner

Beth Turner

Bryan Cross

Casey Chalk

David Anders

Deacon Jason Stewart

Fred Noltie

Guest Author

J. Andrew Deane

Jason Kettinger

Jeremy Tate

John Kincaid

Joshua Lim

Marc Ayers

Matt Yonke

Neal Judisch

Sean Patrick

Tim Troutman

Tom Brown

Tom Riello

Video