Calvinism’s Surprising Catholic Connection
What Love Is This? (Chapter 4)
Dave Hunt
As for Calvin’s theology, there is no question that rather than deriving it from a diligent study of the Bible, he imposed upon the Bible certain preconceived ideas from his Roman Catholic background which locked him into an erroneous interpretation. Many leading Calvinists agree that the writings of Augustine were the actual source of most of what is known as Calvinism today. Calvinists David Steele and Curtis Thomas point out that “The basic doctrines of the Calvinistic position had been vigorously defended by Augustine against Pelagius during the fifth century.” ‘ In his eye-opening book, The Other Side of Calvinism, Laurence M. Vance thoroughly documents that “John Calvin did not originate the doctrines that bear his name. This is stated emphatically by Calvinists. ...” Vance quotes numerous well-known Calvinists to this effect. For example, Kenneth G. Talbot and W.
Gary Crampton write, “The system of doctrine which bears the name of John Calvin was in no way originated by him. B.B. Warfield declared, “The system of doctrine taught by Calvin is just the Augustinianism common to the whole body of the Reformers.” 4 Thus the debt which the creeds coming out of the Reformation owe to Augustine is also acknowledged. This is not surprising in view of the fact that most of the Reformers had been part of the Roman Catholic Church, of which Augustine was the most highly regarded “saint” - and Calvin and Luther continued to revere him and his doctrines. C.H. Spurgeon admitted that “perhaps Calvin himself derived it [Calvinism] mainly from the writings of Augustine.” Alvin L. Baker wrote, “There is hardly a doctrine of Calvin that does not bear the marks of Augustine’s influence.” 6 For example, the following from Augustine sounds like an echo reverberating through the writings of Calvin:
. . . even as he has appointed them to be regenerated ... whom he predestinated to everlasting life, as the most merciful bestower of grace, whilst to those whom he has predestinated to eternal death, he is also the most righteous awarder of punishment.’
C. Gregg Singer said, “The main features of Calvin’s theology are found in the writings of St. Augustine to such an extent that many theologians regard Calvinism as a more fully developed form of Augustinianism.” 8 Such statements are staggering declarations in view of the undisputed fact that, as Vance points out, the Roman Catholic Church itself has a better claim on Augustine than do the Calvinists.’ Consider the following from Calvin himself:
Augustine is so wholly with me, that if I wished to write a confession of my faith, I could do so with all fulness and satisfaction to myself out of his writings.” 10
Augustine And The Use Of Force
In the fourth century, the Donatists led a movement for purification of the church. They believed that the church should be a pure communion of true believers who demonstrated the truth of the gospel in their lives. Donatists abhorred the apostasy that had come into the church when Constantine wedded Christianity to paganism in order to unify the empire. They considered compromising clergy to be “evil priests working hand in glove with the kings of the earth, men who by their conduct show that they have no king but Caesar.” To the Donatists, the church was a “small body of saved surrounded by the unregenerate mass.” “
Augustine, on the other hand, saw the church as a mixture of believers and unbelievers, in which purity and evil should be allowed to exist side by side for the sake of unity. He used the power of the state to compel church attendance (as Calvin did 1,200 years later): “Whoever was not found within the Church was not asked the reason, but was to be corrected and converted ....” 12. Calvin followed his mentor Augustine in enforcing church attendance and participation in the sacraments by threats (and worse) against the citizens of Geneva. Augustine “identified the Donatists as heretics . . . who could be subjected to imperial legislation [and force] in exactly the same way as other criminals and misbelievers, including poisoners and pagans.” “ Frend says of Augustine, “The questing, sensitive youth had become the father of the inquisition.” 14
Though he preferred persuasion if possible, Augustine supported the death penalty for those who were rebaptized as believers after conversion to Christ and for other alleged heretics. In his controversy with the Donatists, using a distorted and un-Christian interpretation of Luke 14:23, Augustine made statements for Christianity which sounded like Islam’s forceful measures against those who defect from that religion of violence:
Why therefore should not the Church use force in compelling her lost sons to return? ... The Lord Himself said, “Go out into the highways and hedges and compel them to come in Wherefore is the power which the Church has received ... through the religious character and faith of kings ... the instrument by which those who are found in the highways and hedges - that i s, i n heresies and schisms - are compelled to come in, and let them not find fault with being compelled. 15
This is the man whom Calvin admired above all others and upon whom he relied for much of his theology. Sadly, as we shall see later, Calvin put into effect in Geneva the very principles of punishment, coercion and death which Augustine advocated. Henry H. Milman puts it well: “Augustinianism was worked up into a still more rigid and uncompromising system by the severe intellect of Calvin.” 16 And he justified his actions by the same erroneous interpretation of Luke 14:23 which Augustine had used to justify suppression of the Donatists with military force. Do those who today hail Calvin as a great exegete accept such usage of this passage?
Augustine’s Dominant Influence
There is no question as to the important role Augustine played in molding Calvin’s thinking, theology and actions. This is particularly true concerning the key foundations of Calvinism. Warfield refers to Calvin and Augustine as “two extraordinarily gifted men [who] tower like pyramids over the scene of history.” “ Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion make repeated favorable references to Augustine, frequently citing his writings as authoritative and even using the expression confirmed by the authority of Augustine.” 18 Calvin often credits Augustine with having formulated key concepts which he then expounds in his Institutes. The following are but a very small sampling of such references:
“ We have come into the way of faith,” says Augustine: “Let us constantly adhere to it ....” 19 The truth of God is too powerful, both here and everywhere, to dread the slanders of the ungodly, as Augustine powerfully maintains .... Augustine disguises not that ... he was often charged with preaching the doctrine of predestination too freely, but ... he abundantly refutes the charge .... For it has been shrewdly observed by Augustine (de Genesis ad Literam, Lib. V.), that we can safely follow Scripture .... 20 For Augustine, rightly expounding this passage, says .... 21 I say with Augustine, that the Lord has created those who, as he certainly foreknew, were to go to destruction, and he did so because he so willed. 22 If your mind is troubled, decline not to embrace the counsel of Augustine ...23
I will not hesitate, therefore, simply to confess with Augustine that ... those things will certainly happen which he [God] has foreseen [and] that the destruction [of the non-elect] consequent upon predestination is also most just. 24
Augustine, in two passages in particular, gives a [favorable] portraiture of the form of ancient monasticism. [Calvin then proceeds to quote Augustine’s commendation of the early monks.] 25
Here the words of Augustine most admirably apply .... 26 This is a faithful saying from Augustine; but because his words will perhaps have more authority than mine, let us adduce the following passage from his treatise Wherefore, Augustine not undeservedly orders such, as senseless teachers or sinister and ill-omened prophets, to retire from the Church. 20
We could multiply many times over the above examples of Augustine’s influence upon Calvin and add to them the scores of times Calvin quotes extensively from Augustine’s writings. The truth (acknowledged even by leading Calvinists) is that Calvin’s basic beliefs were already formed while he was still a devout Roman Catholic, through reading and studying the writings of Augustine and the Latin Vulgate Bible. Clearly, that influence remained with him throughout his life.
Augustinian teachings which Calvin presented in his Institutes included the sovereignty that made God the cause of all (including sin), the predestination of some to salvation and of others to damnation, election and reprobation, faith as an irresistible gift from God - in fact, the key concepts at the heart of Calvinism. Nor can we find where Calvin disapproved of any of Augustine’s heresies. Reformed Calvinist Richard A. Muller admits, “John Calvin was part of a long line of thinkers who based their doctrine of predestination on the Augustinian interpretation of St. Paul.” 29 There is simply no way to claim honestly that Calvin’s Institutes represent insights which he received from the Holy Spirit through the study of God’s Word subsequent to his conversion to Luther’s Protestantism. In the latest additions to the original he is quoting and relying upon Augustine even more than ever.
Is Calvinism Really A Protestant Belief?
That many prominent evangelicals today are still under the spell of Augustine is evident- and astonishing, considering his numerous heresies. Norm Geisler has said, “St. Augustine was one of the greatest Christian thinkers of all time.” 30 Yet Augustine said, “I should not believe the gospel unless I were moved to do so by the authority of the Catholic Church.” That statement was quoted with great satisfaction by Pope John Paul II in his 1986 celebration of the 1600th anniversary of Augustine’s conversion. The Pope went on to say:
Augustine’s legacy . . . is the theological methods to which he remained absolutely faithful ... full adherence to the authority of the faith ... revealed through Scripture, Tradition and the Church .... Likewise the profound sense of mystery - “for it is better,” he exclaims, “to have a faithful ignorance than a presumptuous knowledge. ...”
I express once again my fervent desire ... that the authoritative teaching of such a great doctor and pastor may flourish ever more happily in the Church .... 31 Vance provides additional astonishing quotations from Calvinists praising Augustine: “One of the greatest theological and philosophical minds that God has ever so seen fit to give to His church.” 32 “The greatest Christian since New Testament times ... greatest man that ever wrote Latin.” 33 “[His] labors and writings, more than those of any other man in the age in which he lived, contributed to the promotion of sound doctrine and the revival of true religion.” 34 Warfield adds, “Augustine determined for all time the doctrine of grace.” 35
Yet he [Augustine] believed that grace came through the Roman Catholic sacraments. That Calvinists shower such praise upon Augustine makes it easier to comprehend the same praise heaped upon Calvin. Augustine was no ordinary Roman Catholic but unquestionably the most famous and influential one in history. Vance reminds us that Augustine was “one of Catholicism’s original four ‘Doctors of the Church’ [with] a feast day [dedicated to him] in the Catholic Church on August 28, the day of his death.” 36 Pope John Paul II has called Augustine “the common father of our Christian civilization.” 3’
William P Grady, on the other hand, writes, “The deluded Augustine (354-430) went so far as to announce (through his book, The City of God) that Rome had been privileged to usher in the millennial kingdom (otherwise known as the ‘Dark Ages’).” 38
Drawing From A Polluted Stream
Sir Robert Anderson reminds us that “the Roman [Catholic] Church was molded by Augustine into the form it has ever since maintained. Of all the errors that later centuries developed in the teachings of the church, scarcely one cannot be found in embryo in his writings.” 39 Those errors include infant baptism for regeneration (infants who die unbaptized are damned), the necessity of baptism for the remission of sins (martyrdom does the same), purgatory, salvation in the Church alone through its sacraments and persecution of those who reject Catholic dogmas. Augustine also fathered acceptance of the Apocrypha (which he admitted even the Jews rejected), allegorical interpretation of the Bible (thus the creation account, the six days, etc. in Genesis are not necessarily literal), and rejection of the literal personal reign of Christ on earth for a thousand years (we are now in the millennial reign of Christ with the Church reigning and the devil presently bound). [See The Millenium]
Augustine insists that Satan is now “bound” on the basis that “even now men are, and doubtless to the end of the world shall be, converted to the faith from the unbelief in which he [Satan] held them.” That he views this promised binding of Satan in the “bottomless pit” (Revelation 20:1-3) allegorically is clear. Amazingly, Satan “is bound in each instance in which he is spoiled of one of his goods” [i.e., someone believes in Christ]. And even more amazing, “the abyss in which he is shut up” is somehow construed by Augustine to be “in the depths” of Christ-rejectors’ “blind hearts.” It is thus that Satan is continually shut up as in an abyss. Augustine doesn’t attempt to explain how he arrived at such an astonishing idea, much less how one abyss could exist in millions of hearts or how, being “bound” there, Satan would not be free to blind those within whose “hearts” he is supposedly bound (2 Corinthians 4:4). Nor does he explain how or why in spite of Satan being bound, Christ commissioned Paul to turn Jew and Gentile “from the power of Satan unto God” (Acts 26:18), Paul could deliver the Corinthian fornicator to Satan (1 Corinthians 5:5), Satan can transform himself “into an angel of light” (2 Corinthians 11:14), Paul would warn the Ephesian believers not to “give place to the devil” (Ephesians 4:27) and urge them and us today to “stand against the wiles of the devil” (6:11), Satan could still be going about “like a roaring lion ... seeking whom he may devour” ( l Peter 5:8) and able to continually accuse Christians before God and with his angels to wage war in heaven against “Michael and his angels” and at last be cast out of heaven to earth (Revelation 12:7-10), etc..
Augustine was one of the first to place the authority of tradition on a level with the Bible and to incorporate much philosophy, especially Platonism, into his theology. Exposing the folly of those who praise Augustine, Vance writes:
He believed in apostolic succession from Peter as one of the marks of the true church, taught that Mary was sinless and promoted her worship. He was the first who defined the so-called sacraments as a visible sign of invisible grace . . . .The memorial of the Lord’s supper became that of the spiritual presence of Christ’s body and blood. To Augustine the only true church was the Catholic Church. Writing against the Donatists, he asserted: “The Catholic Church alone is the body of Christ .... Outside this body the Holy Spirit giveth life to no one ... [and] he is not a partaker of divine love who is the enemy of unity. Therefore they have not the Holy Ghost who are outside the Church. 41
And this is the man whom Geisler calls “one of the greatest Christian thinkers of all time.” On the contrary, Calvin drew from a badly polluted stream when he embraced the teachings of Augustine! How could one dip into such contaminating heresy without becoming confused and infected? Yet this bewildering muddle of speculation and formative Roman Catholicism is acknowledged to be the source of Calvinism - and is praised by leading evangelicals! One comes away dumbfounded at the acclaim heaped upon both Calvin and Augustine by otherwise sound Christian leaders.
An Amazing Contradiction
Calvin’s almost complete agreement with Augustine is nothing short of astounding. Calvin called himself “an Augustinian theologian.” 42 Of Augustine he said, “whom we quote frequently, as being the best and most faithful witness of all antiquity.” 43 It is Calvinists themselves who insist upon the connection between Calvin and Augustine. McGrath writes, “Above all, Calvin regarded his thought as a faithful exposition of the leading ideas of Augustine of Hippo.” 44 Wendell concedes, “Upon points of doctrine he borrows from St. Augustine with both hands.” 45
Vance writes:
Howbeit, to prove conclusively that Calvin was a disciple of Augustine, we need look no further than Calvin himself. One can’t read five pages in Calvin’s Institutes without seeing the name of Augustine. Calvin quotes Augustine over four hundred times in the Institutes alone. He called Augustine by such titles as “holy man” and “holy father.” 46 As Vance further points out, “Calvinists admit that Calvin was heavily influenced by Augustine in forming his doctrine of predestination.” 41 How could one of the principal leaders of the Reformation embrace so fully the doctrines of one who has been called “the first real Roman Catholic” 48 and the “principal theological creator of the Latin-Catholic system as distinct from ... evangelical Protestantism . . . “? 49 And what should be said of the fact that so many evangelical leaders continue to hold both Augustine and Calvin in such high regard?
Calvin’s admiration of Augustine and his embracing of much of his teaching is only one of several major contradictions in his life which will be fully documented in this book. Sadly, much Roman Catholicism was carried over by Calvin (as well as by Luther) into Reformed churches, where it remains to this day. The situation is contradictory on the Roman Catholic side as well. Their dogmas reject some of the most important doctrines held by the most famous of their saints - the very Augustinian doctrines which Calvin embraced.
Calvinists seem equally inconsistent. How can Warfield sincerely declare that “it is Augustine who gave us the Reformation” 50 and at the same time acknowledge that Augustine was “in a true sense the founder of Roman Catholicism and “the creator of the Holy Roman Empire”? 52 Such incongruous statements leave one truly perplexed. Most inconsistent of all, at least on the part of Calvin himself, was his apparent failure to recognize that Augustine never seems to have understood salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Philip F. Congdon writes, “Another curious parallel is evident between Classical Calvinist theology and Roman Catholic theology. The two share an inclusion of works in the gospel message, and an impossibility of assurance of salvation. ...Both hold to the primacy of God’s grace; both include the necessity of our works.” 53
Augustine’s heresies, especially his Romanist view of faith in Christ being supplemented by good works and the sacraments, were not lost on Luther, who wrote:
In the beginning, I devoured Augustine, but when ... I knew what justification by faith really was, then it was out with him. 5
To make it more confusing, leading Calvinists suggest that I side with Roman Catholicism by rejecting Calvinism even though it comes largely from the ultimate Roman Catholic, Augustine. Here is how one writer expressed it to me:
And given that the position you espouse is, in fact, utterly opposed to the very heart of the message of the Reformers, and is instead in line with Rome’s view of man’s will and the nature of grace, I find it tremendously inconsistent on your part. You speak often of opposing the traditions of men, yet, in this case, you embrace the very traditions that lie at the heart of Rome’s “gospel.” 55
On the contrary, it seems that the Reformers and their creeds are infected with ideas that came from the greatest Roman Catholic, Augustine himself. Furthermore, a rejection of Election, Predestination and the Preservation of the Saints as defined by Calvinists is hardly embracing “the heart of Rome’s ‘gospel.”’ The real heart of Rome’s gospel is good works and sacraments.
Certainly Calvin’s retention of sacramentalism, baptismal regeneration for infants and honoring the Roman Catholic priesthood as valid is a more serious embrace of Catholicism’s false gospel than is a rejection of Calvinism. Such a rejection requires no agreement with Rome whatsoever on any part of its heretical doctrines of salvation. On the other hand, Calvinism retains much from Calvin’s Roman Catholic heritage. It is staggering that the predominant influence upon Reformed theology and creeds could be so closely related to the very Roman Catholicism against which the Reformers rebelled. Nevertheless, this is a proven fact readily admitted by ardent Calvinists. Yet those who fail to bow to these creeds are allegedly “in error.” How the Protestant creeds came to be dominated by Calvinistic doctrine is an interesting story.
The Role Of The Latin Vulgate
Along with the writings of Augustine, the Latin Vulgate was another source that molded Calvin’s thoughts into what he expressed in his Institutes of the Christian Religion. Fluent in Latin, Calvin had long used that corrupted translation of the Bible, which, since its composition by Jerome at the beginning of the fifth century, was the official Bible of Roman Catholics. It was again so declared by the Council of Trent in 1546 when Calvin was 37 years of age. More than that, its influence reached into the Protestant movement: “For one thousand years the Vulgate was practically the only Bible known and read in Western Europe. All commentaries were based upon the Vulgate text ... preachers based their sermons on it.” 56 The Vulgate was permeated with Augustinian views on predestination and the rejection of free will. According to Philip Schaff, “The Vulgate can be charged, indeed, with innumerable faults, inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and arbitrary dealing in particulars.” 51 Others have expressed the same opinion. Samuel Berger called the Vulgate “the most vulgarized and bastardized text imaginable.” 58 Grady says, “Damasus commissioned Jerome to revive the archaic Old Latin Bible in A.D. 382 . . . the completed monstrosity became known as the Latin ‘Vulgate’ . . . and was used of the devil to usher in the Dark Ages.” 59 Fisk reminds us:
Well-known examples of far-reaching errors include the whole system of Catholic “penance,” drawn from the Vulgate’s “do penance” ... when the Latin should have followed the Greek - repent. Likewise the word “sacrament” was a mis-reading from the Vulgate of the original word for mystery. Even more significant, perhaps, was the rendering of the word presbyter (elder) as “priest. “60 Augustine described the problem that led to the production of the Vulgate:
“In the earliest days of the faith, when a Greek manuscript came into anyone’s hands, and he thought he possessed a little facility in both languages, he ventured to make a translation [into Latin].” 61 As a consequence of such individual endeavor, Bruce says, “The time came, however, when the multiplicity of [Latin] texts [of Scripture] became too inconvenient to be tolerated any longer, and Pope Damasus ... commissioned his secretary, Jerome, to undertake the work” of revision to produce one authorized Latin version.
Bruce continues: “He [Jerome] was told to be cautious for the sake of weaker brethren’ who did not like to see their favorite texts tampered with, even in the interests of greater accuracy. Even so, he went much too far for the taste of many, while he himself knew that he was not going far enough.” 62 Unger’s Bible Dictionary comments:
For many centuries it [Vulgate] was the only Bible generally used .... In the age of the Reformation the Vulgate [influenced] popular versions. That of Luther (N.T. in 1523) was the most important and in this the Vulgate had great weight. From Luther the influence of the Latin passed to our own Authorized Version [KJV] .... 63
The Geneva And King James Bibles And Protestant Creeds
Of no small importance to our study is the fact that this corrupt translation had an influence upon the Protestant churches in Europe, England and America. That influence carried into the Geneva Bible (which has further problems; see below) as well as into other early versions of the English Bible and even into the King James of today.
The Vulgate contributed erroneous renderings to the King James Bible, two of which are used today by Calvinists to support Unconditional Election and Irresistible Grace: Acts 2:47 (“And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.”) and Acts 13:48 (“and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.”). From the Greek, the first should read, “those who were being saved,” and the second should read, “as many as were disposed toward eternal life.” This will be discussed in more detail later.
Please See InPlainSite.org Footnote on these two verses.
As the Vulgate was filled with Augustinianisms, the Geneva Bible was filled with Calvinism in the text as well as in voluminous notes. H.S. Miller’s General Biblical Introduction says, “It was a revision of Tyndale’s, with an Introduction by Calvin ... the work of English reformers, assisted by Beza, Calvin, and possibly others.” J. R. Dore, in Old Bibles: An Account of the Early Versions of the English Bible, 2nd edition, adds that “almost every chapter [of the Geneva Bible] has voluminous notes full of Calvinistic doctrine.” Andrew Edgar, in The Bibles of England, declares, “At the time the Geneva Bible was first published, Calvin was the ruling spirit in Geneva. All the features of his theological, ecclesiastical, political, and social system are accordingly reflected in the marginal annotations ....The doctrine of predestination is proclaimed to be the head cornerstone of the gospel.” 64
W. Hoare says in The Evolution of the English Bible, “Considered as a literary whole it [the Geneva Bible] has about it the character of a Calvinist manifesto ... a book with a special purpose.” F. F. Bruce adds, “The notes of the Geneva Bible ... are, to be sure, unashamedly Calvinistic in doctrine ... the Calvinism’s people of England and Scotland ... learned much of their biblical exegesis from these notes . . . . The Geneva Bible immediately won, and retained, widespread popularity. It became the household Bible of English-speaking Protestants .... This became the authorized Bible in Scotland and was brought to America where it had a strong influence.” 65 Butterworth points out, “In the lineage of the King James Bible this [Geneva Bible] is by all means the most important single volume .... The Geneva Bible ... had a very great influence in the shaping of the King James Bible.” 66 Robinson is even more emphatic:
A large part of its [Geneva Bible] innovations are included in the Authorized Version [KJV] .... Sometimes the Geneva text and the Geneva margin are taken over intact, sometimes the text becomes the margin and the margin the text. Sometimes the margin becomes the text and no alternative is offered. Very often the Genevan margin becomes the Authorized Version text with or without verbal change. 67 Further documentation could be given, but this should be sufficient to trace the influence from that ultimate Roman Catholic, Augustine, through the Latin Vulgate and his writings, upon Calvin, and through Calvin into the Geneva Bible and on into the King James Bible, thus into the pulpits and homes of Protestants throughout Europe, England and America. It is small wonder, then, that those who, like Ariminius, dared to question Calvinism, were overwhelmed with opposition. Of course, various synods and assemblies were held to formulate accepted creeds and to punish the dissenters, but the decks were stacked in favor of Calvinism, and no influence to mitigate this error was allowed. This will be documented in Chapters 5 and 6.
The New Geneva Study Bible
Today’s New Geneva Study Bible (recently reprinted as The Reformation Study Bible) is being widely distributed in an effort to indoctrinate the readers into Calvinism. Its New King James translation is appealing. As with the original Geneva Bible, however, the notes are Calvinistic treatises. In his foreword, R.C. Sproul writes, “The New Geneva Study Bible is so called because it stands in the tradition of the original Geneva Bible .... The light of the Reformation was the light of the Bible .... The Geneva Bible was published in 1560 ... [and] dominated the English-speaking world for a hundred years .... Pilgrims and Puritans carried the Geneva Bible to the shores of the New World. American colonists were reared on the Geneva Bible .... The New Geneva Study Bible contains a modern restatement of Reformation truth in its comments and theological notes. Its purpose is to present the light of the Reformation afresh.” In fact, its purpose is to indoctrinate the reader into Calvinism, which inaccurately is marketed as “Reformation truth” - as though Calvinism and Protestantism are identical.
There was, in fact, much more to the Reformation than Calvinism. Calvinism is experiencing a resurgence among evangelicals today. How is that possible apart from ignorance of what Calvin really taught and practiced and of what Augustine, from whom he obtained most of his beliefs, taught and practiced as well? How else, other than ignorance of the truth about these men and their teachings, can one explain Boettner’s sincere declaration that “Calvin and Augustine easily rank as the two outstanding systematic expounders of the Christian system since Saint Paul”? 68 Or the following from Spurgeon who was otherwise so sound in doctrine, “Augustine obtained his views, without doubt, through the Spirit of God, from the diligent study of the writings of Paul, and Paul received them of the Holy Ghost, from Jesus Christ”? 69.
One views these and other similar statements by today’s evangelical leaders with utter astonishment. How was it possible that Loraine Boettner, one of the foremost apologists opposing the Roman Catholic Church, could so highly praise Augustine whom the entire world recognizes as the premier Roman Catholic who gave that Church so many of its basic doctrines that he is among the most highly honored of its “saints” to this day? As for Spurgeon, would he have considered that Augustine’s teaching of salvation by the Roman Catholic Church alone through its sacraments beginning with regeneration by infant baptism, the use of force even to the death against “heretics,” acceptance of the Apocrypha, allegorical interpretation of creation and the prophecies concerning Israel, a rejection of the literal reign of Christ on David’s throne and so much other false doctrine had also all been received from the Holy Spirit? How could Augustine, and Calvin who embraced and passed on many of his major errors, be so wrong on so much and yet be inspired of the Holy Spirit as regards predestination, election, sovereignty, etc.? Sadly, the history of the church, both ancient and modern, includes many prominent Christians who were very godly and of sound doctrine in some respects while in grave error in others. These important doctrines will be addressed in the following pages and compared carefully with the teaching of God’s Word.
Notes
1 David N. Steele and Curtis C. Thomas, The Five Points of Calvinism ( Presbyterian and
Reformed Publishing Co., 1963), 19.
2 Laurence M. Vance, The Other Side of Calvinism ( Vance Publications, Pensacola FL,
rev. ed., 1999), 37.
3 Kenneth G. Talbot and W. Gary Crampton, Calvinism, Hyper-Calvinism and Arminianism
( Still Water Revival Books, 1990), 78.
4 Benjamin B. Warfield, Calvin and Augustine, ed. Samuel G. Craig (Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1956), 22.
5 Charles Haddon Spurgeon, ed., Exposition of the Doctrine of Grace ( Pilgrim Publications,
n.d.), 298.
6 Alvin L. Baker, Berkouwer’s Doctrine of Election: Balance or Imbalance? ( Presbyterian
and Reformed Publishing Co., 1981), 25.
7 Augustine, On the Soul and its Origins, 4.16.
8 C. Gregg Singer, John Calvin: His Roots and Fruits ( A Press, 1989), vii.
9 Vance, op. cit., 40.
10 John Calvin, “A Treatise on the Eternal Predestination of God,” in John Calvin, Calvin’s
Calvinism, trans. Henry Cole (Reformed Free Publishing Association, 1987), 38; cited i n Vance, op. cit., 38.
11 Leonard Verduin, The Reformers and Their Stepchildren ( Christian Hymnary Publishers,
1991), 33.
12 Petilian 11.85.189; cited in W.H.C. Frend, The Rise of Christianity (Fortress Press, 1984),
671.
1 3 Frend, op. cit., 671.
1 4 Op. cit., 672.
15 E.H. Broadbent, The Pilgrim Church ( Gospel Folio Press, reprint 1999), 49.
16 Henry H. Milman, History of Christianity (A.C. Armstrong and Son, 1886), 3:176.
17 Warfield, op. cit., v.
18 John Calvin, contents page of Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge
( Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998 ed.), III:xxiii, IV:xvii, etc.
19
Op. cit., III:xxi,2.
20 Op. cit., III:xxi,4.
21
Op. cit., lll:xxiii,l.
22
Op. cit., III: xxiii,5.
23 Ibid.
24
Op. cit., lll:xxiii,8..
25 Op. cit., IV:xiii,9.
26
Op. cit., III:xxiii, 11.
27
Op. cit., IIl:xxiii, 13
28
Op. cit., IIl:xxiii, 14
29 Richard A. Muller, Christ and the Decree (Baker Book House, 1988), 22.
30 Norman L. Geisler, WhatAugustine Says ( Baker Book House, 1982), 9.
31 John Paul II, Sovereign Pontiff, Augustineum Hyponensem ( Apostolic Letter, August
28, 1986. Available at: www.cin.org/jp2.ency/augustin.html.)
32 Talbot and Crampton, op. cit., 78; cited in Vance, op. cit., 39.
33 Alexander Souter, The Earliest Latin Commentaries on the Epistles of St. Paul (n.p.,
1 927), 139.
34 N.L. Rice, God Sovereign and Man Free ( Sprinkle Publications, 1985), 13.
35 Benjamin B. Warfield, “The Idea of Systematic Theology,” in The Princeton Theology,
ed. Mark A. Noll (Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1983), 258.
36 Vance, op. cit., 41.
37 Richard N. Ostling, “The Second Founder of the Faith” ( Time, September 29, 1986).
58
What Love Is This?
38 William P Grady, Final Authority: A Christian’s Guide to the King James Bible (Grady
Publications, 1993), 54.
39 Sir Robert Anderson, The Bible or the Church? ( Pickering and Inglis, 2nd ed., n.d.), 53.
40 Augustine, The City of God, trans. Marcus Dods. In Great Books of the Western World,
ed. Robert Maynard Hutchins and Mortimer J. Adler (Encyclopaedia Brittanica, Inc., 1 952), XX:7,8.
41 Vance, op. cit., 55
42 Talbot and Crampton, op. cit., 79.
43 Calvin, op. cit., IV:xiv, 26.
44 Alister E. McGrath, The Life of John Calvin ( Blackwell Publishers, 1990), 151.
45 Francois Wendel, Calvin: Origins and Development of His Religious Thought ( Baker
Books, 1997), 124.
46 Vance, op. cit; citing Calvin, op. cit., 139, 146, 148-49. 47 Op. cit., 113; citing Wendel, op. cit., 264, and Timothy George, Theology of the Reformers ( Broadman Press, 1988), 232.
48 Peter S. Ruckman, The History of the New Testament ( Pensacola Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1982), 1:1,149.
49 Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church ( Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910; Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co., reprint 1959), III: 1018.
50 Warfield, op. cit., 322.
51 Op. cit., 313.
52 Op. cit., 318.
53 Philip F. Congdon, “Soteriological Implications of Five-point Calvinism” (Journal of the
Grace Evangelical Society, Autumn 1995), 8:15, 55-68.
54 Timothy George, op. cit., 68.
55 James R. White to Dave Hunt, August 4, 2000. On file.
56 David Schaff, Our Father’s Faith and Ours, 1 72; cited in Samuel Fisk, Calvinistic Paths
Retraced ( Biblical Evangelism Press, 1985), 68.
57 Philip Schaff, op. cit., 11:975-76.
58 Fisk, op. cit., 68.
59 Grady, op. cit., 35.
60 Fisk, op. cit., 67.
61 F.F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments ( Pickering and Inglis, Ltd., 1950), 191.
62 Op. cit., 194-95.
63 Merrill F. Unger, Unger’s Bible Dictionary ( Moody Press, 1969), 1151-54.
64 Fisk, op. cit., 70-75.
65 Ibid.
66 Charles C. Butterworth, The Literary Lineage of the King James Bible ( University of
Pennsylvania Press, 1941), 163.
67 H. Wheeler Robinson, The Bible In Its Ancient and English Versions ( Clarendon Press,
1 940), 186, 206-207.
68 Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (Presbyterian and Reformed
Publishing Co., 1932), 405.
69 Spurgeon, op. cit., 298; cited in Vance, op. cit., 38.
InPlainSite.org Footnote: It is true that Acts 2:47 should read
“And the Lord added to them day by day those that were saved”.
However all the major translations render Acts 13:48 as the KJV does. “...Verse 48 says “as many as were ordained to eternal life believed,” verse 46 says the Jews in that same situation had put salvation “from you” and had judged themselves unworthy of everlasting life. The Calvinist wants to ignore or modify verse 46 while focusing on verse 48.” (Dave Hunt’s Powerful Refutation of Calvinism. David Cloud) [PLACE IN TEXT]
\t
\tIps-Bar
\t
\t
The Sins of Augustine
by Chuck Fisher
Augustine Aurelius, Bishop of Hippo, arguably is considered the most influential theologian after St. Paul. As a pastor and bishop in North Africa, Augustine was one of the most prolific church writers, dealing with the many theological issues that faced the Church in his day. As a teacher, he influenced the course of the Church, and as a bishop, he influenced the politics of Rome. Without a doubt, Augustine it is considered a great man. But does he deserve this reputation?
Facts
The history of Augustine's life is pretty straightforward and well-known. Son of a pagan father and Christian mother, Augustine grew up knowing the truth of the gospel, but led his own life, his father taking delight in his son's sexual escapades. Augustine became a well-known orator and studied the pagan philosophies of Plato. Augustine became a Christian at age 32, after discussions about Christianity with a friend, and hearing a child's voice telling him to pick up a scroll and read it. This conversion story is one the most famous in Christendom.
After being baptized, in 387, Augustine moved back to his hometown of Tagaste, in North Africa, to found a monastic community and become a monk. In 391, the church at nearby Hippo pressed him to become a priest, and five years later, he was made Bishop of Hippo. As a Church leader, he became an active pastor, not only for his congregation and diocese, but for his Faith. His life is best known for his doctrinal fights against Donatists and the followers of Pelagius.
Perverter of the Church?
Augustine has been called the Great Teacher of the Church, and the Doctor of Grace, because of his influence on the doctrines of the Church. His voice was so powerful that a simple "Augustine Dixit," "Augustine says ," settled all arguments. Augustine is still beloved theologian of theologians, studied in seminaries and schools of philosophy around the world. However, there are a few things that those who sing Augustine's praises neglect to tell us, things which, if widely known, would call into question his supposedly great contributions to philosophy and theology.
First of all, believe it or not, Augustine couldn't read Greek! It is not required, in ministers, that they be able to read Greek. Many, many ministers have been to Bible schools that did not required them to learn Greek. This does not mean that they're not qualified to pastor churches, to preach and teach the gospel. However, for a theologian to not be able to consult the original languages of the Word of God, this is a critical failure.
This means that Augustine was not able to understand what Paul or Peter or John wrote, without relying on the say so of a translator. Which Augustine did. Augustine relied on the translation of his close ally, Jerome of Palestine. Jerome was the man who translated the Bible from the Hebrew and Greek, into Latin. Unfortunately, Jerome was an extremely biased, didactic theologian, and in at least one theological area, that of justification, made an unfortunate translation that has affected the Church ever since. Augustine took a word from Jerome's Latin Vulgate and gave us a Roman court model for justification, rather than the model that Paul presented, in the original Greek, that of a king declaring a subject in right standing with his/her king. Robert Brow, in his article, "Did Paul Teach Law Court Justification?" wrote:
The words in the original Greek might allow, but they never require a judicial interpretation. Since the time of Chrysostom it has been pointed out in the Greek Church that dikaioo could equally well be translated "make upright or righteous" .... If this Greek Orthodox reading of the Epistle is correct then it would seem that it was the legal minds of the first Latin translators and Jerome's Vulgate which introduced the forensic virus into the western church. Augustine did not know Greek, and he set the Roman law court model in stone. Anselm and Calvin clarified that logic with ruthless perfection. http://www.biblical-theology.com/salvation/justific.htm. (This Link is no longer active... See End Note
A second problem with Augustine is where he got much of his theology from. Before becoming a Christian, Augustine studied two different religions/philosophies, that he allowed to influence him, and brought their doctrines with him into the Church.
For nine years, Augustine was a Manichean, a devotee of of the teachings of Mani, founder of a Persian moral cult. Like the Gnostics of the first century, Mani and his followers were dualistic, teaching that the flesh was sinful and impure, while the spirit was light and life. As a Manichean, this teaching was a comfort to Augustine, as it let him blame his continued sexual sin on his lower fleshy nature, but still be moral by emphasizing the separateness of flesh and spirit.
Augustine's years with the Manicheans left its impact on the Church, as he brought this teaching into the the Church through his teaching on Original Sin. A. T. Overstreet, in his on-line book, "Are Men Born Sinners?, The Myth of Original Sin," notes:
Augustine's nine years with them [the Maniceans] accustomed him to regard human nature as essentially evil and human freedom as a delusion. Augustine next fell under the influence of Neo-Platonism, and his theological views were strongly influenced by this philosophy as well. However, his doctrine of sin shows the obvious influence of the Gnostic teachings of Manichaeism, in which he assumes the most ridiculous teaching of all the heathen philosophies the teaching that matter can be sinful. And this is the source of his doctrine that sin can be passed on physically from one person to another.
Harnack says:
We have, finally, in Augustine's doctrine of sin a strong Manichaean and Gnostic element; for Augustine never wholly surmounted Manichaeism.
and...
Augustine's doctrine of sin, with his belief in the inherent sinfulness of the physical constitution, is wholly Manichaean. His idea that sin is propagated through the marriage union, that sexual desire is sin and that sexual lust in procreation transmits sin is also Manichaean. Augustine built his doctrine of original sin upon this premise that sexual lust in procreation transmits sin.
As mentioned in the quote above, Augustine studied the teachings of pagan Greek philosophers, the Neo-Platonists. In fact, Augustine was " converted " to Christianity through Neo-Platonist philosophy! "World Book Encyclopedia" had these two comments to make about the influence of pagan philosophy on Augustine:
"The writings of the Neo-Platonists and sermons of Saint Ambrose, the bishop of Milan, convinced Augustine to accept Christianity. "
and
"Augustine's study of neoplatonism convinced him that God existed in the soul of every human being."
The following is from the "Concise Columbia Encyclopedia" article on Neoplatonism:
"Neoplatonism, ancient mystical philosophy based on the later doctrines of Plato, especially those in the Timaus.... Neoplatonism, widespread until the 7th cent., was an influence on early Christian thinkers (e.g., Origen) and medieval Jewish and Arab philosophers. It was FIRMLY JOINED WITH CHRISTIANITY BY AUGUSTINE, who was a Neoplatonist before his conversion." (emphasis mine)
Did you get that last line? Augustine brought the pagan philosophies, learned before his conversion, into the church and much of our doctrine today is based on this.
What is generally not known about Augustine is that he favored his philosophers more than the Old Testament revelation. Bishop Ambrose, who was instrumental in converting Augustine, had to help him overcome his problem with the Old Testament : it seems that Augustine felt that the God of the Old Testament was capricious and vindictive, and at odds with the God of the New testament.
So how did Ambrose and Augustine overcome the apparent contradiction ? By using a method of interpretation called allegory. The teachings of the Old Testament, according to Augustine, could only be understood by taking the Old Testament as allegory. Augustine spiritualized the Old Testament, teaching that the histories of the Old Testament had nothing to do with God, in reality, that the stories about God in the Old Testament only taught about God in pictures, like parables. According to Augustine, the Old Testament was not a perfect revelation of God and his character, but contained bits and pieces about God that we had to figure out with allegorical interpretation. Augustine's influence was so great that, for a thousand years, his method of interpreting the Bible was the official method of interpretation used by the Church.
Here is what James J. O'Donnell wrote in his on-line article, "Augustine the African"
Here Christianity began to appear to him in a new, intellectually respectable light. As before, his most pressing personal problem was his sense of evil and his responsibility for the wickedness of his life; with the help of technical vocabulary borrowed from Platonic philosophy Ambrose proposed a convincing solution for Augustine's oldest dilemma. Augustine had besides a specific objection to Christianity that only a professor of belles-lettres could have: he could not love the scriptures because their style was inelegant and barbaric. Here again Ambrose, elegant and far from barbaric, showed Augustine how Christian exegesis could give life and meaning to the sacred texts.
How did Augustine's philosophical background affect Christian doctrine ? His neo-platonic views affected his view of God, which is passed on to the Church, at large.
Augustine bought into the Platonic beliefs about the Perfect Ideal. Plato taught that everything that existed was merely a mirror of the one true thing that was perfection, and this Perfect Ideal was unchangeable. If it could change, it wouldn't be perfect. With that as his philosophical presupposition, Augustine brought in an un-biblical definition about God's immutability that survives as orthodoxy to this day. This is from Chapter Two of Bob Moore's on-line book, "Calvinism -- Ten Little Caveats":
From Plato comes the concept of "the forms" or perfect ideals. This gave students of philosophy (one being Augustine) the notion that God does not change in any way because he is perfect. What is perfect, it is argued, does not change because by definition "perfect" means the level beyond which nothing can exceed. Nothing is more perfect than flawless, A+, or 100%. For a Platonist, things which change are inferior to things which do not change.
The Bible presents God as changeless, but the Christian tradition being shaped by Augustine and others, had to interpret what that meant. They had to decide if it meant that God did not change in character or if it meant that he did not change in some stronger sense.
Don't believe that our Christian orthodox doctrine relies on Greek philosophy? Then read these quotes from "The Providence of God," by Benjamin Writ Farley, as cited in Bob Moore's book:
the rudiments of a reformed doctrine of the providence of God lie deeply embedded in the western philosophical tradition. There is little point in debating this. Wisdom and truth consist in acknowledging the fact and in showing how Christian and later Reformed doctrines differ significantly from the older, inherited, philosophical views.
Farley reflects further,
Has Reformed theology wed itself too closely to the classical world's concepts of God's perfection, omnipotence, omniscience, and immutability in its attempts to witness to the God of Scripture? To be certain, such concepts have their place in guiding the church's reflection on the biblical God of providential activity. They enable the church to avoid the pitfalls of defining God in ways that make him subservient to other factors in the universe; they call the church's attention to glaring inconsistencies in its assertions about deity. But they need not 'control' our understanding of God's interaction with his world.
A third problem with Augustine that is not discussed often is his tendency to develop doctrine based on his experience rather than scripture. I have heard it said, "A man's philosophy is dictated by his morals." The same is true for his theology. Augustine wrote an autobiography, considered to be a classic, Confessions, and in it, he discusses his problems with sin. He spends a great deal of time dealing with an incident (as a young teenager ) in which he stole pears from a neighbor's tree, and uses this event to develop and teach the doctrine of Original Sin.
Because Augustine had a problem with promiscuity and lust, and even as a churchman and bishop, had problems with his thought-life, he concluded that no one is able to choose to do good. His problem with the settings and formed the basis for the doctrine of the other depravity of man. This experiential theology, based on his own moral failures, caused him to attack the Biblical theology of Pelagius and Celestius and Julian of Eclanum, who taught man's responsibility to choose to follow God.
A fourth problem area with Augustine is an area that, while well-known among scholars, is not widely discussed, but is absolutely critical in evaluating the truth of the doctrines that he developed and foisted on the Church. This last area deals with Augustine's method of dealing with those who disagreed with his teachings. Since Augustine's teachings became the touchstone for church doctrine, both Catholic and Protestant, it is vital that we examine the process by which Christian doctrine became settled, and was handed down to us.
Augustine was born in 354, in the time of a Christian Roman empire. Augustine did not have to live through the time of persecution that had been on the Church for 250 years, and so did not know the powerlessness that the meek followers of Christ had experienced. Instead, Augustine came into a Church with politically well-connected bishops, who had direct lines of communications to authorities on all levels, including the Roman Emperor. And Augustine, as a bishop of his time, used his resources well.
Early in Augustine's Christian career, a controversy arose over the views of Donatus. Do not be deceived by classical theologians into thinking that Donatists were heretics. They were not. Instead, Donatists were basically Christians who believed in holiness. Coming out of the time of the great persecution of Diocletian, Donatus and his followers refused to accept the leadership and ministry of priests and bishops who had shown cowardice in the face of persecution. The appointment of a minister who had handed over scriptures to be burned was a rallying cry of the Donatists.
As an opponent to the Donatists, Augustine was a vigorous fighter for the Catholic Church. He weighed in with sermons and writings condemning them, which, given his perspective as a Catholic, is understandable. After all, as Christians, we're called to contend for the faith, and if we believe that people are teaching false doctrines, heresies that endanger the faith of weaker Christians, we're to expose the error and preach the truth. However, Augustine took the fight one step further. Ignoring the lessons of the history of the early Church and its experiences with bitter, angry men who sought to destroy it with persecution, Augustine advocated the persecution of the Donatists.
in Aurelius of Carthage and in Augustine the catholics at last had leaders who were a match for the Donatists. Augustine issued exhaustive historical and theological counter-arguments and a justification of coercion, while Aurelius' organizing ability produced effective action. Yet it took legal sanctions to check Donatism--especially the Edict of Unity (405) and the proscription which followed the convention in Carthage in 411. Eerdman's Handbook to the History of Christianity.
Did you get that? Augustine wrote justifying the legal "coercion" of Christians who disagreed with him. Since when do we resort to legal courts and edicts to decide Christian practice?
It is in the last battle of his life, with the Pelagians that Augustine really distinguished himself as a man willing to use the methods of the world, and not the Bible, to achieve his purposes.
Pelagius, by all accounts (including Augustine's) a godly man, was appalled at Augustine's teaching on Original Sin, and taught differently than Augustine, thus earning Augustine's enmity. He did not believe that all were tainted with the sin of Adam, and opposed Augustine's teachings.
Pelagius also merited the anger of another so-called Father of the Church, Augustine's compatriot, Jerome, who translated the Bible into Latin. It seems that there was a monk whose name was Jovinian, who taught that it was alright for priests to marry, that there was no great virtue in remaining celibate. Jerome, along with Augustine, was one of the leaders of the teaching that married saints were of a lesser class than celibate saints. Jerome was a vicious man, known for his disgusting attacks on opponents, and his characterization of Jovinian was no different. Jerome depicting this saint as a Bacchanalian orgyist. Pelagius took Jerome to task for such a rotten manner of arguing, thus earning the hatred of Jerome.
Finally, Pelagius was a holiness preacher. Living in Rome, he condemned the loose morals of the Emperor's court, thus earning the enmity of Emperor Honorius.
As many did when it looked like the barbarians might overwhelm Rome, Pelagius left Rome for other parts, specifically, Palestine. While living in Palestine, several of Augustine's followers in Palestine brought charges of heresy against Pelagius, and Jerome joined in the accusations.
There were two trials/synods held in Palestine, and at both of these examinations, Pelagius was declared to be orthodox. He was present to defend himself and explain what he taught. Not content to have Palestinian bishops try Pelagius, Augustine had two more trials/synods held to "examine" Pelagius' teachings, both in North Africa, in Augustine's own home town. To no one's great surprise, these two kangaroo courts declared Pelagius to be a heretic. Mind you, these two trials were held in North Africa, under Augustine's direction, and without Pelagius there to defend his teachings.
The results of these four trials were sent to Pope Innocent of Rome, who sided with Augustine. But Innocent had been lobbied hard by Augustine ahead of time. And Pelagius had not had a chance to defend his teachings. Knowing that Augustine was working to have him declared heretical, Pelagius prepared a defense of his teachings and sent it to Rome.
Now, here is the rub. Innocent died before Pelagius' defense arrived, and a new pope was selected, Zosimus. Zosimus received Pelagius' written defense, and after reading the defense, reopened the case. After examining both sides, Zosimus declared Pelagius orthodox. This is not widely known. Pelagius was declared by an impartial bishop to be orthodox in his doctrine.
This gave Augustine and his party fits, and so they decided to enlist a little more help. Remember how Augustine supported using legal force to settle church matters in the matter of the Donatists? Augustine decided to enlist the Emperor in this matter of doctrine. Augustine and his party decided to appeal to Emperor Honorius to join in on this matter of doctrine. In addition, a fellow bishop and friend of Augustine, Alypius, sent a bribe of 80 stallions to Honorius to use his influence on Zosimus. Again, to no one's surprise, the following year, Zosimus bowed to Imperial pressure and declared Pelagius a heretic.
The church, after the death of Augustine and Pelagius, and under the sting of Imperial pressure and Jerome's hatred, went on to declare all of Pelagius' teachings heretical and all of Augustine's as orthodox.
It is due to the ungodly efforts of Augustine and his party that we owe the spectacle of church doctrine being decided by political power and chicanery.
Summary
Doing the research we can see that Augustine, far from being a saint, was responsible for much bad theology being introduced into the Church. Because of him, we have the teachings of Gnostics and Pagans masquerading as Christian doctrine. Because of Augustine's appeal to force, we have a Christian history marred with the image of a blood-stained church willing to kill to enforce its positions.
End Note
“ What for example would be neutral translations for the three occurrences in the Bible of the term "justification"? The first is "Who was handed over to death for our trespasses and was raised for our justification." [Romans 4:25] Here the Greek word is dikaiosis which in the lexicon is given the meanings "justification, vindication or acquittal." These all assume the Forensic model. But the context of the passage is the faith of Abraham which is going to be a blessing to all nations. And there is no way to set Abraham's life of faith in a Roman lawcourt.
Paul tells us that Abraham was counted righteous or upright because in his sense of great bodily weakness he had faith in the promises of God. [Romans 4:18-25] In the same way we are counted righteous or upright when in our great weakness we believe through Jesus Christ in the God of Abraham [5:1-6, so 7:14-8:2] So instead of using the law court term justification we could translate "He was delivered over to death because of (dia) our sins, and raised for us to be counted righteous or upright." The meaning would be that like Abraham we feel our inability to perform, but as we look in faith to the God who raised Jesus from the dead we are counted as upright and we have Abraham's kind of righteousness. [Compare 4:18-25, 5:1-6, 7:14-8:2]
A second text is "The free gift is not like the effect of one man's sin. For the judgment following many trespasses brings justification" (Romans 5:16). Here the Greek word is dikaioma which can mean "regulation, requirement, commandment." Since it is applied to Christ two verses later it cannot mean "justification" in a forensic sense. The context suggests that Paul is contrasting two ways of living, in Adam or in Christ, in death or in life, under the sense of condemnation or in the assurance of being accepted as upright before God [Romans 5:12-21. See Anders Nygren on "The Two Aeons," Romarbrevet, Stockholm, 1944, First American Edition, l949; Commentary on Romans, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1972, pp.16-26]. So a more neutral translation would be "the gift that followed many transgressions now results in us meeting God's requirement." That avoids importing the Roman judicial model and leaves the interpretation open. So a more neutral translation would be "the gift that followed many transgressions now results in us meeting God's requirement."
Justification is again used wrongly as a translation of dikaiosis later in the same context. "Just as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man's act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all." [Romans 5:18] This translation adds the word "act" which is not in the Greek, and by using the Latin word "justification" it insists that the Greek word dikaiosis is set in a law court. The New English Bible correctly abandons "justification" but immediately slips back into the judicial paradigm with "a verdict of acquittal."
In this case the context is Paul's contrast between the two humanities in Adam or in Christ. A radical but neutral paraphrase would be "In contrast to human (Adamic) transgression which condemns us all, the rightness that comes from God (Christ's dikaioma) effects our righteousness (dikaiosis)." That allows the idea of a genuine work of righteousness in the heart by the Holy Spirit, which seems to be the thrust of the whole Epistle. The Epistle to the Romans then becomes the good news of God's plan as a loving parent to perfect us. In such a model God never was interested in condemning anyone to hell, or transferring righteousness by a merely legal transaction.
It therefore seems that the term "justification" is misleading and never needed, even in the Epistle to the Romans. The passive of the verb dikaioo was translated by the forensic term "justified" seven times in the King James version of the Gospels, but in no case has the context anything to do with a law court. And it would have been impossible to derive a forensic model from a reading of the Gospels alone.
It is therefore time translators had the courage to discard "justify," "justified," and "justification" from our Bible and use the ordinary meaning of the Greek words instead. Wherever the adjective dikaios, the verb dikaioo, and the noun dikaiosune occur the translation should use "righteous," "make righteous," and "righteousness." The meaning of those words should be derived from the Hebrew idea of a righteous person (tzaddiq) which never has a forensic connotation in the Old Testament. What Paul clarified in Romans is that no one can overcome his or unruly flesh by legalism. The good news is that the three Persons of the Trinity can perfect us in love, and so make us righteous in the Old Testament sense”. (Did Paul Teach Law Court Justification? Robert Brow)
