This book, by Alan J. Spence, is a guide to understanding a concept that has been incredibly important, and often fiercely debated, in the history of the Christian church. Justification, at its heart, deals with the amazing idea that God justifies, or makes righteous, those who are wicked. Doesn't that sound a bit strange at first? Like trusting a judge who lets the guilty off the hook? Yet, it's precisely this perplexing notion that offers immense hope to people burdened by moral failure and guilt. For centuries, Christians poured enormous energy into understanding this doctrine, seeing it as the very core of God's saving work. But, as the book points out, some felt it was like giving people a license to behave badly, undermining the importance of living a godly life. This shows you just how much passion and controversy this idea generated back in the 16th and 17th centuries – people were even willing to risk their lives over it! Fast forward to today, and for many people, this historical passion for justification seems a bit baffling. Why? Well, one big reason is that the context has changed. The book suggests that to understand justification as a theory of salvation, you really need to grasp the human problem it's meant to solve. Historically, especially in the West, that problem was understood primarily as human sinfulness and accountability before a divine judge. Think about it like this: you wouldn't develop a medicine to cure a disease nobody has, right? Similarly, a doctrine of salvation doesn't make much sense if it doesn't address a problem people feel they have. The book takes us on a tour, if you will, through Western culture – literature, art, and theology – to show how these ideas of sin and divine judgment became so central to the Western worldview. Imagine looking at Michelangelo's "Last Judgment" fresco; it really brings home the idea of a final reckoning before God. The author argues that seeing ourselves as accountable sinners standing before a holy judge is key to understanding the "good news" of justification. This perspective, far from being morbid, actually helps us see the incredible graciousness of God revealed in Jesus. So, what is this journey through Western thought like? The book explores how key figures grappled with Paul's ideas, particularly from his letter to the Romans. **Augustine of Hippo** kicks off our exploration. Living in a world deeply concerned with sin and the inability of the will to do right, Augustine understood justification as God actually _making_ people righteous in their behavior. It wasn't just about forgiveness, but a transformation, an empowering of believers to live a life of holiness and love. He argued that this new righteousness is entirely a gift from God, not something we can achieve ourselves. His famous debate with Pelagius centered on this point – whether humans could be righteous apart from God's grace. Augustine's view was a powerful synthesis, though the book notes a tension in his thought between justification as a merited gift (through a faith that works by love) and the idea of forgiveness, which isn't something you merit. This tension would become a big point of discussion later! Next, we encounter **Thomas Aquinas**. Working in the medieval period and influenced by Aristotelian philosophy and scholastic method, Thomas made a bold move: he equated justification directly with the remission of sins. For him, being righteous meant having rightly ordered relationships, especially with God, and this order is restored through forgiveness. Thomas saw justification as an instantaneous event, though it involved a series of elements: the infusion of grace, the free will turning towards God (faith) and away from sin (repentance), and finally, the remission of sins. He made a clear distinction between justification (an unmerited gift) and glorification or eternal life, which he saw as a reward for the works of love produced by grace in the believer. This was a shift from Augustine's perspective. However, the book points out that Thomas's coherent structure was arguably distorted by the need to address the pastoral problem of mortal sin and the practice of penance. Penance, a system of contrition, confession, satisfaction (penal works), and absolution, became deeply ingrained in the medieval Church. While intended to restore sinners to a state of grace, it risked focusing more on the sinner's duty and penances rather than trust in God's mercy, potentially overshadowing the unmerited grace of justification. The development of indulgences and the concept of purgatory were also tied into this system of dealing with temporal punishment for sin. Then comes the Reformation, and **Martin Luther**. Luther had a crucial insight into the phrase "the righteousness of God" in Romans 1:17. He came to understand it not as God's attribute of punishing sin, but as a righteousness that God _gives_ – a passive righteousness received by faith. For Luther, justification was about an "alien righteousness" (Christ's righteousness) being reckoned to the account of the ungodly. This led to the paradoxical idea that someone could be both a sinner and justified at the same time (simul iustus et peccator). This doctrine was a source of immense pastoral comfort, especially in a world grappling with spiritual anxiety and the penitential system. Luther argued that true repentance begins with facing God's just judgment. His theology, while powerful and comforting, was also full of paradoxes that perplexed some. **John Calvin** followed Luther, seeking to provide a more systematic and coherent presentation of the Reformed view. Calvin distinguished between two benefits received by faith through union with Christ: justification and sanctification. Justification, for Calvin, was strictly about acceptance by God, defined simply as acquittal from the charge of guilt. He saw faith as the _means_ by which this righteousness offered in the gospel is received. Like Luther, Calvin viewed justification as a pastoral doctrine intended to give assurance to believers standing before God's tribunal, ensuring peace of conscience while maintaining God's glory. He argued that claiming any merit in justification robs God of the praise due to His unmerited kindness. The **Council of Trent** codified the Roman Catholic response. While agreeing with Protestants on humanity's inability to save itself and the necessity of grace, Trent taught that justification is an _ongoing process_ that includes not only the forgiveness of sins but also the sanctification and renewal of the inner person through infused grace, faith, hope, and love. This process is continuous and develops throughout life, and because it is ongoing, the Council stated that believers cannot have absolute certainty of their state of grace in this life. This difference regarding assurance was a significant point of contention. Moving into more modern times, the book discusses how the traditional framework for understanding justification has faced challenges. Figures like **Friedrich Schleiermacher** profoundly impacted theological thought. Schleiermacher approached theology from the perspective of pious self-awareness, specifically the feeling of absolute dependence on God. This approach led him to redefine traditional concepts. For him, God's justice was about connecting evil with actual sin, and divine penalties were seen as primitive ideas. He found little theological significance in Christ's death for forgiveness and interpreted forgiveness itself more as a process within human consciousness rather than an objective divine act. Because he didn't see the human predicament primarily in terms of sin, guilt, and divine judgment, the classic doctrine of justification, with its focus on divine pardon and Christ's atoning work, no longer fit within his theological framework. The book argues that Schleiermacher contributed to making justification seem peripheral in much modern theology. The book also touches on **Karl Barth**, who, while a strong critic of Schleiermacher's subjective approach, also contributed to a shift away from the classical understanding of justification, albeit for different reasons. Barth saw the "righteousness of God" as God's own inherent justice revealed in the act of justifying humanity, which he viewed as a universal pardon achieved in Christ's death and resurrection. A striking aspect of Barth's view, as presented here, is the idea that all humanity is pardoned in this one justifying judgment, regardless of their awareness or response. The book raises questions about this, suggesting it potentially detaches justification from the essential role of human faith and the life of obedient love. More recently, a **"New Perspective on Paul"**, associated with scholars like N.T. Wright, has offered a radical new interpretation. This perspective challenges the traditional understanding that justification is primarily about personal salvation from sin and judgment (soteriology). Instead, it proposes that justification is mainly about **defining who belongs to the community of God (ecclesiology)**. It argues that Paul's primary concern was addressing the issue of how Gentiles could be included in God's covenant people alongside Jews, and that faith, rather than "works of the law" (understood not as attempts to earn salvation but as boundary markers like circumcision and food laws), became the new criterion for membership in this community. This new perspective also challenges the traditional reading of first-century Judaism as a legalistic religion where people tried to earn their salvation through works, proposing instead the model of "covenantal nomism" where obedience maintained one's place within a covenant relationship established by grace. The book critiques this New Perspective, arguing that it imposes an "alien narrative" on Paul's writings, one focused more on governance and order than on relational concepts like pardon and reconciliation. It suggests the New Perspective wrongly divorces church membership from eternal salvation in Paul's thought. Crucially, the book argues that the New Perspective errs by denying the _instrumental_ role of faith in salvation, reducing it to merely a "marker" of membership. The author contends that Paul, as a passionate evangelist driven by a desire to see individuals saved, understood justification as a key part of the gospel message of salvation. So, where does this leave us today? The book suggests that while the historical context of sin, guilt, and judgment might seem less prominent to some, these experiences still resonate in modern life. Our conscience, along with societal expectations, still highlights our failures and accountability. In this light, the message of justification, understood as God's radical response to human failure, guilt, and alienation, remains relevant. Drawing on what the author sees as the most robust aspects of the Western tradition, justification today can be understood as the divine act of pardon, based on Christ's atoning death, where the ungodly are made righteous. While Augustine saw this as transformation and Luther emphasized imputed righteousness, the core idea, especially clear in Aquinas and Calvin, is divine pardon – acquittal from the charge of guilt. The book concludes that this understanding of justification, rooted in the experience of sin and judgment and highlighting the "righteousness of God" as the believer's new state received by faith, fits well with key Pauline texts. **Ideas and Questions to Explore Further:** - How does a modern understanding of justice (like social justice) relate to or differ from the historical theological concept of divine judgment discussed in the book? - If, as the New Perspective suggests, Paul's primary concern was the inclusion of Gentiles, does the traditional understanding of justification as individual salvation still hold up? Or can these perspectives be complementary? - How might the concept of "grace and sin can coexist" (simul iustus et peccator) offer comfort or challenge people today who struggle with ongoing moral failures? - The book highlights the tension in Augustine's thought between forgiveness and merit. How do different Christian traditions today address this relationship between God's free gift and human responsibility? - Considering Schleiermacher's influence, how might subjective religious experience shape or even redefine theological doctrines like justification in contemporary Christianity? - The book suggests that understanding justification requires understanding the problem of sin and judgment. If someone doesn't feel a strong sense of personal guilt or fear of judgment, how might the doctrine of justification be presented to them in a meaningful way?