Analysis of the Wesleyan and Catholic Doctrines of Justification Part 1

The Definitions of Justification

The foundational distinction between the Catholic and Wesleyan doctrines of justification centers upon the definition. It would be increasingly difficult to avoid confusion concerning this matter without a proper understanding of the definitions that are used by these theological traditions. If a Wesleyan assumes that Catholic theology uses the term ‘justification’ according to the Wesleyan definition then they will not properly understand the language of Trent when it states that one can “increase in that justice” or be “further justified.”[1] Likewise, if a Catholic assumes that Wesleyan theology uses the term ‘justification’ according to the Catholic definition then they will not properly understand what Wesley means by "the doctrine of free, full, and present justification."[2]

Wesley’s comments in his 1748 sermon The Great Privilege of those that are Born of God sets the tone for this discussion.

“It has been frequently supposed, that the being born of God was all one with the being justified; that the new birth and justification were only different expressions, denoting the same thing: It being certain, on the one hand, that whoever is justified is also born of God; and, on the other, that whoever is born of God is also justified, yea, that both these gifts of God are given to every believer in one and the same moment, in one point of time his sins are blotted out, and he is born again of God. But though it be allowed, that justification and the new birth are, in point of time, inseparable from each other, yet are they easily distinguished, as being not the same, but things of a widely different nature. Justification implies only a relative, the new birth a real, change. God in justifying us does something for us; in begetting us again, he does the work in us. The former changes our outward relation to God, so that of enemies we become children; by the latter our inmost souls are changed, so that of sinners we become saints. The one restores us to the favour, the other to the image, of God. The one is the taking away the guilt, the other the taking way the power, of sin: so that, although they are joined together in point of time, yet are they of wholly distinct natures.”[3]

Wesleyan theology maintains a clear distinction between justification and the new birth whereas Catholic theology understands justification to be the new birth. The Council of Trent tells us that “Justification itself, which is not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man” (Schaff, Creeds 94). Whereas Catholics include the new birth in their definition of justification, Wesleyans exclude the new birth from their definition of justification. Wesley speaks to the Catholic definition in his sermon On God’s Vineyard. After he critiques Luther for his ignorance on the doctrine of sanctification[4], Wesley writes that “many writers of the Romish Church… have wrote strongly and scripturally on sanctification, who, nevertheless, were entirely unacquainted with the nature of justification… the Council of Trent… totally confound sanctification and justification together. But it has pleased God to give the Methodists a full and clear knowledge of each, and the wide difference between them.”[5] Though Wesley understood that sanctification started initially at the moment of justification, he nevertheless maintained a distinction between the two. So whereas Wesleyans view the Catholic definition as a total confusion of justification and sanctification, Catholics consider the Wesleyan definition deficient as a separation of that which should be enjoined.

The Scriptural “General Use” of Justification

Wesley critiques the Roman Church for the confounding of sanctification and justification but he also recognized that Scripture sometimes used the term ‘justification’ in a manner different than the way he exclusively used it. In his 1746 sermon Justification by Faith he says that “…although some rare instances may be found, wherein the term justified or justification is used in so wide a sense as to include sanctification also; yet, in general use, they are sufficiently distinguished from each other, both by St. Paul and the other inspired writers.”[6] Although Wesley appeals to the “whole tenor of Scripture” he honestly admits that even though the biblical text uses the term ‘justification’ in this manner he nevertheless maintains a clear distinction. On the other hand, Catholicism incorporates these verses which include sanctification in their definition of justification. Wesley’s application of what he calls the “general use” of the term ‘justification’ in his formulation of the doctrine apparently is held at the expense of these specific occasions, therefore his formulation is not consistent with the inspired text in these instances.

Wesley’s Earlier View of Justification

The most interesting part of Wesley’s critique of those who confound sanctification and justification is that he himself once struggled with the definition of justification.  Wesley clearly admits this fact in 1745 when he wrote in defense of Methodism.  “I was ordained Deacon in 1725, and Priest in the year following. But it was many years after this before I was convinced of the great truths above recited. During all that time I was utterly ignorant of the nature and condition of justification. Sometimes I confounded it with sanctification; (particularly when I was in Georgia;)…”[7] We can still see a hint of this view just weeks after Wesley’s Aldersgate experience (May 24^th 1738) in a sermon on June 11, 1738. “…the word justification; which, taken in the largest sense, implies a deliverance from guilt and punishment, by the atonement of Christ actually applied to the soul of the sinner now believing on him, and a deliverance from the power of sin, through Christ formed in his heart. So that he who is thus justified, or saved by faith, is indeed born again. He is born again of the Spirit unto a new life, which ‘is hid with Christ in God.’[8]”[9]

Several months later Wesley writes a journal entry that demonstrates that he began to make a shift in his understanding of justification. “In the following week, I began more narrowly to inquire what the doctrine of the Church of England is, concerning the much controverted point of justification by faith; and the sum of what I found in the Homilies, I extracted and printed for the use of others.[10]” Wesley had found this teaching in the eleventh Article of Religion. “We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore that we are justified by faith only, is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort, as most largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification.”[11] Wesley, in speaking of the Methodists as a whole, reflects that “the book which, next to the Holy Scripture, was of the greatest use to them, in settling their judgment as to the grand point of justification by faith, was the book of Homilies.[12]”

By the following year (Sept 13, 1739) Wesley speaks of his doctrines as “the doctrines of the Church of England; indeed, the fundamental doctrines of the Church, clearly laid down, both in her Prayer, Articles, and Homilies.” He says that he differs with those that dissent, those that “speak of justification, either as the same thing with sanctification, or as something consequent upon it. I believe justification to be wholly distinct from sanctification, and necessarily antecedent to it.” Wesley later looked back at this time stating that “about fifty years ago I had a clearer view than before of justification by faith; and in this, from that very hour, I never varied, no, not an hair’s breadth.[13]”

The Prominence of Justification

The Wesleyan conviction that there is a real change that occurs at the same time that one is justified allows these two theological traditions to affirm together that the same work is wrought by God in the heart in the newly justified, even if different definitions are given to ‘justification’. It is in this sense that Wesley understood that God regenerates those he justifies in that “…God has joined these together, and it is not for man to put them asunder…”[14] Whereas the Wesleyan view sees two different works occurring at the same time, the Catholic view sees one work which includes both of the Wesleyan ‘works’ under the one term, ‘justification’. Not only does Wesley maintain that the new born and justification occur at the same time, he would likewise not “think or speak of justification so as to supersede sanctification, so neither do they [the Methodists] think or speak of sanctification so as to supersede justification.”[15]

Not only does Wesley maintain that there is a clear distinction between the new birth and justification, he would likewise note that even though “In order of time, neither of these is before the other… but in order of thinking, as it is termed, justification precedes the new birth.”[16] In what way could he imagine for justification to precede the new birth “in order of thinking”? He affirms in another place that “sanctification…is, indeed, in some degree, the immediate fruit of justification…”[17] Even though Wesley lays “equal stress on one and the other” he took “care to keep each in its own place…” Despite that one work was not to supplant or take the place of another Wesley gave a place of theological prominence[18] to the work of justification. Consider it a priority or emphasis upon what God has done for us, in the extension of pardon from guilt, the forgiveness of our sins, a renewal of a relationship with God through Christ, and a restoration to his favor. Maddox concurs that Wesley “often attributed logical (or theological) priority to justification.[19]” Maddox reasons that it was Wesley’s concern that the new birth should not be given priority, for whether it was in order of time or as a matter of theological order he wished to avoid any implications of Reformed theology. Just as Reformed Theology speaks of a logical order of divine decrees, Wesley likewise conceived of a distinction between the relational disposition of the gratuitous God towards humanity and the actual bestowal of that grace that renews us in the image and likeness of God. Wesley makes this clear when he says that we “first conceive His wrath to be turned away, and then His Spirit to work in our hearts.[20]”

A Legal Fiction?

A major concern of the Catholic theological tradition in its critique of various Protestant theological traditions is that their view of justification avoids any notion of a legal fiction; that somehow God’s disposition towards the sinner has changed when in fact there is no real change that has taken place in the sinner.  This same concern is found among the writings of Wesley, in that he maintained a real change within the heart of the newly justified individual. “Least of all does justification imply, that God is deceived in those whom he justifies, that he thinks them to be what, in fact, they are not; that he accounts them to be otherwise than they are. It does by no means imply, that God judges concerning us contrary to the real nature of things; that he esteems us better than we really are, or believes us righteous when we are unrighteous. Surely no. The judgment of the all-wise God is always according to truth.”[21]

---

[1] Schroeder, Rev. H. J. The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, 36.

[2] Wesley, Works Vol VII 205, On God’s Vineyard

[3] Wesley, Works Vol V 223-224, The Great Privilege of those that are Born of God

[4] “Who has wrote more ably than Martin Luther on justification by faith alone? And who was more ignorant of the doctrine of sanctification, or more confused in his conceptions of it. In order to be thoroughly convinced of this, of his total ignorance with regard to sanctification, there needs no more than to read over, without prejudice, his celebrated comment on the Epistle to the Galatians” (Wesley, Works Vol VII 204, On God’s Vineyard).

[5] Wesley, Works Vol VII 204, On God’s Vineyard

[6] Wesley, Works Vol V 56, Justification by Faith

[7] Wesley, Works Vol VIII 111, A Farther Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion

[8] Wesley, Works Vol V 11-12, Salvation by Faith

[9] In this same sermon Wesley states that Martin Luther had revived the doctrine of “salvation by faith” so Wesley here is in agreement with Luther, as we have already noted in Wesley’s sermon On God’s Vineyard.

[10] Wesley, Works Vol I 164, Journal (Nov 12^th 1738)

[11] Wesley, Works Vol VIII 53, A Farther Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion

[12] Wesley, Works Vol VII 204, On God’s Vineyard

[13] Wesley, Works Vol VII 317, The Wedding Garment

[14] Wesley, Works Vol VII 205, On God’s Vineyard

[15] Wesley, Works Vol VII 205, On God’s Vineyard [brackets mine]

[16] Wesley, Works Vol VI 65,66 The New Birth

[17] In using the term sanctification, we should understand that this principle is also being applied to the new birth for he has said that “The new birth… is the first point of sanctification…” (Wesley, Works Vol VII 205, On God’s Vineyard).

[18] Wesley, Explanatory Notes upon the New Testament. Rom. 6:18; Heb. 8:12.

[19] Maddox, Randy L. Responsible Grace, 170

[20] Wesley, Works Vol VI 66 The New Birth

[21] Wesley, Works Vol V 57, Justification by Faith