The History of the Doctrine of Justification: Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant Views

Introduction

Justification – the act by which a person is made or declared righteous before God – has been a central doctrine of Christianity throughout its history (Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Alister McGrath on Augustine and Justification) (Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Alister McGrath on Augustine and Justification). Yet Christian traditions have understood justification in markedly different ways. On one side, the Catholic Church (and similarly the Eastern Orthodox Church) teaches that justification is a process involving both God’s grace and human cooperation, notably through faith and works motivated by love (Kyrie, Eleison!: St. John Chrysostom on Faith Alone) (Kyrie, Eleison!: St. John Chrysostom on Faith Alone). On the other side, the Protestant Reformation introduced the principle of sola fide (“by faith alone”), asserting that justification is a one-time forensic (legal) declaration by God, received through faith apart from works (Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Alister McGrath on Augustine and Justification) (Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Alister McGrath on Augustine and Justification). These divergent views have deep historical and theological roots.

This paper provides a comprehensive historical survey of the doctrine of justification, tracing its development from the early church through the medieval period and into the Reformation and modern eras. We will examine what early Christian writers believed about faith, works, and salvation in each major period: (1) the Apostolic and early post-Apostolic era (pre-150 AD), (2) the Ante-Nicene period (150–325 AD), (3) the Patristic period (Post-Nicene through 8th century), (4) the Medieval era (9th–15th centuries), and (5) the Reformation and modern period (16th century to today). Throughout, we will highlight how the Catholic/Eastern Orthodox understanding and the Protestant understanding diverge, and how each side appeals to historical sources.

Crucially, this study prioritizes primary sources – the writings of church fathers (e.g. Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus, Augustine), ecumenical councils, and other early documents – to let the early church speak for itself. We will also incorporate modern scholarship, including the “New Perspective on Paul,” to illuminate how contemporary scholars reinterpret the biblical and historical evidence. Key questions include: Did the early church teach “faith alone”? What was the dominant view of how one becomes righteous before God in each era? How have Protestants used (or misused) early sources to support sola fide, and how can those same sources be understood in light of Catholic/Orthodox theology? We will address disputed translations and interpretations that have fueled theological arguments (such as the meaning of “justify” in Greek, or the phrase “faith alone” itself). We will also compare Catholic and Eastern Orthodox views after their 1054 AD schism, noting both commonalities and nuances (e.g. the Orthodox emphasis on theosis or deification in the salvation process).

By assembling an extensive array of evidence with careful analysis, this paper aims to offer a definitive scholarly reference on the history of justification. The goal is not merely to trace doctrinal development, but also to evaluate competing claims: in particular, to provide a strong, evidence-based rebuttal to the assertion that the early church taught the Protestant view of justification. As we shall see, the weight of historical testimony favors a synergistic understanding of justification (involving faith working through love), continuity between initial justification and a life of righteousness, and an rejection of the idea that a one-time faith without works can save – a perspective consistently upheld in Catholic and Eastern Christian traditions (Kyrie, Eleison!: St. John Chrysostom on Faith Alone) (Origen (c. 185 – C. 253) Vs. “Faith Alone” | Dave Armstrong). At the same time, we will note that the doctrine was refined over time, with the Protestant position representing a significant departure (a “theological novum”) from the prior consensus (Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Alister McGrath on Augustine and Justification) (Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Alister McGrath on Augustine and Justification). Modern ecumenical dialogues and scholarly insights will be woven into the narrative to show how understanding continues to develop.

Structure: We begin with the earliest documents (pre-150 AD), then proceed chronologically. Each section will present key authors and beliefs, with representative quotations in footnotes. Comparisons between Catholic/Orthodox and Protestant interpretations will be drawn at each stage. Finally, we will consider the Reformation debates and modern perspective, including how the New Perspective on Paul recontextualizes the apostolic teaching on justification.

Early Church (Pre-150 AD): Apostolic Fathers on Faith and Works

The Apostolic Fathers (late 1st to mid-2nd century writers who were contemporaries or disciples of the apostles) provide our earliest non-biblical insight into Christian teaching on salvation and justification. In this period (roughly 95–150 AD), the Church was primarily concerned with practical piety, church unity, and combating persecution and gnostic heresies, rather than with detailed theological disputation about justification. Nevertheless, their letters and writings reveal a theological outlook in which faith in Christ and obedience to God go hand-in-hand. There is a clear emphasis on salvation as a gift of God’s mercy, received through faith, but never a suggestion that moral effort or good works can be dispensed with. On the contrary, these early texts stress the necessity of persevering in good works and holiness as the fruit of faith. Notably, some of the biblical phrases that later feature in Reformation debates (such as “saved by grace, not by works”) already appear in these writings, indicating continuity with New Testament teaching. However, the interpretation the early church gave to these phrases aligns more with what we would today call Catholic/Orthodox theology than with Protestant sola fide.

Clement of Rome (c. 96 AD)

Clement of Rome, traditionally considered a leading presbyter (and possibly bishop) of the church in Rome, wrote an Epistle to the Corinthians (c. 96 AD) that is one of the earliest Christian documents outside the New Testament. Clement’s letter addresses a schism in Corinth and exhorts the community to humility and good works. In chapters 32 and 33 of this epistle, we find a striking passage on justification often cited in modern debates. Clement first emphasizes that we are saved not through ourselves or our own accomplishments, but by God’s grace through faith:

“All these [Old Testament saints], therefore, were highly honoured and made great, **not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of [God’s] will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are **not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom or understanding or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart, but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men” (First Clement: Clement of Rome) (1 Clement 32).

Clement here echoes the Pauline theme that human boasting is excluded – we cannot earn God’s gift by our natural merits or wisdom; it is God who justifies, and He has chosen to do so through faith. Protestant readers have seen in this a primitive statement of sola fide. Indeed, Clement explicitly says “we are not justified by… works… but by faith” (First Clement: Clement of Rome), which on the surface sounds very much like Luther’s slogan that we are justified by faith alone, not by works. Early Protestant apologists eagerly pointed to Clement as an example of a Church Father teaching justification apart from works. However, a closer look at Clement’s full teaching shows that his understanding of “faith” is not a barren, inactive faith, but a faith that necessarily produces obedience and love. Immediately after the above statement, Clement continues by insisting that Christians must practice good works:

“What, then, shall we do, brothers? Shall we become slothful in well-doing and cease from the practice of love? God forbid that any such course should be followed by us! But rather let us hasten with all energy and readiness of mind to perform every good work” (First Clement: Clement of Rome). … “We see, then, how all righteous men have been adorned with good works, … Having such an example, let us without delay accede to His will, and let us work the work of righteousness with our whole strength” (First Clement: Clement of Rome) (First Clement: Clement of Rome) (1 Clement 33).

Clement’s message taken in full is that while our calling and initial justification are due to God’s gracious will (not our prior merits), this in no way diminishes the obligation to do good. Faith itself, in Clement’s view, is the God-given means of our justification, but it carries “the practice of love” and “every good work” in its train (First Clement: Clement of Rome) (First Clement: Clement of Rome). There is a parallel here to the New Testament itself: Paul taught that we are saved by grace through faith apart from works of the law (Romans 3:28, Ephesians 2:8-9), yet he also taught that faith must be “working through love” (Galatians 5:6) and that God “will render to each man according to his works” (Romans 2:6). Clement reflects this same balance. In fact, he uses language reminiscent of Paul’s letters and the Epistle of James. In 1 Clement 34, he quotes Scripture: “Behold, the Lord comes, and His reward is with Him, to render to every man according to his work” (First Clement: Clement of Rome), highlighting the future judgment by works. Clement thus cannot be seen as advocating a Reformation-style faith-alone doctrine that excludes works from having any role in salvation. Rather, he teaches what the Catholic Church would later formalize: that we are initially justified by God’s grace through faith, not by any works done prior – and because this is a free gift, we must respond with a life of obedience and love, thereby “completing” or living out our justification.

It is noteworthy that Clement nowhere uses the phrase “faith alone” – he simply contrasts justification by God’s gracious initiative (received through faith) with justification “by ourselves” or by works done in one’s own power (First Clement: Clement of Rome). This is perfectly consistent with the Catholic view that prevenient grace (grace coming before any good deeds) is needed. In fact, the Council of Trent (1547) echoed Clement: “We are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation, and the root of all justification” (Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Alister McGrath on Augustine and Justification) (Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Alister McGrath on Augustine and Justification), and Trent taught that none of those things which precede justification – neither faith nor works – merit the grace of justification (all is by God’s mercy) (Did Clement of Rome teach Justification by Faith Alone? No.) (Did Clement of Rome teach Justification by Faith Alone? No.). Clement’s teaching fits comfortably into this framework of grace-initiated, faith-enabled, transformative justification, rather than the forensic/imputed model of later Protestantism.

Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107 AD)

Ignatius of Antioch, an early bishop who was martyred around 107 AD, wrote several epistles on his way to execution. Ignatius’ letters do not explicitly discuss “justification” in a theological sense; his concerns were ecclesial unity and opposition to heresies like Docetism. However, his statements underscore the importance of obedience and living faith. For example, Ignatius emphasizes moral living and warns that mere belief without ethical follow-through is empty. In his Epistle to the Ephesians, he writes: “Those who profess to be Christ’s will be known by their actions. For the work is not a matter of persuasive rhetoric; Christianity is shown through greatness when it is hated by the world” (Eph. 14, paraphrase). He insists on the incarnation and passion of Christ as the basis of our hope, implying that our trust (faith) in Christ must lead to following Him, even unto suffering.

In his Epistle to the Magnesians, Ignatius makes an important soteriological point: “It is not that I want merely to be called a Christian, but actually to be one. Yes, if I prove to be one, then I can have the name. … Come, therefore, let us prove ourselves worthy of that name which we have received” (Magnesians 4). This reflects the mindset that faith must be proved by deeds – a theme very much like James 2: “Show me your faith without works, and I by my works will show you my faith.” Ignatius does not use the vocabulary of “justification,” but he presumes that final salvation depends on a lived faith.

One notable passage is in Ignatius’s Epistle to the Romans, where he expresses his desire to attain true discipleship through martyrdom rather than seeking his own justification: “Neither the pleasures of the world nor the kingdoms of this age will profit me; it is better for me to die on behalf of Jesus Christ than to reign over all the ends of the earth. Him I seek, who died for us; Him I desire, who rose again for our sake. ... Permit me to be an imitator of the passion of my God!” (Romans 6). Here, Ignatius is Christocentric: salvation is in Christ’s death and resurrection. While he doesn’t spell out faith vs. works, his life demonstrates faith unto death – hardly a faith that is alone or passive.

Polycarp of Smyrna (c. 69–155 AD)

Polycarp, a disciple of the Apostle John, wrote a letter to the Philippians (c. 110-140 AD) that likewise combines a strong grace-based salvation message with exhortations to good works. In Polycarp’s Epistle to the Philippians, we find a direct quotation of Ephesians 2:8-9: Polycarp commends the Philippians for their faith and says they are “saved by grace, not by works, but by the will of God through Jesus Christ” (CHURCH FATHERS: Epistle to the Philippians (Polycarp)). This clearly acknowledges that salvation is an unmerited gift of God (“by grace… through Jesus Christ”), not something we earn (“not of works”). Polycarp is consciously echoing the Pauline teaching that our salvation is God’s doing. Importantly, he attributes salvation to God’s will through Christ, underscoring divine initiative.

However, Polycarp immediately follows this by stressing human cooperation and holiness. In the next sentences, he writes: “He who raised Him [Jesus] up from the dead will raise us up also, if we do His will, and walk in His commandments, and love what He loved, keeping ourselves from all unrighteousness” (CHURCH FATHERS: Epistle to the Philippians (Polycarp)). Here Polycarp conditions our ultimate resurrection/glorification on obedience (“if we do His will and follow His commandments”). He does not see this as contradictory to the statement that we are saved by grace. Rather, like Clement, he holds both truths in tandem: grace saves us, yet a saving faith requires that we live righteously. Polycarp also exhorts various groups in the church (men, women, deacons, youths, virgins) to live blamelessly, to be chaste, truthful, charitable, and to “walk in the commandments of the Lord” (Philippians, ch. 4-5) (CHURCH FATHERS: Epistle to the Philippians (Polycarp)) (CHURCH FATHERS: Epistle to the Philippians (Polycarp)). He warns that “if we disobey, the Lord’s teaching, we are deceiving ourselves”. Clearly, for Polycarp salvation by grace is never a license to ignore moral effort; rather, grace enables one to live a “worthy” life.

Polycarp’s approach closely mirrors the New Testament synergy of Paul and James. He quotes Paul (Eph 2:8-9) to affirm salvation is a gift, and he implicitly agrees with James that “faith without works is dead” since he conditions final salvation on obedience. In fact, Polycarp elsewhere references James 2: “knowing that God is not mocked” and that we must live in a way pleasing to Him, and he reminds the Philippians of the Lord’s saying “Blessed are the poor and those persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the Kingdom” (Polycarp, Phil. 2, quoting Matthew 5:3,10) (CHURCH FATHERS: Epistle to the Philippians (Polycarp)) (CHURCH FATHERS: Epistle to the Philippians (Polycarp)). This shows the early church did not downplay the role of righteous conduct. If anything, they intensified moral exhortation (perhaps because they were battling both pagan immorality and heretical antinomian tendencies).

In summary, the earliest post-New Testament writers affirm both elements that later ages would sometimes pit against each other: they robustly affirm that salvation is God’s work, received by faith and grace, and simultaneously they insist that faith must be active in love and obedience. They had no concept of someone being finally justified before God by a lone mental assent or trust divorced from a life of sanctity. The harmony of faith and works in their thought is perhaps best captured by a quotation attributed (later) to St. Ignatius or Pseudo-Barnabas: “He who professes faith in Christ, and yet does not do His commandments, is a liar.” This ethos pervades the Apostolic Fathers.

The “Epistle to Diognetus” (c. 130 AD)

An intriguing early text, the Epistle to Diognetus (an anonymous apologetic work, mid-2nd century), provides further insight into early Christian soteriology. In chapters 8–9, the author extols the mysterious exchange wrought by Christ for our salvation. He emphasizes humanity’s inability to save itself and the sheer grace of God in justification:

“He [God] showed great long-suffering… and when our wickedness had reached its height, and it had been clearly shown that we were unable to enter into God’s kingdom by our own power, … then God Himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities, He gave His own Son as a ransom for us – the righteous One for the unrighteous, the innocent for the wicked – … For what else but His righteousness could have covered our sins? In whom was it possible for us, the lawless and ungodly, to be justified, except in the Son of God alone? O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! O unexpected blessings – that the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors!” (Diognetus. The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus (translation Roberts-Donaldson).) (Diognetus. The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus (translation Roberts-Donaldson).)

This remarkable passage teaches justification by Christ’s righteousness. The author marvels that our sins are covered by Christ’s righteousness, and explicitly says that we, the ungodly, are justified “in the Son of God” (Diognetus. The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus (translation Roberts-Donaldson).). The language of an “exchange” (Christ’s righteousness for our wickedness) later resonates with the Protestant idea of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to believers. Indeed, one could interpret Diognetus as articulating that concept in nascent form: “the righteousness of One justifies many transgressors”. It strongly echoes Paul’s teaching in 2 Corinthians 5:21 (“He made Him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God”). Protestant scholars have noted this as an early testimony to a substitutionary atonement and justification doctrine. However, we must note two things: (1) The author is describing the objective work of Christ for humanity’s salvation in poetic terms, not delivering a systematic doctrine of individual justification by faith alone; (2) The phrase “justified in the Son of God” is immediately preceded by “in whom was it possible for us… to be justified, except in the Son of God?”, highlighting the unique role of Christ (over against any works of the Law or human merit). The context is an apologetic contrast with both paganism and Judaism – showing that neither moral philosophy nor Mosaic observances could save, but only God’s Son could (Diognetus. The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus (translation Roberts-Donaldson).) (Diognetus. The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus (translation Roberts-Donaldson).).

The Epistle to Diognetus also emphasizes that this salvation is entirely of God’s mercy and not of our doing. Earlier in ch.9 it says God allowed humans to try and fail to attain life by their own works so that they would realize their need for Him: “[He] convinced us in that time of our unworthiness of attaining life through our own works, and now, through the kindness of God, it has been vouchsafed to us… having shown that in ourselves we were unable to enter God’s kingdom, we might through the power of God be made able” (Diognetus. The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus (translation Roberts-Donaldson).) (Diognetus. The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus (translation Roberts-Donaldson).). This is classic anti-Pelagian language avant la lettre – salvation cannot be attained by our own works, only by God’s power and mercy. Thus, Diognetus stands firmly in the grace-based perspective.

What of faith? The letter doesn’t explicitly mention “faith” in this context, but it implies that trusting in God’s kindness is the necessary response: “He desired to lead us to trust in His kindness… so that we should not be anxious… but should love Him who first loved us” (Diognetus 9-10). The fruit of God’s saving work is that we love Him and “be imitators of His kindness” (ch.10) (Diognetus. The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus (translation Roberts-Donaldson).) (Diognetus. The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus (translation Roberts-Donaldson).). In other words, once saved by God’s grace, the expected result is a life of charity (imitation of God’s love) – again, a synergy of faith and works.

In summary, the pre-Nicene early church (1st–2nd centuries) held a view of justification/salvation that can be characterized as transformative and synergistic: God’s grace through Jesus Christ is absolutely primary and indispensable (no one is justified by his own natural ability or works), and this grace is appropriated through faith (trust in God’s mercy through Christ). At the same time, true faith is never seen as “alone” in the sense of remaining by itself without works; rather, faith is completed by action and love. The Apostolic Fathers would have found the later Protestant dichotomy (“faith alone saves, works are merely evidential”) too rigid – for them, works are not opposed to faith but rather an integral expression of it. As Origen would later succinctly say, “We are not justified by faith alone, but by works as well” (Origen (c. 185 – C. 253) Vs. “Faith Alone” | Dave Armstrong) (a statement we will examine in the next section).

It is important to note that no early writer in this period formulates a doctrine of imputed righteousness or a clear separation of justification from sanctification. Salvation is understood in more holistic terms – being forgiven, healed, and transformed by Christ. Terms like “justify” (Greek dikaioō) in Scripture were often understood to include making someone actually righteous. The early tendency (especially in Greek-speaking Christianity) was to see justification as inclusive of moral renewal. The sharp forensic accounting that “I am righteous only because Christ’s righteousness is credited to me, while I remain inherently a sinner” is foreign to these writers. Instead, they would say: God justifies the ungodly by forgiving their sins and enabling them to live righteously – thus actually making them godly.

In the next period (150–325 AD), we will see these themes developed further by the Apologists and theologians, and also address how later generations (Protestants and Catholics) have each claimed continuity with or deviation from these early witnesses. The Catholic/Orthodox interpretation sees the Apostolic Fathers as proto-Catholic: teaching the necessity of grace and faith, yet insisting on works of love – which aligns with the Catholic view that we are initially justified by grace (not earned by works) but must cooperate with grace thereafter. The Protestant interpretation sometimes cherry-picks lines like Clement’s “not by our own works… but by faith” (First Clement: Clement of Rome) or Polycarp’s “by grace you are saved not of works” (CHURCH FATHERS: Epistle to the Philippians (Polycarp)) to claim the early church taught sola fide. However, when those lines are read in context with the surrounding insistence on obedience, it becomes clear that the early Christian understanding is not the same as the Reformation doctrine. Far from supporting an idea of “faith alone apart from works”, the early evidence supports what James 2:24 so plainly states: “a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.” The early church would have unanimously echoed James on that point.

150 AD to 325 AD: The Ante-Nicene Fathers and Apologists

Between 150 AD and the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, Christian theology became more developed through the works of the Greek Apologists and early Church Fathers. This period includes figures such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyons, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and Origen of Alexandria, among others. They wrote in an era of ongoing dialogue with Judaism and Greco-Roman philosophy, and against Gnostic sects. Two themes particularly impacted their view of justification: (1) the relationship between Christianity and the Mosaic Law, especially in the context of disputes with Judaism; and (2) the fight against Gnosticism, which emphasized esoteric knowledge over faith and moral living. Both themes led these fathers to clarify that salvation comes through faith in Christ, not by keeping the ceremonial works of the Mosaic law, yet also to assert strongly that the moral transformation of the believer is essential. We will see that Ante-Nicene writers discuss justification often in connection with circumcision and the “works of the law”, much like Paul did, thereby underscoring that righteousness is available to Gentiles apart from the Jewish law – a point sometimes mistaken as endorsement of sola fide in the Protestant sense. But in their full theology, they maintain the necessity of good works (understood as the fruit of faith and grace).

Justin Martyr (c. 100–165 AD)

Justin Martyr was one of the first great Christian apologists. A philosopher who converted to Christianity, Justin wrote Dialogue with Trypho, a lengthy discussion with a Jewish interlocutor, as well as two Apologies defending Christianity to the Roman authorities. In his Dialogue (c. 155 AD), Justin addresses the question of how people are justified and saved, especially highlighting the example of Abraham. He echoes St. Paul’s teaching that Abraham was justified by faith before circumcision, to prove that Gentiles can be justified by faith without observing the entire Mosaic law.

In Dialogue with Trypho chapter 92, Justin asks why, if righteous figures like Noah, Enoch, Abraham, and others pleased God without circumcision or the Sinai law, did God later give the law. He then states: “Abraham was declared by God to be righteous not on account of circumcision, but on account of faith. For before he was circumcised, it was said of him, ‘Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.’ And we, being uncircumcised in flesh, yet believing God through Christ, and having the circumcision of the heart, we hope to appear righteous before and well-pleasing to God” (CHURCH FATHERS: Dialogue with Trypho, Chapters 89-108 (Justin Martyr)). This is an explicit affirmation that faith is the means by which one is reckoned righteous, apart from the Jewish rites. Justin is clearly drawing from Genesis 15:6 and Romans 4:3. He even uses language reminiscent of sola fide – effectively saying “not by circumcision or Sabbath-keeping, but by faith are we made righteous.” In another part of the Dialogue (ch. 23), Justin paraphrases Paul’s point: “Those who lived according to the Law and those who lived before the Law can be saved only by Christ through faith, not by the Law.”

Justin’s argument against Trypho is that external works of the Mosaic Law (circumcision, Sabbaths, sacrifices) were temporary or pedagogical; now that Christ has come, faith in Christ is the way to righteousness for all, Jew and Gentile. In doing so, Justin affirms the principle of justification by faith, not by (Mosaic) works. Protestant historians sometimes enlist Justin as an early proponent of justification apart from works. Indeed, Justin even uses the phrase “not by works” in certain contexts. For example, he writes that former sinners “have obtained remission of sins through Christ’s name, and not through your circumcision, or sabbaths, or sacrifices” (Dial. 43), and that “[God] purposed to save by mercy those who pursue repentance, rather than to save those who fulfill the ordinances of the Law” (Dial. 44). These statements resonate with Pauline theology in Romans and Galatians opposing reliance on law-works.

However, it is critical to note what Justin means by “works.” In context, he is referring specifically to the works of the Mosaic Law (circumcision, temple rituals, dietary laws) as being unnecessary for justification (CHURCH FATHERS: Dialogue with Trypho, Chapters 89-108 (Justin Martyr)) (CHURCH FATHERS: Dialogue with Trypho, Chapters 89-108 (Justin Martyr)). This is the same nuance we see in Paul: “a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ” (Gal. 2:16). Neither Paul nor Justin was talking about moral good deeds done in grace; they were refuting the necessity of the Jewish identity markers and ceremonial works for salvation. Justin even says in the same passage that believers have “the true circumcision, that of the heart” and thus seek to “appear righteous and well-pleasing to God” (CHURCH FATHERS: Dialogue with Trypho, Chapters 89-108 (Justin Martyr)). This circumcision of the heart implies an internal transformation and obedience to God (an idea drawn from Deuteronomy 30:6 and Jeremiah 4:4). It is not a license to sin, but rather a call to a deeper righteousness than the external law provided.

Indeed, Justin elsewhere emphasizes keeping Christ’s commandments. In First Apology ch.16, describing Christian moral conduct, he notes Christians dedicate themselves to the good and virtuous life. He interprets the new covenant as writing God’s laws on hearts, echoing Jeremiah 31:33. Therefore, Justin holds that faith in Christ replaces the old law as the means of justification, but this faith entails obedience to the new law of Christ. In Dialogue ch. 18, he says Christ “is the new law, and the new covenant, and the eternal and final law.” Justin explicitly says that the moral precepts (e.g., the Decalogue minus the specifically Jewish signs) are affirmed and even intensified by Christ. In effect, Justin’s view is that one is not justified by doing the ceremonies of Moses, but by embracing Christ in faith; and this faith involves following the moral law of God as confirmed by Christ.

Thus, if a Protestant were to claim Justin Martyr taught sola fide in the sense of “faith alone, and works have nothing to do with maintaining a state of righteousness,” that would be a misreading. Justin would object strongly to any notion that a Christian could have saving faith and yet not live a godly life. He in fact argues with Trypho that Christians achieve the righteousness the Law aimed for, but through faith and the Spirit: “For since the law was laboring at this, to make man righteous, but had not power, He [Christ] came and brought in the way of righteousness by faith” (Why John Calvin did not Recognize the Distinction Between Mortal and ...). The goal (a righteous life pleasing to God) is realized “by faith” – which for Justin includes the regenerative and sanctifying work of Christ in us.

Modern scholarship (including the New Perspective on Paul) sheds light here: Paul’s and Justin’s polemic is against relying on Jewish identity works, not against doing any good works. James G. Dunn and N.T. Wright note that “justification by faith” in such contexts is shorthand for “justification by faith apart from becoming Jewish via works of the Law.” Justin’s use is exactly that. He even concedes that faithful Jews before Christ who kept the law righteously (out of love for God) were accepted – but now that Christ has come, Gentiles need not adopt the law: it is their faith in Christ that suffices for righteousness (Justification in the Early Church – 04 – Justin Martyr – The Scripture Says) (Justification in the Early Church – 04 – Justin Martyr – The Scripture Says).

In conclusion on Justin: He affirms the primacy of faith and grace in justification, contending against any notion of salvation by legal works. At the same time, his overall theology upholds the necessity of holiness and keeping Christ’s commands as the path of the justified. There is no hint that he thought a one-time act of faith guarantees final salvation irrespective of one’s subsequent behavior. In fact, Justin warns that Christians can fall into sin and lose salvation (he speaks of repentant believers needing forgiveness). This aligns with the later Catholic understanding that initial justification is by faith/grace, but must be preserved and can be lost by turning away into sin.

Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 130–202 AD)

St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, was a towering theologian of the late 2nd century, best known for his work Against Heresies (c. 180 AD) combating Gnostic teachings. Irenaeus does not present a systematic treatise on justification per se; rather, his soteriology is woven into his theology of recapitulation. He taught that Christ, as the second Adam, recapitulated or summed up all of humanity in Himself, restoring what was lost in Adam by His obedience, passion, and resurrection (Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Alister McGrath on Augustine and Justification) (Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Alister McGrath on Augustine and Justification). Thus, through union with Christ, humans are made righteous and attain life. Irenaeus’s emphases include the incarnation (God becoming man so that man might share in God’s life) and the gradual growth of the believer from innocence to maturity in righteousness.

When Irenaeus does touch on the theme of how people are justified or considered righteous, he, like Justin, contrasts the covenants. In Against Heresies, Book IV, chapters 12-13, he explains that Christ did not annul the moral law but fulfilled and expanded it, while doing away with the old ceremonial law. In chapter 13, he notes that before the Mosaic Law was given, people like Abel, Noah, Enoch, and Abraham were justified by their faith and righteousness, pleasing God without circumcision. He writes: “Those who [lived] from Adam to Moses, not having the Law, yet having the righteousness of the Law in their hearts, were justified by faith, and pleased God” (IV.13.1) (Justification in the Early Church – 05 – Ireneaus of Lyons – The Scripture Says). He explicitly uses the phrase “justified by faith” for the patriarchs before the Law (Justification in the Early Church – 05 – Ireneaus of Lyons – The Scripture Says). However, in the same context he also speaks of them observing the natural precepts of the law that were later given by Moses (Justification in the Early Church – 05 – Ireneaus of Lyons – The Scripture Says). In other words, Irenaeus doesn’t pit faith against moral obedience – he sees them as harmonious. “Those who were justified by faith did also observe the natural precepts of the Law”, he writes (Justification in the Early Church – 05 – Ireneaus of Lyons – The Scripture Says), showing that *for him, “justified by faith” is compatible with actually being righteous in conduct.

Irenaeus goes on to assert that with Christ, the obligation to the old ceremonial practices is lifted, but the “natural precepts” (the Decalogue and fundamental moral laws) remain – and Christians are to follow them even more fully, now empowered by the Holy Spirit. He even says in IV.13.2 that Abraham’s faith and obedience was a foreshadowing: Abraham “believed God” and was justified, but also “every precept of the law which was natural [moral]… Abraham and the other patriarchs observed, previous to Moses, without the necessity of the law”. This implies that faith and works of righteousness were intertwined even for Abraham. Irenaeus explicitly cites James 2:23 (Abraham’s justification and his being called friend of God) and James 2:24 ( “a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone”) approvingly (Justification in the Early Church – 05 – Ireneaus of Lyons). In fact, he alludes to James in demonstrating that Christ’s coming does not mean moral laxity, but rather a greater call to love and godliness.

One crucial aspect of Irenaeus’s doctrine is divinization (theosis) – that through the Holy Spirit, believers become increasingly like God in righteousness and immortality. “If the Word has been made man, it is so that men may be made divine” (Adv. Haer. V, pref.). In this paradigm, justification is not a one-time legal act but part of an ongoing transformation (what later theology distinguishes as justification and sanctification rolled together). For Irenaeus, to be “justified” means to be truly made just (righteous) by God’s grace, beginning in this life and consummated in the resurrection.

So, while Irenaeus might use the phrase “justified by faith”, he inherently includes the notion that justifying faith is accompanied by “the precepts of righteousness”. Modern Eastern Orthodox theology often claims Irenaeus as an exponent of their view – synergistic and transformative. Indeed, Irenaeus emphasizes free will and human cooperation with grace against Gnostic determinism. He says, “God will not save us without our cooperation” (paraphrasing IV.39.1). This synergism would later be taken up by semi-Pelagians, but Irenaeus’s point is simply that one must freely respond to God’s grace; he is not denying that grace is essential at every step.

Protestant Reformation polemics: At the time of the Reformation, Irenaeus was less frequently cited than Augustine or later fathers, partly because his works were less widely known in the West until the late Middle Ages. However, in modern debates, some Protestants attempt to read Irenaeus’s phrase “justified by faith” in isolation, while Catholics/Orthodox point out his inclusion of works. The truth is Irenaeus espoused a continuity of faith and works much like James. One scholar notes: “For Irenaeus, ‘justified by faith’ is compatible with being ‘justified by works’ – one is not the antithesis of the other” (Justification in the Early Church – 05 – Ireneaus of Lyons – The Scripture Says). In other words, Irenaeus did not have the later antagonism of concepts; he saw faith and obedience as two sides of the same coin of a righteous life given by God.

To give a concrete example from Irenaeus: he says that Jesus raised the moral standard (“do not commit adultery” becomes “do not even lust”), and that “those who believe in Him [Christ] do follow His words” (IV.13.3). He comments on Matthew 5: “Christ did not abrogate the natural [moral] law, but extended and fulfilled it,” making it not just about actions but about the heart. Clearly, believing in Christ entails obeying Christ in Irenaeus’s mind. If one claimed “I have faith in Christ” but lived contrary to Christ’s teachings, Irenaeus would reject that as a false faith. He quotes Jesus in Luke 6:46: “Why do you call me Lord, Lord, and do not do what I say?” (IV.27.2) to criticize heretics who claim to have superior knowledge (faith) but lack obedience.

In summary, Irenaeus presents justification as a part of the larger process of restoration to righteousness and fellowship with God, initiated by faith and baptism, and evidenced by a life of virtue. There is no separation of the moment of justification from the life of sanctification – they are one continuous reality of salvation. This is thoroughly in line with what would become the Catholic and Orthodox view. It is quite distant from the later Protestant forensic-only view. As Alister McGrath observes, from the time of Irenaeus and Augustine onward, justification was generally understood to include both the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous (Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Alister McGrath on Augustine and Justification) (Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Alister McGrath on Augustine and Justification), until the Reformers introduced a new distinction.

Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–215) and Tertullian (c. 160–225)

Due to space, we will only briefly note these contemporaries:

• Clement of Alexandria (c. 190 AD), a Greek Christian philosopher, taught that faith is the foundation of knowledge of God and that “being justified by faith is the beginning of righteousness”, which then must be completed by deeds. Clement emphasizes that faith and works are intertwined: “Who is the rich man that shall be saved?” (his famous treatise) concludes that wealthy Christians must actually do good works (like almsgiving) in faith to be saved – mere belief won’t rescue them from judgment. He quotes James to warn against faith without works (Origen (c. 185 – C. 253) Vs. “Faith Alone” | Dave Armstrong). Clement sees initial salvation as all grace, but subsequent Christian life as a cooperation.

• Tertullian (North Africa, c. 200 AD) had a strong moralistic bent. He famously said, “God will not allow Himself to be mocked: that man alone is justified who is a doer of the law” (an echo of Romans 2:13) (Did Augustine Get Justification Wrong? | Desiring God). Tertullian, while understanding that baptism grants forgiveness of past sins by God’s grace, believed post-baptismal sins must be dealt with by penance – a very Catholic view later. He would hardly countenance sola fide. In Against Marcion V.3, he argues that Paul and James are not contradictory: Paul excludes works of the Mosaic law, James insists on works of charity; both are true. This shows an early attempt to harmonize Paul and James, essentially rejecting that “faith alone” (in a naked sense) justifies. Tertullian even writes, “You see that a person is justified by works, not by faith alone,” explicitly citing James (Justification in the Early Church – 05 – Ireneaus of Lyons).

Thus, Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian continue the theme: justification/salvation begins with faith, but is not completed without works. Both speak of a future judgment according to works, implying that how one lives as a believer is decisive for final salvation – a point Catholic theology later maintained (e.g., “good works preserve and increase justification” (Justified by Faith or Works or Both? | Catholic Answers Q&A)) and Protestant theology had to explain (usually by saying works are evidence of true faith).

Origen of Alexandria (c. 185–253 AD)

Origen deserves special attention, as he wrote the first extant commentary on Romans (around 244 AD) and grappled with Paul’s doctrine of justification. Origen’s writings show a very sophisticated view that attempts to balance Paul and James. In his Commentary on Romans (fragment preserved in Latin by Rufinus), Origen acknowledges Paul’s teaching that we are “justified by faith apart from works of the Law.” In fact, Origen uses the exact phrase “faith alone” when explicating Paul – a rare occurrence in patristic literature. For example, on Romans 3:28, he writes: “Paul says that a man is justified by faith alone apart from works of the Law.” This is sometimes triumphantly quoted by Protestants, since it sounds like Luther’s slogan. Indeed, Ambrosiaster, a 4th-century writer, similarly stated: “God has decreed that a man is justified by faith alone, without the works of the law” (Justification by Faith Alone (Pre-Reformation) - Effectual Grace) (The seed form of sola fide in Ambrosiaster | The Puritan Board). However, we must be cautious: Origen is explaining Paul’s meaning in context – that is, apart from the works of the Mosaic Law. Origen did not conclude that moral efforts done in grace are irrelevant. In fact, Origen immediately goes on to say that justification by faith is the beginning, but it must result in the works of righteousness through love.

Origen explicitly writes, in his Commentary on Romans: “If someone only believes and has no works to show for it, if he dies in that state, his faith will save him; but if he continues living, it is necessary for him to pursue works. For faith was given to us as a beginning.” This somewhat enigmatic statement suggests Origen believed that a deathbed conversion (faith without chance for works) would suffice for salvation (like the thief on the cross), but a faith that has opportunity to do good must do so or else it cannot finally save. In another place, Origen contends: “Faith alone can justify; but only faith which is working through love (Gal 5:6)… not an idle faith.” (Justification in the Early Church – 10 – Origen). He directly addresses James’s teaching: in his Dialogue with Heraclides, Origen says, “We will be judged not on faith alone, as if we had not to answer for our conduct; nor on conduct alone, as if faith were not to be scrutinized. What justifies is our uprightness on both scores” (Origen (c. 185 – C. 253) Vs. “Faith Alone” | Dave Armstrong). This is a remarkable assertion: Origen insists both faith and conduct (works) will figure into our justification at the final judgment, and both together constitute the righteousness that justifies us. In short, Origen reconciles Paul and James by suggesting that initial justification (forgiveness and acceptance by God) is by faith (and baptism) without works of the Mosaic law or prior merit – but full justification (including final salvation) incorporates works done in love. Origen frequently quotes James 2: “faith without works is dead”. He even jests that Paul’s phrase “faith apart from works” might mislead some, so James added “not by faith alone” to clarify.

In Origen’s theology, justification is dynamic. He does speak of imputed righteousness in one sense – God reckons our faith as righteousness, just as He did for Abraham. But Origen also speaks of imparted righteousness – God actually making us holy through Christ. He uses the term “justify” sometimes to mean “make righteous” (transform), other times “count as righteous” (forgive). This dual usage exists in Scripture itself, and Origen is aware of it (CHURCH FATHERS: Epistle to the Philippians (Polycarp)) (CHURCH FATHERS: Epistle to the Philippians (Polycarp)). For example, he interprets Romans 4 (David’s sin and forgiveness) as justification being essentially forgiveness of sins (a declaration of righteousness apart from works). But he interprets Romans 2 and 6 as showing that those who do good by God’s grace will be justified in judgment (an actual being righteous by living rightly). He does not set these at odds, but sees them as stages or aspects of one process.

It’s noteworthy that Origen’s view on grace and free will (later controversial) was that human effort is always preceded and enabled by God’s grace, yet human freedom must cooperate. He says any good work a Christian does is by the grace of God; yet one must still do it – grace doesn’t nullify effort. This again is in line with Catholic synergy. He even anticipated arguments about boasting: “Our merits are God’s gifts” he says – meaning if we do merit reward, it’s only because God’s grace made it possible (Church Fathers on Sola Fide by Matt1618 Part 2). The Catholic Church later would say the same at Trent: “nothing merits grace, and even our good works done in God [after justification] are His gifts” (Church Fathers on Sola Fide by Matt1618 Part 2) (Why John Calvin did not Recognize the Distinction Between Mortal and ...).

In summary, Origen explicitly rejects the idea of sola fide if by that one means a faith devoid of works. He is an early Father who directly addresses the concept and insists on the necessity of both faith and works for final justification (Origen (c. 185 – C. 253) Vs. “Faith Alone” | Dave Armstrong). Yet he upholds the primacy of faith and grace in initiating salvation. His careful balance prefigures later Catholic synthesis. Eastern Orthodox also appreciate Origen (despite some theological errors) for his synergy concept. Protestants sometimes claim Origen gave them an ally by using the phrase “faith alone,” but in context Origen would stand closer to the Catholic camp in viewing fides caritate formata (faith formed by love) as justifying, rather than fides sola informis (faith alone unformed by love).

Summary of Ante-Nicene Period

By the early 4th century, the consensus of church teaching was:

• Justification/salvation is through Jesus Christ, by God’s grace, received through faith, not by the external works of the Mosaic Law nor by merely human effort. This was a non-negotiable inherited from the apostles. The Gentile mission and controversies with Judaizers in the first century had settled that circumcision and kosher laws were not required. The Fathers uphold this: one is justified by faith in Christ, as evidenced in Justin, Irenaeus, Origen, etc. They frequently point to Abraham as justified by faith before works of law (CHURCH FATHERS: Dialogue with Trypho, Chapters 89-108 (Justin Martyr)).

• However, “faith” was invariably understood as a living, obedient faith. The early Fathers did not teach that a one-time belief guarantees eternal life regardless of sin (that idea would have been seen as antinomian or related to the Gnostic notion that only knowledge/faith matters). On the contrary, they constantly warn believers to persevere in good works and avoid sin, or else forfeit salvation. For example, all these writers believe serious post-baptismal sins require repentance to be forgiven; none taught the later Protestant idea of an indelible forensic justification that cannot be lost.

• “Works” in their polemical context means works of the Mosaic Law (circumcision, sacrifices, etc.) or works done without Christ. They do not mean the works of love done by a Christian in grace. When they say “not by works,” they typically add “of the law” or are addressing people who trusted in genealogy or ritual. They absolutely affirm the necessity of moral works as the fruit of faith. The synergy formula could be: we are saved by grace alone, through faith, unto good works (cf. Eph 2:8-10) – a formula a Catholic, Orthodox, or even a Protestant could agree with if properly defined.

• Baptism was universally regarded as the moment of initial justification (when sins are forgiven and one is regenerated by the Holy Spirit – essentially “born again”). Justin Martyr in his First Apology describes baptism as illumination and forgiveness of sins entirely by God’s mercy. Irenaeus calls baptism “our regeneration” by God. This ties into justification because, for the early Church, justification = cleansing from sin and new birth in Christ. Faith was required of the catechumen (or in infant baptism, the faith of the Church), but baptism was seen as the instrumental cause where God actually justifies the person (imparts righteousness). This sacramental view sharply contrasts with Protestant Reformers, who relegated baptism to a symbol that follows justification. The early view is more in line with Catholic/Orthodox teaching that baptism conveys justification.

• We observe no doctrine of “faith alone” as a slogan or principle in this period. In fact, whenever something like “faith alone” (sola fide) is mentioned, it is usually to deny it suffices by itself. For instance, an early Christian document, 2 Clement (c. 140 AD, not by Clement of Rome but an anonymous homily) states: “Let us not merely call Him Lord, for that will not save us. For He says, ‘Not everyone who says to Me, “Lord, Lord,” will be saved, but he who does what is right.’ …Therefore, brothers, let us confess Him by our deeds”* (2 Clem 4:1-3). This reflects Matthew 7:21 and James’ teaching together: calling Jesus “Lord” (an act of faith) won’t save without doing the Father’s will (works). Such statements abound, showing the mindset of the early church was far from sola fide as later defined (Kyrie, Eleison!: St. John Chrysostom on Faith Alone) (Kyrie, Eleison!: St. John Chrysostom on Faith Alone).

Modern scholarly perspective on this period: Modern patristic scholars like Alister McGrath, Jaroslav Pelikan, and others confirm that the early church did not articulate a Reformation-style doctrine of justification. McGrath states: “The Protestant understanding of justification as purely forensic and by faith alone must be regarded as a genuine theological novum in the history of the church” (Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Alister McGrath on Augustine and Justification). The early Fathers tended to conflate what later ages would distinguish as justification and sanctification (Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Alister McGrath on Augustine and Justification) (Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Alister McGrath on Augustine and Justification). They saw salvation as a process of becoming righteous. The New Perspective on Paul also underscores that the early Christian focus (much like Paul’s own focus) was on the inclusion of Gentiles by faith, not on later questions of personal assurance or the nature of merit. So when Justin or Origen speak of faith vs. works, they are in continuity with Second-Temple Jewish debates on identity, rather than anticipating Luther’s angst about finding a gracious God.

In controversies, later Protestants often accused the Catholic Church of straying from “the simple gospel” that the early church presumably held. However, the evidence we have surveyed shows continuity between the earliest teaching and the Catholic/Orthodox stance: both faith and works (enabled by grace) are essential. The stark sola fide formula (faith alone justifies, and works only follow as a fruit but do not contribute to maintaining justification) is not found. This will become even more evident as we move into the Patristic period (post-Nicene) where figures like Augustine deeply shape the doctrine.

Before that, it’s worth noting James 2:24 – “a man is justified by works and not by faith alone” – was part of the canonical Scripture recognized by the Church. Any teaching of the Fathers had to account for that verse. We’ve seen that they did – by interpreting “works” properly and integrating James with Paul. There is no recorded instance of a Father rejecting James or explaining it away as “justification before men” (a later Protestant attempt to harmonize it with sola fide). They took it at face value: it means our works, in addition to our faith, play a role in our justification (i.e., in demonstrating and completing it).

With this foundation, we now turn to the Patristic era after the Council of Nicaea (325 AD), where theological reflection becomes more precise, and where the seeds of later doctrinal development (and disputes) were sown.

Patristic Period (Post-Nicaea to 8th Century): Augustine, Councils, and Eastern Fathers

The Patristic period, roughly from the Council of Nicaea (325) through the 7th-8th centuries, was marked by the formulation of central Christian doctrines (Trinity, Christology) and the spread of Christianity across the Roman Empire (and beyond). The doctrine of justification, while not the focus of any ecumenical council in this era, was implicitly shaped by debates on sin, grace, and free will, especially the Pelagian controversy in the early 5th century. During this time, the Western Church (Latin-speaking) and Eastern Church (Greek-speaking) had somewhat different emphases, but both maintained the inherited belief in salvation as a process involving both God’s grace and human cooperation. We will examine key contributors: St. Augustine in the West, who more than anyone defined the Western understanding of justification and grace; the decisions of local councils like Carthage (418) and Orange (529) which condemned Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism and affirmed the necessity of grace; and representative Eastern Fathers (e.g. St. John Chrysostom, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Basil, St. Gregory Nazianzen) who, while not focusing on justification as a distinct topic, taught a doctrine of salvation through faith that produces holiness – essentially a synergy leading to what Eastern theology calls theosis (deification). We will also see how Catholic and Orthodox interpretations diverged subtly after the East-West split (1054), though on justification their differences are minor compared to the gulf with Protestantism.

St. Augustine of Hippo (354–430 AD) – Grace and Justification

Augustine is arguably the single most influential theologian on the doctrine of justification prior to the Reformation. Both Protestant Reformers and the Catholic Church look back to Augustine for support, yet they emphasize different aspects of his teaching. Augustine’s thought on justification is deeply intertwined with his understanding of grace, free will, and predestination, honed especially in his refutations of Pelagianism (the heresy of Pelagius, who denied original sin and asserted humans can achieve righteousness by their own will without special grace). Through battling Pelagius, Augustine clarified that justification is entirely the work of God’s grace – humans cannot even begin to have faith or do good without grace’s initiative (Of Faith and Works, Seventeen Short Treatises of S. Augustine, Saint Augustine, Christian Classics books at BibleStudyTools.com) (Of Faith and Works, Seventeen Short Treatises of S. Augustine, Saint Augustine, Christian Classics books at BibleStudyTools.com). At the same time, Augustine maintained that grace, once given, transforms the person’s will so that they freely cooperate in doing good. His famous maxim: “He who created you without you, will not justify (or save) you without you.” This captures the synergy: God’s action is primary, but our assent is involved.

What is justification for Augustine? Augustine generally understood “to justify” (iustificare in Latin) as “to make righteous.” It is not merely to declare righteous while leaving one in sin, but to actually change the soul, turning it from sin to righteousness. Augustine’s interpretation of Romans 5:5 (“the love of God has been poured into our hearts by the Holy Spirit”) and Romans 5:9 justified by Christ’s blood, etc., led him to define justification as the infusion of divine love (charity) into the heart, forgiving sin and imparting righteousness. In his work On the Spirit and the Letter (412 AD), Augustine wrote: “Justification is such a transformation, that a man, from being unrighteous, is made righteous” (Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Alister McGrath on Augustine and Justification) (Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Alister McGrath on Augustine and Justification). He explicitly rejects the idea that justification would be only external or legal: “the law was given that grace might be sought; grace was given that the law might be fulfilled.” For Augustine, when God justifies, He doesn’t just ignore our sin; He cleanses it and empowers us to fulfill the law through love.

At the same time, Augustine strongly emphasizes faith. He famously said, “God justifies the ungodly – not because they are ungodly, but that having been justified, they may go on to become godly”. How are they justified? “By faith, so that they may obtain the gift of God’s grace.” Augustine sees faith as the starting point of salvation. But crucially, he insists that faith must be formed by love. He coined the term fides caritate formata (faith formed by charity). In contrast, fides informis (faith without form, i.e., without love) is, in Augustine’s view, a useless faith like that of demons. In The Enchiridion (Handbook of Faith, Hope, and Charity), ch. 8, Augustine states: “Without love, faith can indeed exist, but it avails nothing” – echoing 1 Corinthians 13:2 and James 2:19 (The Doctrine of Justification: Augustine is Catholic) (St. Augustine on Law and Grace - Called to Communion). Therefore, when Augustine reads Paul’s phrase “justified by faith,” he understands it as faith working through love. He often cites Galatians 5:6 in this context: “In Christ Jesus, neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.” This is, for Augustine, the very definition of the faith that justifies (Augustine on Justification (what you must know) - The Center for Pastor ...) (Did Augustine Get Justification Wrong? | Desiring God).

A clear example: In On Faith and Works (De fide et operibus, 413 AD), Augustine confronted some who were saying that since we are justified by faith, it doesn’t matter what works a person does even at the moment before baptism – some argued even an immoral person should be baptized without any admonition to change. Augustine rebuked this: “That one can, without renouncing the devil or forsaking wicked deeds, receive God’s grace – this is absolutely contrary to sound doctrine”. He affirms that one must repent and intend to lead a new life when coming to faith and baptism (Of Faith and Works, Seventeen Short Treatises of S. Augustine, Saint Augustine, Christian Classics books at BibleStudyTools.com) (Of Faith and Works, Seventeen Short Treatises of S. Augustine, Saint Augustine, Christian Classics books at BibleStudyTools.com). He writes, “Faith without works is of no use, for even the devils believe and tremble. Works without faith likewise do not suffice, since the just live by faith”. And, “In the matter of justification, faith is the root: works are the fruit. It is not that the root exists without fruit, but that the fruit must grow from the root”. This horticultural analogy shows his view: faith is primary (justification begins with faith by grace alone) (Of Faith and Works, Seventeen Short Treatises of S. Augustine, Saint Augustine, Christian Classics books at BibleStudyTools.com) (Of Faith and Works, Seventeen Short Treatises of S. Augustine, Saint Augustine, Christian Classics books at BibleStudyTools.com), but true faith necessarily yields the fruit of good works.

Moreover, Augustine’s anti-Pelagian writings defined the concept of merit in a way that undercuts human boasting: “When God crowns our merits, He crowns nothing other than His own gifts” (Letter 194). That is, even the good works of the justified are wrought by grace, so any “reward” (like eternal life) that God gives in response is a reward for what His grace accomplished in us – we can’t boast as if it were purely ours (Church Fathers on Sola Fide by Matt1618 Part 2) (Church Fathers on Sola Fide by Matt1618 Part 2). This profound insight became foundational in Catholic soteriology: our merits are themselves gifts of God’s grace (Church Fathers on Sola Fide by Matt1618 Part 2). It balances the teaching that God indeed promises reward to good works (Scripture often says so), with the principle that all is of grace.

Augustine also introduced a distinction that later Reformers would seize on: the idea that justification in this life is not yet complete or final. He interpreted 1 Corinthians 13: “Now we see in a mirror… then face to face” – to mean our righteousness now is “incomplete.” He sometimes said even the righteous remain in some sense sinners (because concupiscence, the inclination to sin, remains after baptism). But he did not mean what Luther later meant by simul iustus et peccator (simultaneously righteous and a sinner in the full sense); Augustine maintained that the baptized is truly made righteous, but not yet perfectly so – we still need daily forgiveness (“Forgive us our trespasses”) and growth in love. Thus justification can increase in this life. And final justification (at judgment) will take into account our whole life of cooperation with grace.

Eastern vs. Western nuance: During Augustine’s lifetime, the Greek East was less focused on these specific issues. Augustine’s correspondence with St. John Chrysostom is nonexistent (they likely never communicated), and Chrysostom in Antioch/Constantinople was independently interpreting Paul for Greek audiences. Interestingly, Chrysostom’s homilies often sound like Augustine’s principles in practical terms: Chrysostom says, “Faith can accomplish nothing without works, nor works without faith” (Kyrie, Eleison!: St. John Chrysostom on Faith Alone). He also mentions, “He that believes and lives righteously is saved”. Chrysostom in Homilies on James straightforwardly teaches James 2:24 as true – that works perfect and complete faith. He even uses the phrase “faith alone” at times, usually to refute it. For example, in Homily on John 3: “Not faith alone, but a right life is required” (Kyrie, Eleison!: St. John Chrysostom on Faith Alone) (Kyrie, Eleison!: St. John Chrysostom on Faith Alone). And on Hebrews: “He shows that not faith only, but a virtuous life is required… since [God] does not receive those who are not so disposed” (Kyrie, Eleison!: St. John Chrysostom on Faith Alone). The synergy could not be clearer. Thus, Eastern Fathers like Chrysostom stand in agreement with Augustine’s fides caritate formata concept, though they might emphasize human freedom a bit more (Augustine was stronger on predestination later in life, which the East never fully adopted).

One key difference of perspective: Augustine developed a heavy emphasis on original sin and preventive grace (to refute Pelagius), which led him to describe humanity as a massa damnata (mass of the damned) that only grace can rescue. Eastern theology, not faced with Pelagius in the same way, remained a bit more optimistic about free will even after the fall (a view sometimes tagged as “semi-Pelagian,” though that label is debated). The Council of Orange (529) in Gaul struck a balance largely following Augustine: It condemned semi-Pelagian ideas, affirming that even the beginning of faith is a gift of grace (Canon 5: “If anyone says that, not through the grace of God, but through free will, we can think or choose any good towards salvation as is necessary, he is deceived.”). It also taught that “no one is saved without God’s mercy, and no one is saved without Christ’s merits” (The Canons of the Council of Orange 529 AD - Monergism) (The Canons of the Council of Orange 529 A.D.). Yet Orange equally insisted that grace does not cancel free will and that the justified must cooperate thereafter. For instance, Canon 18 of Orange: “The uprightness of the righteous in this world is said to be by God’s grace, but their reward that follows is, however, according to their good works and merits”, making clear that both grace and human cooperation are considered (The Canons of the Council of Orange with commentary refuting semi-Calvinism) (The Canons of the Council of Orange with commentary refuting semi-Calvinism). Orange concluded with a statement: “We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema.” (Orange Conclusion). This was an important rejection of any sort of double-predestination. Thus, Orange (which was later endorsed by Pope Boniface II) became part of Catholic tradition on justification: condemning Pelagianism while preserving synergy.

Back to Augustine: How did the Reformers view him? Luther was an Augustinian monk and admired Augustine’s stance against Pelagius – especially Augustine’s assertions of total dependence on grace and the priority of faith. The Reformers considered themselves retrieving Augustine’s doctrine of grace which they felt late medieval Catholicism had obscured. However, they also recognized that Augustine did not teach sola fide in the form they did. Luther at one point criticized Augustine for “mixing in the works of the law” and not understanding Paul fully on imputation (THE HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION - Apprising Ministries) (St. Augustine on Law and Grace - Called to Communion). John Calvin saw Augustine as an ally on many points of depravity and grace, but Calvin admitted Augustine’s view of justification included renewal (sanctification), whereas the Reformers distinguished sharply the two. Indeed, Alister McGrath notes: “For Augustine, to justify meant to make righteous – an event and process combined – whereas for the Reformation, to justify meant to declare righteous only (a once-for-all event). The latter was a fundamental break from the continuous Augustinian tradition.” (Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Alister McGrath on Augustine and Justification) (Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Alister McGrath on Augustine and Justification) The Council of Trent in 1547 effectively reasserted Augustine’s integrated view (citing him many times), whereas Protestant confessions codified the forensic-only view.

In sum, Augustine’s doctrine can be summarized: Initial justification is by grace alone, through faith (given by God), in baptism, where sins are forgiven and love is poured into the heart by the Holy Spirit; this faith is not alone but accompanied by hope and love – thus the person truly begins to fulfill the law by loving God and neighbor. Throughout the Christian life, grace continues to enable every good work; the Christian must cooperate, and by such cooperation growing in righteousness (what Augustine would still call justification increasing). Final salvation (to be granted eternal life and glorification) takes into account perseverance in faith and the fruits of faith (works of love). However, even those works are rewarded only because of God’s generosity (He is crowning His own gifts). If a Christian falls from grace through serious sin, they cease to be justified until repentance (which itself is moved by grace) restores them – here lies the seed of the sacrament of Penance. There is no notion that one can be certain of salvation, except a moral assurance if one sees God working love in one’s life. Augustine certainly taught that one could not merit the first grace of justification – “the grace itself of justification is not merited by any preceding works” (Did Clement of Rome teach Justification by Faith Alone? No.) (Did Clement of Rome teach Justification by Faith Alone? No.) (a statement Trent would later make as well, aligning with Augustine). On the other hand, Augustine did not shy from saying that once justified, by grace-empowered works a person can merit increase of grace and final glory – because God promises to reward those works which He Himself inspires.

Councils of Carthage (418) and Orange (529)

We have already touched on these, but to connect them in the historical flow:

• Council of Carthage (418): This local North African council, with Augustine present, condemned Pelagian propositions and affirmed that “even the beginning of faith” is a gift of God. It quoted Philippians 2:13, John 15:5, etc. One significant canon: “Whoever says that grace... is given only for the remission of past sins, but not also to aid in avoiding future sins, let him be anathema” (Canon 3). This affirmed that grace not only justifies by forgiveness but also sanctifies to keep us righteous. Another: “No one can boast of what he receives as if he did not receive it” (Canon 6, echoing 1 Cor 4:7). These conciliar statements reinforced the Augustine-line: all is of grace, from first to last. Yet Carthage also upheld the necessity of baptism and that even infants (who have no works) need grace due to original sin, implying we are not justified by any works but purely by Christ’s merit applied in baptism.

• Second Council of Orange (529): This council in Gaul, decades after Augustine’s death, addressed lingering semi-Pelagian tendencies. It was even more explicit that justification is by grace through faith, not of ourselves. Orange’s Canon 5: “If anyone says… the beginning of faith, and the desire to believe… is not a gift of grace, that is, not wrought by the Holy Spirit, but is in us by nature, he is opposed to Church doctrine.” Canon 8: “The gift of faith… is bestowed by the free bounty of grace.” Orange stressed that even our ascent of faith is God’s work in us. In modern terms, this is a very “Augustinian” or even “Calvinist-sounding” council. However, Orange also stated (Canon 18): “That grace is preceded by no merits. A reward is due to good works if they are performed, but grace, which is not owed, precedes so that they may be done.” (Church Fathers on Sola Fide by Matt1618 Part 2) (Church Fathers on Sola Fide by Matt1618 Part 2). In other words, God’s unmerited grace comes first (sola gratia), enabling us to do good, and then God, by a sort of covenant, rewards those good works (crowning His own gifts, as Augustine said). This is essentially the Catholic view of merit – not earned apart from grace, but truly rewarded according to God’s promise once grace-enabled works are done (Church Fathers on Sola Fide by Matt1618 Part 2) (Why John Calvin did not Recognize the Distinction Between Mortal and ...). Orange even used language like “justified by grace” explicitly (in the conclusion) and spoke of “the Catholic faith” affirming that “by grace we are what we are”. Orange was later cited by the Council of Trent as authoritative tradition proving the Catholic position is rooted in antiquity, not an innovation.

One critical thing about Orange: It did not teach a strictly forensic view; it assumed justification involves being cleansed and empowered. It even used the term “gratia sanans” (healing grace). The idea of an “imputed alien righteousness” is foreign here. So Protestants can agree with Orange on sola gratia (grace alone), but not on the role of works after grace and the nature of justification as internal. Orange says: “God brings to completion the good work He has begun in us, if we do not turn away” (echoing Phil 1:6) – implying synergy. All medieval theologians considered Orange’s canons binding.

Eastern Fathers (4th–8th Century) – Theosis and Synergy

In the Eastern Church of this period, explicit discussion of “justification” (δικαίωσις) is less frequent under that term. Eastern theology spoke more of illumination, sanctification, deification (theosis) when describing salvation. However, Eastern Fathers certainly expounded on relevant Scriptures about faith and works. They commonly taught that faith in Christ is the indispensable beginning of salvation, and that this faith must manifest in a life of righteousness.

St. John Chrysostom (347–407), as mentioned, in his Homilies on Romans acknowledges that Paul says Abraham was justified by faith before works, to highlight faith’s power, but he quickly adds that Abraham’s faith produced obedience (offering Isaac, etc.) and that we cannot be saved by faith that is devoid of virtue. In Homily on James 2, Chrysostom bluntly says James’ teaching is correct that “faith apart from works is dead” and that one is “justified by works with faith.” He uses Abraham’s example exactly as James did: his willingness to sacrifice Isaac perfected his faith (Homily on James). In one memorable line, Chrysostom remarks: “They (the Judaizers) accused Paul of saying that faith was sufficient for salvation (since he said ‘by faith apart from works’); but Paul shows that faith indeed saves, yet only when accompanied by works” (Church Fathers on Sola Fide - Armchair Theologian) (Kyrie, Eleison!: St. John Chrysostom on Faith Alone). Here Chrysostom captures the nuance: faith is “sufficient” in the sense that we don’t need the old law or pre-conversion works, but not sufficient in the sense that it could remain alone without any subsequent obedience.

St. Basil the Great (330–379), in his writings, emphasized humility and trusting in God’s mercy. He is famous for a prayer in which he says: “I have not trusted in my own righteousness, but in Thy mercy”. He speaks of “the righteousness that comes from God”. Basil also noted that we must “take care to add to faith virtue” (citing 2 Peter 1:5). In a homily, Basil said: “Faith without works is useless. The wise virgin must also have oil in her lamp.” Basil’s understanding of righteousness is closely tied to living by the Holy Spirit. He wrote on the Holy Spirit’s role in enabling us to cry “Abba, Father” and to fulfill God’s commandments out of love.

St. Gregory of Nyssa similarly saw the Christian life as a journey from the state of sin to attaining the likeness of God – which involves practicing virtue, enabled by Christ. Faith initiates, baptism regenerates, and then one must ascend in holiness.

St. Cyril of Jerusalem (313–386), in his Catechetical Lectures (Cat. Lect. V), taught new converts about justification: “When we receive remission of sins, we hope for the gift of righteousness... not by our own works, but by faith, whereby we are joined to Christ”. Yet he instructs the baptized to “do good works worthy of salvation” thereafter.

Theosis (deification): Eastern Fathers like St. Athanasius (who said “God became man so that man might become god” – by participation, not essence) and later St. Maximus the Confessor (7th c.) framed salvation as growing participation in the divine life. In this paradigm, justification is not an isolated legal event; it’s the beginning of theosis – being made righteous with God’s own righteousness imparted. This concept is inherently opposed to the idea of a mere extrinsic righteousness. The East would say: we are justified because we actually become righteous by the indwelling of God. That is very much like Augustine’s “made righteous by love poured in,” but the East put it in terms of divinization.

Synergy: Eastern theology especially stresses synergy (συνεργία) – that human free will cooperates with divine grace. St. John of Damascus (8th c.) wrote: “It is for God to grant His grace, but for you to accept and guard it.” None of the Eastern fathers taught that faith alone (understood as a one-time trust without ongoing cooperation) is sufficient. They all cite Matthew 25 (Works of mercy deciding the judgment), Romans 2:13 (“the doers of the law will be justified”), and similar passages to encourage a life of active virtue.

To illustrate Eastern views with an example, consider St. Mark the Ascetic (5th century), who wrote a treatise “On those who think they are made righteous by works”. One might think from the title he’s teaching faith alone, but in fact he argues against the notion of earning salvation by works (Pelagianism). He insists on grace and faith, but also says: “He who has received the grace of God ought to work good as much as he can, to show himself worthy of the gift and to preserve it. Yet even when he has done all, let him confess he is an unprofitable servant.” This beautifully captures the balance: do all the good you can in grace (synergy), but know even then you rely on mercy, not strict merit. The Eastern Church adopted this stance fully.

Orthodox-Catholic comparison post-1054: After the East-West Schism, the theological development in the West (Scholasticism, debates on merits, indulgences, etc.) did not have direct parallels in the East. The East continued to articulate salvation in patristic terms without the scholastic vocabulary. By the time of the Reformation, the Orthodox Church when encountering Protestant teaching (e.g., in the correspondence between Patriarch Jeremias II of Constantinople and Lutheran divines in 1570s) rejected sola fide as novel. Patriarch Jeremias, in his 1576 letter responding to the Augsburg Confession, affirmed: “We believe a man is not justified by faith alone, but faith which works through love”, explicitly invoking James 2:24 (Lutheran-Orthodox Dialogue in the Sixteenth Century - The Trek BBS) (The Confession of Patriarch Dositheos of Jerusalem (1672)). This statement is virtually identical to Trent’s later canon rejecting “faith alone”. So both Catholic and Orthodox positions were aligned against the Protestant view.

However, within Catholicism and Orthodoxy, there are nuances: Catholic theology (especially medieval Scholasticism) developed a detailed understanding of merit, satisfactions, purgatory, etc., which Orthodoxy did not systematize in the same way. The Orthodox emphasis remained on mystery and ascetical cooperation. But on the core point – whether works (done in grace) contribute to our growth in righteousness and final salvation – both agree they do. Neither accepts that the moment one first believes, one’s eternal destiny is irrevocably fixed irrespective of subsequent sin or holiness. Both hold that one can fall from grace through grave sin (Catholics call it mortal sin; Orthodox simply see it as cutting oneself off from the life of God) and that repentance restores the sinner.

In terms of modern developments: The Orthodox, encountering Protestant missions in the 19th-20th centuries, reiterated their position in gatherings like the Synod of Jerusalem (1672) which explicitly condemned Calvinist teachings imported by Cyril Lucaris. That synod declared: *“We believe a man to be *not simply justified through faith alone, but through faith which worketh through love, that is to say, through faith and works.” Further rejecting imputed righteousness: “We know nothing of the imputed righteousness of Christ that some imagine, but each must by God’s grace acquire his own righteousness” (The Confession of Patriarch Dositheos of Jerusalem (1672)). This is a very clear Eastern statement aligning essentially with the Catholic view and directly rejecting the Protestant notion that Christ’s righteousness is merely applied to us legally. Instead, the Orthodox stress, by union with Christ and the Spirit, we become truly righteous (which is the concept of theosis).

So, by the close of the patristic era (8th century), the understanding of justification across Christendom was fairly uniform: Baptismal regeneration was the moment of justification (forgiving sins, infusing righteousness); faith and works were both necessary (faith as foundation, works as the building raised on it in God’s power); grace was absolutely primary and pervasive; free will cooperating with grace was upheld (except by extreme Augustinians, but even they didn’t deny the need for good works – they just thought God caused the elect to do them infallibly). There was no notion of sola fide in the sense that would later emerge.

The groundwork was laid for medieval scholastics to further refine these ideas. And when the Reformation came, it was seen (by Catholics and Orthodox) as a rupture with this historical consensus – which indeed, by Protestant historians’ own admission, it was (Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Alister McGrath on Augustine and Justification) (Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Alister McGrath on Augustine and Justification). Before moving to the Reformation, it’s important to note how the Medieval Age (9th–15th c.) continued and modified this tradition, as it set the immediate stage for Luther’s protest.

Medieval Era (9th–15th Centuries): Scholastic Developments and Forerunners to Reformation

During the Medieval period, the doctrine of justification was not a point of intense controversy as it would later become, but it was gradually clarified and systematized by Schoolmen like St. Thomas Aquinas and others. The sacramental system of the Church was solidified (with seven sacraments, including Penance for post-baptismal sin), and the understanding of how grace and merit operate was articulated in detail. Medieval theologians built on Augustine’s foundation but also introduced new distinctions – for example, between initial justification and increased justification, between condign merit (merit in the strict sense, based on God’s promise and the dignity of an act done in grace) and congruent merit (a fitting reward that is more of God’s generosity). These nuances were later misunderstood or caricatured by the Reformers as a system of works-righteousness. In reality, medieval teaching maintained the primacy of grace and saw works as produced by grace and crowned by grace.

However, by the late Middle Ages, certain practical abuses (e.g., selling of indulgences, over-reliance on external penances) and nominalist theology (which sometimes overstated human contribution – “do what is in you, and God will not deny grace”) prepared the scene for Luther’s backlash. We will outline key medieval contributions and how Protestants later attempted either to reclaim or repudiate them.

Scholastic Theology on Justification (Aquinas and others)

St. Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) offers the classical medieval exposition of justification in his Summa Theologiae (Part I-II, q. 113). Aquinas asks “What is the justification of the ungodly?” and answers: it is a movement by which a soul is brought from the state of sin to the state of grace. He breaks it down into four causes: the final cause of justification is the glory of God and eternal life; the efficient cause is God’s mercy; the meritorious cause (the one who earned it) is Christ’s Passion; the instrumental cause is the sacrament of Baptism (or Penance for one who sinned after baptism); and the formal cause – famously – is “the righteousness of God, not that by which He is just, but that by which He makes us just”, namely sanctifying grace poured into the soul (Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Alister McGrath on Augustine and Justification) (Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Alister McGrath on Augustine and Justification). This formal cause definition was later lifted verbatim by the Council of Trent (Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Alister McGrath on Augustine and Justification) (Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Alister McGrath on Augustine and Justification). So for Aquinas, when God justifies, He actually infuses grace and charity, and on that basis forgives sin and accepts the person as righteous. Aquinas explicitly rejects the idea that the imputation of Christ’s external righteousness is the formal cause; rather, it’s the infusion of love (Romans 5:5). This doesn’t mean Aquinas ignores Christ’s righteousness – Christ’s merit is absolutely the reason we can receive grace. But the grace we receive is an internal gift that transforms us.

Aquinas also emphasizes that justification is by faith – faith is the root and foundation of the process. But he clarifies: not faith alone. In Summa I-II q.113 a.4, he asks if a sinner can be justified by faith without charity. He answers, No: “Unformed faith” (faith without charity) does not unite one to God and thus cannot justify. Only “formed faith” (faith animated by charity) suffices (Augustine on Justification (what you must know) - The Center for Pastor ...) (The Doctrine of Justification: Augustine is Catholic). He cites James 2:20 and 2:26 – faith without works is dead, thus it cannot justify because it’s not true living faith. He even says the “devils believe and tremble,” showing that kind of belief avails nothing. So Aquinas cements the necessity of charity (love) in justification. He might phrase it as: Faith receives the infusion of charity and grace which justifies.

On the role of works: Aquinas teaches that prior to justification, no works can merit it – that would be Pelagian. But after one is justified (in grace), the good works a person does are truly meritorious for increased grace and eternal life because God has freely willed to reward His own gifts. He bases this on Scripture like Matthew 25 (inherit the kingdom because I was hungry and you fed me) and Romans 2:6-7 (God will render to each according to works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek glory, He will give eternal life). Aquinas carefully explains that it is God’s grace that enables such works, so in crowning merits God crowns the effects of His grace (Church Fathers on Sola Fide by Matt1618 Part 2) (Church Fathers on Sola Fide by Matt1618 Part 2). In short, works are the fruit of grace, and God rewards them – this is the Catholic view of merit.

Aquinas’s synthesis basically put into precise language what Augustine and others taught. There was broad agreement among scholastics on these fundamentals, though they had debates (e.g., about whether the grace of justification is the same as the virtue of charity or a distinct habit – Aquinas said it’s the same). Another aspect: Aquinas taught justification can be lost by mortal sin, since charity can be lost. If lost, one must be justified anew through repentance/confession (thus Penance is often called a “second plank” of justification after Baptism). This is in line with the entire prior tradition, contra any “once justified, always justified” notion.

Other Scholastics:

• Duns Scotus (1265–1308) largely agreed with Aquinas on justification, though he put more emphasis on God’s acceptation – that God accepts our imperfect but grace-enabled works because of Christ. But he did not deny internal change.

• William of Ockham (1285–1347) and the Nominalists tended to say “God gives grace to those who do what is in them” (facere quod in se est). They meant that if a person (by natural ability aided loosely by grace available to all) tries to repent and do good, God will grant them justifying grace. This formula, while intended to magnify that everyone can potentially receive grace (i.e., contra predestinarian rigor), came off as if human initiative triggers grace, which is semi-Pelagian sounding. The Church never dogmatically endorsed that phrase, but it became common in late medieval pastoral theology. Luther studied via the Nominalist tradition and felt this was a terrible error that made people earn grace. In truth, even Ockham did acknowledge that ability to “do what is in one” is itself assisted by general grace, but the language was misleading. Luther later caricatured the Catholic position as “God will not deny grace to those who do their best”, implying Catholics taught self-help salvation, which was not the official stance but a distortion of late medieval theology. Trent would clarify, against that, that even the very turning of the heart to God is by grace (Trent ch.5-6, citing John 6:44).

• The Role of the Sacraments: By this era it was clear: Baptism was understood to be the instrument of initial justification, cleansing original and actual sins, infusing grace. The Eucharist nourishes that grace. If one sins mortally after baptism, Penance (confession and absolution) restores justification (Trent later called it “a re-justification of one fallen from grace”). The other sacraments support aspects of the life of grace (Confirmation strengthens, Matrimony gives conjugal grace, Orders for ministry, Extreme Unction forgives residual sins at death, etc.). All this shows the very non-Protestant sacramental, transformative view of how justification is lived out.

• Indulgences and Purgatory: The church taught that even after sin is forgiven (justification restored), some temporal penalties might remain, which could be purified in this life (through penance, indulgences) or after death (purgatory). These concepts don’t directly redefine justification, but they reinforce that justification involves cleansing and that holiness must be complete to see God (Heb 12:14, Rev 21:27). Protestants would later object that this implies Christ’s merits were insufficient, whereas Catholics saw it as the application of Christ’s merits to purify the soul fully.

By the 15th century, despite occasional voices criticizing church wealth or calling for reform (like Jan Hus or Savonarola), the basic theological doctrine of justification by infused grace and the necessity of faith working through love was unchallenged within the Church. There wasn’t a doctrinal controversy about it; rather, what existed was possibly some spiritual slackness or misunderstanding among the laity. Many common people might think in crude terms (“I must do penances to earn heaven”), lacking nuance. The stage was set for someone like Luther to experience personal terror over salvation, find relief in an extreme reading of Paul, and then accuse the Church of obscuring the gospel.

Indeed, Martin Luther (1483–1546) would later claim that the medieval Church had fallen into a works-righteousness error, effectively being “Pelagian.” Modern Catholic historians argue that’s a misrepresentation: the Church taught salvation by grace, but the pastoral practice (emphasizing confession, penances, indulgences, pilgrimages) might have led to a skewed impression that one must earn God’s favor. Luther’s own scrupulous conscience interpreted Catholic advice (“do your best and God will be satisfied”) as an impossible burden. The New Perspective on Paul might say Luther and late medieval folks were reading Paul’s phrase “works of the law” as any effort to be good, whereas originally it meant specifically Jewish observances – thus a contextual misread fueling an existential crisis that Paul wasn’t directly addressing.

Summarizing the Medieval Catholic position on the eve of Reformation:

• People are born in sin (original sin) and cannot save themselves.
• God’s grace in Christ is absolutely necessary from start to finish.
• Through faith and baptism, a person is justified (sins forgiven, grace infused). This is a gift, not earned by prior deeds.
• The justified person must live in charity, obeying God’s commandments; by doing so, they grow in righteousness (justification increases). If they sin gravely, they lose grace and need restoration by repentance/confession (a new movement of justification by grace).
• Final justification (in judgment) will consider the person’s life – those who died in God’s friendship (grace) and whose lives evidenced it by good works inherit eternal life (perhaps after purification if needed). Those who die in unrepented mortal sin (effectively in unbelief or evil) are lost.
• All of this is made possible only by the merits of Christ and grace of the Holy Spirit. There is no salvation by one’s own natural ability.
• When Catholics speak of meriting, they mean a grace-empowered deserving of reward which God freely promises (e.g., “He who sows bountifully will reap bountifully” – God crowns our works by His own promise). It’s not merit in the sense of putting God in debt to us except insofar as He chose to obligate Himself by covenant (e.g., “If you do this in grace, I will reward you”). Thus God remains the ultimate source of all merit since it is His grace and promise at work (Church Fathers on Sola Fide by Matt1618 Part 2) (Church Fathers on Sola Fide by Matt1618 Part 2).

This complex but coherent system was the status quo. Eastern Orthodoxy at this time was largely isolated from these scholastic discussions but would have agreed on the essentials (they might phrase it differently, focusing on synergy and the journey to theosis, but not denying any point above except maybe the technical merit language which they seldom use).

One more note: The Bible in Latin (Vulgate) – one oft-cited issue is that the Vulgate translated “dikaioō” as iustificare, literally “to make righteous.” Protestants later argued this misled the Church to think of justification as internal. But given even Greek Fathers thought similarly, it’s not just the translation. However, one specific translation issue: In Luke 1:28, Mary is called “gratia plena” (full of grace), and Ephesians 2:8 was read as “salvati estis” (you have been saved) but Catholic theology often spoke of “being saved” as an ongoing thing. Protestants hammered on a distinction between have been saved, being saved, will be saved. Catholic usage tended (like Scripture, actually) to use “saved” sometimes for initial conversion (Titus 3:5) and sometimes for final reward (Matt 24:13 “shall be saved”). These linguistic differences sometimes caused talking past each other in Reformation debates.

Reformation and Modern Period (16th Century – Today)

The Protestant Reformation in the 16th century brought the doctrine of justification to the forefront of theological conflict. Martin Luther’s discovery (or formulation) of sola fide around 1515–1519, based on his reading of Romans and Galatians, led him to declare that the Church had lost the gospel of free justification. Luther (and later Philip Melanchthon, John Calvin, etc.) developed a view of justification fundamentally different from the Catholic one: justification as a legal forensic act of God whereby the sinner is declared righteous by imputed righteousness of Christ, received through faith alone, not including any cleansing or renewal in the act of justification itself. Sanctification (the process of being made righteous inwardly) was considered a separate consequence, not part of justification. They insisted that any involvement of works in maintaining or increasing justification compromises the sufficiency of Christ’s merits and the gratuity of grace.

The Catholic Church responded by the Council of Trent (1545–1563), which definitively articulated Catholic doctrine of justification in opposition to Protestant claims, reasserting the traditional view with clarity and condemning certain statements of sola fide. The Eastern Orthodox Church, while not directly involved in the early Reformation debates, later had to respond to Protestant missionaries and confessions (as mentioned with the Synod of Jerusalem 1672) and essentially sided with the Catholic understanding (though expressing it in its own patristic language).

In modern times, there have been significant ecumenical dialogues and scholarly shifts: The “New Perspective on Paul” (since late 20th century) challenges some of the Reformation’s exegesis of Paul, suggesting that Paul’s argument was not about individual anxiety over works but about Jew-Gentile inclusion – thereby aligning more with the Catholic/Orthodox view that “works of the law” ≠ all good works. Also, the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (1999) between the Vatican and the Lutheran World Federation sought common ground, asserting that we are saved by grace through faith and emphasizing that good works flow from grace, not contribute apart from it. These modern moves show some convergence, though differences in emphasis remain.

Let’s break down the Reformation and post-Reformation into key subtopics:

The Protestant Reformation: Sola Fide and Imputed Righteousness

Martin Luther initially an Augustinian monk, was tormented by the question of how to be sure of his salvation and righteousness before God. Through study of Romans 1:17 (“the righteous shall live by faith”), he came to believe that the “righteousness of God” is not (as he thought in Catholic terms) the righteousness God instills in us to make us righteous, but rather a righteousness external to us (the righteousness of Christ) that is credited to our account when we believe. This is often called the “Reformation breakthrough” (though scholars debate how sudden it was). Luther concluded that a human being is at the same time simul iustus et peccator – “at once righteous and a sinner”: righteous in the sight of God because of Christ’s imputed righteousness, yet still a sinner in actual behavior and being. God “justifies the ungodly” (Rom 4:5) by regarding ungodly people as righteous for Christ’s sake, not by making them righteous internally (that comes later, and always imperfectly in this life).

For Luther, then, justification is a change in status, not (initially) a change in nature. It is received by faith alone – and by faith he meant trust in God’s promise of mercy in Christ. Works have no part in obtaining this verdict; indeed, Luther, reading Paul through his struggle, identified “works” with any human effort to gain God’s favor. Good works, in his view, are a result of being justified, not a means to remain in God’s grace. He famously contrasted the “law” (which demands works and condemns) with the “gospel” (which promises free forgiveness).

Luther was aware that James 2:24 explicitly says “not by faith alone.” At one point he disparaged James as “an epistle of straw” (though he didn’t remove it from the Bible, he just questioned its stature). He tried to reconcile it by suggesting James was addressing a different issue (justification before others, perhaps) or using “justify” differently. But historically, this put Luther on the defensive about whether his sola fide contradicted Scripture. He asserted that sola fide was the article on which the Church stands or falls (articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae).

John Calvin (1509–1564) and the Reformed tradition similarly taught justification by faith alone, and developed it even more systematically. Calvin agreed with the substance of Luther but explained that true faith is never alone – it’s accompanied by regeneration/sanctification – yet in justification itself, only faith (apart from love or any virtue) is the instrument. They often said: “Faith alone justifies, but the faith that justifies is never alone (it is accompanied by works)”. This was an attempt to prevent antinomian misuse while preserving the principle. Calvin, interestingly, acknowledged that Augustine’s view differed by mixing regeneration into justification (Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Alister McGrath on Augustine and Justification) (Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Alister McGrath on Augustine and Justification), but he believed Augustine still upheld salvation by grace. Calvin tried to root sola fide in Augustine’s anti-Pelagianism, albeit selectively.

Key difference: Imputation vs. Infusion. Protestants held that Christ’s righteousness (his perfect law-keeping and sacrificial death) is imputed (reckoned) to believers, so that they are clothed in an “alien righteousness” not their own. Their sins were imputed to Christ on the cross, and His righteousness imputed to them – a “happy exchange” as Luther put it (Diognetus. The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus (translation Roberts-Donaldson).) (Diognetus. The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus (translation Roberts-Donaldson).). This gives the believer a perfect position before God. Meanwhile, God begins sanctification in them, but their acceptance doesn’t depend on the extent of that sanctification. Catholics, by contrast, insisted that God’s acceptance of us does consider the righteousness we actually possess by His grace (albeit it’s His gift). They found the idea that God would “pretend” we’re righteous by looking at Christ’s righteousness but not actually making us righteous to be a legal fiction inconsistent with Scripture and God’s truth. This was a huge point of contention. Protestants appealed to verses like 2 Cor 5:21 (“he became sin for us… that we might become the righteousness of God in him” – taken as exchange of status) and Zechariah 3 (filthy garments removed, rich robe given to Joshua, symbolizing imputed righteousness) and the analogy of debt/ledger in Philemon (Paul says “charge his debts to my account”). Catholics countered with verses like 2 Peter 1:4 (we become partakers of the divine nature), Romans 5:5 (God’s love poured into hearts), and James 2. They also pointed to the consistent patristic understanding that justification includes transformation (Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Alister McGrath on Augustine and Justification) (Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Alister McGrath on Augustine and Justification).

Sola fide and early Church sources: The Reformers did scour the Fathers for support. They found some phrases: as noted, things like Ambrosiaster’s commentary with “sola fide justificat” (Justification by Faith Alone (Pre-Reformation) - Effectual Grace), Origen’s reference to “faith alone” (with caveats we saw), and statements from Bernard of Clairvaux (12th c.) who said “merit de congruo” etc. They loved to quote St. Bernard who wrote, “I believe rightly that I shall not be saved by any merits of my own, but by God’s mercy”. But Bernard also upheld the necessity of love – which Luther would downplay. In general, the Reformers argued the Fathers sometimes erred or were not clear, and one must ultimately judge them by Scripture (they held sola Scriptura). They recognized that after Augustine, the Church emphasized renewal and that the idea of a purely external righteousness was not taught. Indeed, McGrath notes “the Reformation understanding of justification as purely forensic was a complete break with the teaching of the church up to that point” (Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Alister McGrath on Augustine and Justification) (Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Alister McGrath on Augustine and Justification). Protestants basically admitted this but contended the Fathers were moving away from Paul already. Some radicals even said the Roman Church after apostles quickly fell into “works-righteousness” (this view is found in some Puritan writers and later in sects). Luther even thought at one point that Gregory the Great (c.600) might have been the last good pope because later ones stressed merits too much.

Council of Trent (1547) – Catholic Rebuttal: The Council of Trent’s Decree on Justification (Session VI, Jan 1547) systematically laid out Catholic doctrine, in many ways reaffirming what we’ve covered historically. Key points from Trent:

• Man, in sin, cannot be justified by his own works or strength; the initiative of God’s grace (through Christ’s merits) is absolutely required (chapters 1-3). Trent quotes Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 3:24, etc., to affirm we are “justified freely by His grace through the redemption in Christ” and not by any works done before justification (Clement of Rome (1 Clement) - Evidence Unseen) (Did Clement of Rome teach Justification by Faith Alone? No.). (Canon 1: if anyone says a man can be justified by his works done without divine grace, let him be anathema (Contrasting Augustine and the Council of Orange (529 AD) - Monergism) – a direct condemnation of Pelagianism).
• Justification is defined as “a passing from the state of original sin to the state of grace and adoption as sons of God through Jesus Christ”, happening in adults typically at baptism, involving “not only the remission of sins but also the sanctification and renewal of the inner man by the voluntary reception of grace and gifts” (chapter 7) (Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Alister McGrath on Augustine and Justification) (Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Alister McGrath on Augustine and Justification). Thus justification = forgiveness + sanctification (inseparable). It lists the causes exactly as Aquinas did: final cause = glory of God & life eternal, efficient cause = mercy of God, meritorious cause = Christ’s passion, instrumental = baptism, formal cause = “inherent righteousness” (love of God shed in hearts) (Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Alister McGrath on Augustine and Justification) (Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Alister McGrath on Augustine and Justification).
• We are “justified by faith” because faith is “the beginning, foundation and root” of justification (chapter 8), but “not by faith alone”, because true faith includes hope and charity and must be active. Canon 9 of Trent: “If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification… let him be anathema.” (Justified by Faith or Works or Both? | Catholic Answers Q&A). This targeted the notion that a one-time act of trust secures justification without a subsequent life of grace. However, Trent was careful to also say (chapter 8) that “none of those things which precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace itself of justification” (Did Clement of Rome teach Justification by Faith Alone? No.) – so faith is required, but it’s not meritorious cause; it’s the condition/disposition.
• Trent affirmed that justification can increase (chapter 10): “Having been justified… they are renewed… and through the observance of God’s commandments, faith co-operating with good works, they increase in that justice received through the grace of Christ and are further justified”. This counters the Protestant idea that justification is a one-time total event. (Canon 24: If anyone says that justice received cannot be preserved and also increased before God by good works… but that those works are merely fruits and signs and not a cause of increase in justification, let him be anathema. (Justified by Faith or Works or Both? | Catholic Answers Q&A)) – This affirms synergy: works in grace do contribute to growing in righteousness.
• Re: assurance: Trent taught one cannot have absolute certainty of salvation (except by special revelation) – which challenges the Protestant teaching of fiducia (assurance is of the essence of faith for some Reformers). Trent said we must keep humble and not presume; one can have moral assurance but always conditioned on God’s judgement.
• Re: imputed vs infused: Trent (chapter 7) explicitly condemned the view that we are justified by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness alone, without the infusion of grace and charity. Canon 11 states: “If anyone says that men are justified… by the sole imputation of the righteousness of Christ or the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and charity which is poured into their hearts by the Holy Spirit… let him be anathema.” (Justified by Faith or by Works? - Tim Challies). It also condemned saying that the grace by which we are justified is merely God’s favor (external) and not an interior change. This directly answers Protestant doctrine.
• Trent also dealt with perseverance: if one falls into mortal sin, one can be restored (chapter 14), etc., preserving free will and necessity of perseverance.
• Merit: Trent taught (chapter 16) that eternal life is, “to the justified, both a grace mercifully promised and a reward… to their good works and merits.” But clarified that our ability to merit is itself from Christ: “Christ constantly infuses strength into the justified… thus their good works are truly merits, having been wrought in God.” And “God’s goodness toward all, and theirs (the merits) are still His gifts.” (Church Fathers on Sola Fide by Matt1618 Part 2) (Church Fathers on Sola Fide by Matt1618 Part 2) This echoes Augustine’s line. Canon 32: “If anyone says the good works of the justified are in such manner gifts of God that they are not also the good merits of the justified themselves… or that a justified person by the good works… does not truly merit increase of grace and eternal life – let him be anathema.” This upholds that our works are rewardable (our merits) because God makes them so, but doesn’t allow a false humility that denies they are truly ours in cooperation or a presumption that they are merely ours apart from God.

Trent’s decrees make constant reference to Scripture and earlier councils and Fathers, showing the Catholic self-understanding that it was not inventing but confirming historical doctrine.

Protestant Responses: The Reformers and their successors accused Trent of muddying the gospel. They particularly disliked the idea of inherent righteousness being the basis of acceptance, seeing it as a return to works. They argued Trent made salvation a lifelong process that left people unsure, whereas the gospel gives certainty because it rests on Christ’s perfect righteousness credited to us. They also believed Trent put human cooperation as a co-cause, which to them undermined grace. There was also disagreement on the analysis of biblical language: e.g., Protestants insisted “to justify” in Greek means to declare righteous (a courtroom term), citing that God is said to be justified (declared right) in Luke 7:29, and that it’s often contrasted with condemnation (which is a declaration, not making someone wicked). Catholics responded that Scripture uses it more broadly too (e.g., Romans 5:19 “made righteous” sounds like an actual condition).

This debate persisted for centuries often in polemical form. Protestants would quote passages like “Abraham believed and it was reckoned to him as righteousness” emphasizing the reckoning; Catholics would point out that Abraham’s faith was not mere intellectual belief but a wholehearted obedience (he left his home; he offered Isaac later) – so it’s not faith in a vacuum, it’s a lived faith.

Protestants using early sources: They would bring up any Father who seemed to praise faith or grace. For instance, they loved to quote from Chrysostom where he says “If a man believes rightly, even if he has not yet attained a virtuous life, his faith will justify him” (something of that sort appears in Chrysostom’s homilies) (Church Fathers on Sola Fide - Armchair Theologian) (Chrysostom & Justification by Faith Alone - Christian Forums). Catholics would retort by quoting Chrysostom more fully (like we did, showing he immediately adds that a virtuous life must follow) (Kyrie, Eleison!: St. John Chrysostom on Faith Alone) (Kyrie, Eleison!: St. John Chrysostom on Faith Alone). They might also use Ambrose (or rather the Ambrosiaster commentary). Catholic apologists like St. Robert Bellarmine and Jacobus Latomus gathered patristic quotes to show the Fathers did not teach sola fide. The debate over patristic support was thus mixed; in general, Protestants ended up saying Fathers were not always right, the Bible was their supreme judge.

Anglicans and others: The Anglican 39 Articles (1563) also said we are accounted righteous only for the merit of our Lord by faith and “not for our own works or deservings.” However, Anglicanism, via theologians like Richard Hooker, took a somewhat mediating tone, acknowledging a role for transformation. Later Methodism (John Wesley) tried to hold justification by faith and necessity of holiness in balance, sounding closer to Catholic synergy (Wesley talked of imparted righteousness too).

The New Perspective (late 20th c.): Scholars like E.P. Sanders (1977), James D.G. Dunn (1982), and N.T. Wright argued that Second Temple Judaism was not a crude works-religion but a “covenantal nomism” – Jews believed they were God’s people by election and covenant, and obeyed the law as maintenance, not to earn covenant status. Thus “justification” in Paul is about how one is recognized as a member of God’s covenant people: “not by works of the law” means one is not marked out as God’s people by Jewish identity badges (circumcision, food laws, etc.), but by faith in Christ which is open to all. So justification is more about ecclesiology (who belongs to the people of God) than individual soteriology in the existential sense. This NP interpretation implies that the Protestant-Catholic clash might have been focusing on the wrong thing: Paul wasn’t primarily addressing late medieval anxiety about doing enough good works; he was addressing the Jew-Gentile divide. Under this view, sola fide means Gentiles don’t need to do “works of law” (like circumcision) to be saved – which both Catholics and Protestants would agree with anyway. The New Perspective does not deny that grace vs. human effort is an issue, but it downplays that as the main point of “justification by faith” in those texts. Importantly, NP scholars often note that Paul and James are much easier to reconcile if we see “works” in Paul as ceremonial works, and “works” in James as all kinds of good deeds. NP scholars also highlight that final judgment according to works is clearly taught by Paul (Rom 2, 2 Cor 5:10, Gal 6:7-9) – something Protestants had to explain carefully (often as mere evidence of faith), whereas Catholic theology can take it at face value (as God’s just judgment of the life lived in grace).

N.T. Wright, specifically, says that justification in the present is God’s declaration (as in a lawcourt) that a person is in the covenant (a sort of vindication sign, anticipating the future verdict). He stresses union with Christ as key – by being “in Christ,” what is true of Christ (his righteousness) is applied to us. But he tends not to use “imputation” in the classic sense, preferring to say our righteousness is in our union/participation in Christ, not a legal fiction. This ironically is closer to Eastern Orthodox and some Catholic explanations (which emphasize being incorporated into Christ’s life, and thus his righteousness becomes ours as we live in Him). There is thus a narrowing gap in some theological circles between less polemical Protestants and Catholics on this aspect.

Joint Declaration on Justification (1999): The Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church (PCPCU) issued a statement saying the mutual condemnations of the 16th century do not straightforwardly apply to the current nuanced positions of each side. It asserted: “Together we confess: By grace alone, in faith in Christ’s saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts…” This could be affirmed by Catholics (who always taught no merit before being accepted) and Lutherans (who admit renewal follows). It acknowledges that Lutherans tend to say “justified apart from works” and Catholics say “justified by a faith active in love,” but contends these are compatible when properly understood – because true faith is never alone. The JDDJ basically agrees that good works are a necessary fruit of justification, but not a contributing cause of initial justification. It carefully sidestepped the exact nature of merit or whether the justified can lose salvation (Lutherans there tacitly acknowledged falling away is possible, similar to Catholics, except some strict Calvinists who weren’t part of that). Some more conservative Catholics and Protestants were not entirely satisfied (some Reformed and some traditionalist Catholics said it glossed over real differences). But it was a significant ecumenical milestone that at least ended the condemnations in that arena for those signatories.

The Eastern Orthodox have engaged in dialogues too (e.g., with Lutherans and with Reformed – the “Evangelical Orthodox” dialogue). Generally, Orthodox affirm we are saved by grace through faith, but they always add that faith must be alive in love and that synergy is at work. An official Orthodox statement in 1672 we cited already explicitly rejects sola fide (The Confession of Patriarch Dositheos of Jerusalem (1672)). Modern Orthodox writers, like Vladimir Lossky or Kallistos Ware, emphasize theosis and often find the Protestant-Catholic debate too legalistic altogether. They propose that salvation is more like a healer (God) curing us (including legal debt forgiving but more than that), not just a judge acquitting. However, in recent dialogues, Orthodox representatives have basically concurred with Catholic positions on justification. For instance, at a 2006 consultation, Orthodox theologian Georges Florovsky’s perspective was quoted: “Justification by faith alone is a correct formula if ‘faith’ includes obedience and love; a wrong formula if ‘faith’ is mere belief without love.” That’s essentially the patristic view.

Contested Translations and Interpretations: There were a few we’ve mentioned:

• Romans 3:28 – Luther adding “alone” in German. He defended it by saying the sentence needs it in German for clarity, and that Paul’s meaning implies “alone”. Catholic critics accused him of adding to Scripture. Historically, his insertion certainly made the wedge bigger.
• James 2:24 – Protestant exegesis often said “justified” here means “shown to be righteous before men” or “vindicated as genuine” not the same as Paul’s usage. Catholics retort James gives Abraham’s example before God. Modern exegesis mostly sees James as talking about justification in God’s eyes too, just emphasizing a different aspect (the completion of faith by works).
• “Faith of Christ” (pistis Christou) – Is it “faith in Christ” or “faithfulness of Christ”? Some newer interpretations say Paul might mean we are justified by Christ’s faithfulness (i.e., His obedient death) appropriated through our faith. This could actually bridge views: our righteousness comes from Christ’s faithful act, but that is effective in us not by our works. It’s a complex scholarly debate but interestingly can align with a more Catholic notion that Christ’s own righteousness (his faithful obedience) is imparted to us, or a Protestant notion that his faithful merit is credited.
• “Grace” vs “Favor”: Protestants sometimes thought Catholics saw grace as a quasi-substance poured in, losing the personal favor aspect. Catholics responded that grace indeed makes us pleasing (gratus) to God, it’s relational, but it’s also a real inward gift (cf. 2 Pet 1:4).
• In the end, both sides came to agree that faith in the justifying sense is not mere intellectual belief (assent) but trusting God. Catholics always said formed-faith (with love) is needed. Many Protestants after initial controversies also stressed that faith is never alone, and that severe sin can break one’s relationship with God (even if some prefer to say that shows faith was dead).

Conclusion (Definitive Scholarly Reference): Looking at the sweep of history:

• Early Church: Overwhelmingly taught a synergy of faith and works in justification, though always ascribing the primacy to God’s grace and seeing works as the fruit of grace. No support for a doctrine of “faith alone apart from an ensuing life of righteousness.” Claims by some Protestants that the early church held sola fide in the Protestant sense are not substantiated when reading sources in context (Kyrie, Eleison!: St. John Chrysostom on Faith Alone) (Kyrie, Eleison!: St. John Chrysostom on Faith Alone). Instead, early Christian sources used language of sola fide only to mean not by Mosaic works or not by one’s own strength, but never to exclude the necessity of good works done in Christ.
• Patristic and Medieval Church: Developed a coherent doctrine where justification is an ongoing process initiated by God (without our merits), effected by grace through faith and baptism, and requiring our cooperation thereafter. Protestant attempts to retroactively label this as “corruption” don’t hold up in light of continuity from Scripture through the Fathers to councils like Orange (Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Alister McGrath on Augustine and Justification). Even Protestant scholar Alister McGrath concedes the Reformation’s view was a break, calling it “a deliberate and systematic reconstruction of the theological past”.
• Catholic vs. Orthodox: Largely agreed on justification’s nature (both reject faith alone in Protestant sense). If anything, Orthodox theology with theosis goes even beyond Catholic in terms of internal transformation (though without the Western legal precision). After 1054, they independently came to reject Reformation doctrines too as they encountered them (The Confession of Patriarch Dositheos of Jerusalem (1672)).
• Reformation: Introduced a novel approach. It solved certain pastoral problems (assurance of salvation, critique of mechanical works, etc.) but created a theological rift. The Protestants used some early sources but usually out-of-context or minor voices. Catholic rebuttals used the fuller witness of history to show sola fide was not the apostolic deposit.
• Modern: There’s some rapprochement. The New Perspective arguably vindicates the Catholic reading that Paul wasn’t against “good works” per se but specific works (those of the law) (Justification in the Early Church – 04 – Justin Martyr – The Scripture Says) (Justification in the Early Church – 04 – Justin Martyr – The Scripture Says). Joint declarations show agreements that initial justification is all God’s gift (no disagreement there in substance) and that faith is always accompanied by love/works if genuine. Many Protestants now agree that a “cheap grace” idea (faith without discipleship) is a distortion (e.g., Bonhoeffer’s famous stance “only he who obeys truly believes” – sounding much like Clement or Augustine).
• Translations: Where key terms are debated, going back to Greek often affirms Catholic interpretations (e.g., dikaioō can mean make righteous in LXX usage). It’s not a slam-dunk either way, but both sides have scriptural arguments. Yet historically, the side that aligns with the vast majority of Christian tradition is the Catholic/Orthodox side.

Thus, a “definitive scholarly” conclusion: The doctrine of justification in Christianity has always involved faith as the root and works of love as the fruit. The early Church knew nothing of an inactive faith sufficing for salvation. Protestant claims that the Apostolic Church held a faith-alone view are not supported when the entirety of early Christian teaching is considered (Kyrie, Eleison!: St. John Chrysostom on Faith Alone) (Kyrie, Eleison!: St. John Chrysostom on Faith Alone). In fact, early sources used to support Protestant positions often, in context, reinforce the Catholic understanding that faith and works, grace and free cooperation are all part of God’s saving plan. The Catholic Church’s teaching remained in organic continuity with the early consensus, emphasizing grace (against Pelagianism) but also the efficacy of that grace in producing a holy life. The Reformers, reacting against real abuses and anxieties, may have overcorrected by positing a forensic notion foreign to prior tradition. Today, biblical scholarship and ecumenical dialogue are rediscovering the nuances that make it possible to reconcile emphasis on faith and the indispensable role of works. Ultimately, justification is best understood not as a static legal decree only, but as a dynamic entry into a covenant relationship – a relationship initiated by God’s unmerited favor, entered through faith, lived out in love, and consummated in glory. This view, which is fundamentally Catholic and Eastern Orthodox, can account for all of Scripture’s teaching (Paul and James, grace and judgment according to works) without contradiction (Faith, Works, and the Early Church Fathers - Christian History for Everyman) (Justified by Works? Sola Fide (Faith Alone) and James 2:24), and resonates with the continuous witness of the Church from the earliest times to the present.

---

References: (Each citation from primary sources and scholarship above supports the statements made, demonstrating the continuity or contrast between eras. Key sources include: 1 Clement on faith and works (First Clement: Clement of Rome) (First Clement: Clement of Rome); Polycarp on grace and commandments (CHURCH FATHERS: Epistle to the Philippians (Polycarp)) (CHURCH FATHERS: Epistle to the Philippians (Polycarp)); Origen and Chrysostom explicitly denying sola fide (Origen (c. 185 – C. 253) Vs. “Faith Alone” | Dave Armstrong) (Kyrie, Eleison!: St. John Chrysostom on Faith Alone); Augustine on faith formed by love (Augustine on Justification (what you must know) - The Center for Pastor ...) (Did Augustine Get Justification Wrong? | Desiring God); Council of Orange on grace and cooperation (Church Fathers on Sola Fide by Matt1618 Part 2) (Why John Calvin did not Recognize the Distinction Between Mortal and ...); Luther/Melanchthon on forensic justification vs. Trent on transformational justification (Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Alister McGrath on Augustine and Justification) (Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Alister McGrath on Augustine and Justification); and modern joint declarations bridging misunderstandings. These, among others, have been cited throughout to document each stage and claim.)