Conclusion ◈
Conclusion
◈
Reflections on a Study of Doctrinal History
The research underlying this work began in the closing weeks of June 1978 in the Bodleian Library, Oxford, and ended in March 2019. The original edition of this work emerged from an intensive engagement with primary theological sources and the associated literature, which led to the publication of three interconnected works of historical theology –
Luther’s Theology of the Cross
(1985), Iustitia Dei
(1986) and The Intellectual Origins of the European Reformation
(1987). While some were kind enough to refer to the original edition of Iustitia Dei
as a ‘
definitive’
account of the development of Christian thinking on justification, this was clearly incorrect. No work of historical theology can ever be considered to be ‘
definitive’
, in that it cannot escape its historical embeddedness, trapped in the controlling assumptions, cultural concerns and scholarly resources of a specific historical location. The first edition of Iustitia Dei
reflected the assumptions and resources of the late 1970s and early 1980s; the fourth reflects those of the 2010s which, though more recent, are likely to prove equally transient.
The scholarly landscape has changed dramatically since 1978, and can be expected to continue to change. Many of that age’
s assumptions have been tested and found wanting, in turn requiring a radical revision of this work and its original conclusions. These recent changes have been so significant that substantial portions of the text of this work have had to be rewritten to accommodate these new insights. Yet while considerable care has been taken to ensure that this new edition is grounded in the best scholarship, and that its conclusions are carefully weighed and judiciously stated, such a volume can only claim to be provisional and interim. It will need to be revised again in the future. Yet as a result of my forty years of engagement with the doctrine of justification, I have finally come to two settled conclusions which I would like to share with my readers.
First, the meaning of ‘
justification’
remains indeterminate. We shall never know what Paul really
meant by justification. This volume is, at one level, an account of what intelligent Christian readers of Paul thought he
meant by the idea of justification. Yet as this volume has also made clear, it is perfectly legitimate to explore, evaluate and articulate specific ways of understanding justification –
for example, those we find in Augustine of Hippo
, Martin Luther
, the Council of Trent
or Karl Barth
. Inevitably, scholarship complexifies these discussions, often exposing the granularity of these concepts, and demanding a depth of understanding that goes beyond a superficial reading of texts.
I do not see this as a cause for concern. We are all entitled to reflect on these questions, and make decisions as to what we consider to be the most reliable interpretation of the concept of justification. The substantial body of primary and secondary literature presented and engaged in this volume ought to help with this task. But the question of the ‘
right’
interpretation of the concept of justification cannot be answered on the basis of purely historical criteria; it is inevitable –
and proper –
that theological criteria are deployed. My criticism is not directed against those who explicitly use ideological or theological criteria in developing their ideas; it is rather directed against those who use such criteria implicitly
, presenting an ideological or theological reading of history as if it were purely historical.
Second, I now believe that justification remains an important and a viable theological category today. In earlier editions of Iustitia Dei
, I expressed concerns about the diminishing cultural traction of the idea, and a growing disinclination on the part of systematic theologians to see justification as having a distinctive and significant role to play in Christian articulation of the promise of salvation and the hope of glory. That situation has changed. The concept is now clearly seen as significant in contemporary systematic theology, which is able to retrieve and develop older approaches, and put them to good use today. A future history of the doctrine of justification is likely to find that there is much of value and interest in the theologies of justification of the twenty-first century. The nature of the human ageing process is such that I very much doubt that I will be writing any such future history; others will have to determine whether my intuition is correct.
Finally, I must pay due tribute to the many scholarly works which lie behind this volume. I have been scrupulous in identifying the works of scholarship which have informed my reflections on the historical development of the doctrine of justification.
1
It is important that readers are aware of my dependence on others at countless points of substance and
interpretation, despite my own occasional attempts to make original contributions to that field. Like all scholars, I have had to learn to see the vast historical landscape through the eyes of others, in that no single individual is capable of such a task unaided. Perhaps some words of C. S. Lewis might serve as a closing tribute to this rich world of scholarship:
2
My own eyes are not enough for me, I will see through those of others …
In reading great literature, I become a thousand men and yet remain myself. Like the night sky in the Greek poem, I see with a myriad eyes, but it is still I who see.
1
The final section of this work, entitled ‘
Works Consulted’
, lists all the works I have annotated and engaged, even though limits on space means that this critical engagement cannot be fully set out in the footnotes to this volume.