IS R. C. SPROUL WRONG ABOUT MARTIN LUTHER? AN ANALYSIS OF R. C. SPROUL'S FAITH ALONE: THE EVANGELICAL DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION WITH RESPECT TO AUGUSTINE, LUTHER, CALVIN, AND CATHOLIC LUTHER SCHOLARSHIP1

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Mar 2004 by Heckel, Matthew C

Calvin was also aware of his discontinuity with Augustine on this point. In 1543 Calvin took up his pen in defense of the Lutheran doctrine of the bondage of the will against the Dutch Roman Catholic Albert Pighius, and his work The Bondage and Liberation of the Will came to light. Calvin's dispute about grace and free choice led him to distinguish himself from Augustine, something he was normally loath to do. Calvin argued against Pighius that Augustine supported his doctrine of grace even though Augustine differed from him on the nature of justifying righteousness. he writes, "But Augustine reckons [people to be] holy on the basis of good works, while I deny works, whatever they may be, any power for attaining righteousness; [I deny this] to the extent that they are wicked if they have this intention."69 Then Calvin adds, "I answer that now is not the place for a discussion about how men attain righteousness before God."70 Calvin realized that the nature of justifying righteousness and how people come to receive it are not the same question. Calvin knew himself to be in agreement with Augustine on the exclusive role of grace in bestowing righteousness and that he differed with Augustine over whether this righteousness was in Christ or in "good works." In the Institutes, Calvin writes,

Even the judgment of Augustine, or at least his manner of stating it, is not to be fully received. For although he admirably strips man of all praise for righteousness and attributes it to the grace of God, nevertheless, he refers this grace to sanctification, meaning the sanctification by which we are regenerated (regeneramur) by the Spirit unto newness of life.71

Calvin recognized that, for Augustine, the "grace" of justifying righteousness is regenerative to a person's nature and thus belongs to the doctrinal category of regeneration or sanctification. Calvin, on the other hand, distinguished justification from regeneration and sanctification, and thus from any notion of intrinsic transformation.72 While Augustine and Calvin both agreed that grace is monergistic in salvation, Calvin conceived of justifying righteousness as distinct from the inherent righteousness of the Christian life, and he acknowledges this difference between them.73

In summary, Luther and Calvin differed from Augustine primarily over three issues: (1) the formal basis or cause of justification-the Reformers maintained that the most immediate cause of justification is faith (fides), or faith righteousness, not love (caritas);74 (2) the nature of justifying righteousness-the Reformers held that righteousness is in Christ outside of us (extra nos), and is not gracious merit produced in us (in nobis); it is imputed from the outside, not imparted from within; and (3) how righteousness is appropriated-the Reformers contended that justifying righteousness is appropriated by faith alone (sola fide), not also by faith working love (fides quae per caritatem operatur or the later Medieval formula fides caritate formata). These lead to different conceptions of how we are found acceptable to God and worthy of eternal life. The Reformers tended to speak of justification as an instantaneous declaration of a righteous status (pronuntiari iustos) before God (coram Deo), not as being made righteous (iustum facere) by an inpouring of love.75 But these differences with Augustine did not move Luther and Calvin to renounce him, though they do renounce the medieval papacy and its theologians for holding the same set of beliefs.76 Sproul has ably demonstrated Luther's and Calvin's rejection of the papacy and used their testimony to support his modern-day critique of ECT and GOS, while, again, saying nothing with regard to the question his thesis raises concerning the status of Augustine and the pre-Reformation church.77 I believe Sproul's gap can be filled, since the Reformers did address their status. Sproul's treatment of ECT and GOS also needs to be assessed in light of new historical developments and changed context where the doctrine of justification has been addressed today by Catholics and Protestants in hopes of a different outcome.78