Alister McGrath: The Catholic Response to Luther was Obvious Because It Makes So Much Sense and is So Logical

Here's one compliments of the Catholic Answers Forums. It's another opportunity to explore what reading in context is all about.

Originally Posted by Topper17  This Achielies Heel was built into Lutheranism (and Protestantism) by none other than Martin Luther. 16th century Catholics understood this problem full well: “One Catholic practice to which the reformers took particular exception was that of praying for the dead. To the reformers, this practice rested on a non-biblical foundation (the doctrine of purgatory), and encouraged popular superstition and ecclesiastical exploitation. Their catholic opponents were able to meet this objection, however, by pointing out that the practice of praying for the dead is explicitly mentioned in Scripture, at 2 Maccabees 12:40-46. The reformers, on the other hand, having declared that this book was apocryphal (and hence not part of the Bible), were able to respond that, in their view at least, the practice was not scriptural. This merited the obvious riposte from the Catholic side: that the reformers based on their theology on Scripture, but only after having excluded from the canon of Scripture any works which happened to contradict this theology.” McGrath, “Reformation Thought”, pg. 151-2 We should notice that McGrath calls the Catholic response an ‘obvious riposte’. The reason that the Catholic response was ‘obvious’ is their response makes so much sense and is so logical. Of course they would make that criticism, because it was so obviously reflected the truth. What I find interesting is that Protestants are still denying that the Reformers based their theology on a version of Scripture which had been ‘cleansed’ of those ‘pesky’ books which refuted their theology, like James and 2 Maccabees. Of course, the Reformers said that that was not so, but I would suggest that it is NOT coincidental that 2 Maccabees speaks of praying for the dead and that James refutes Salvation by Faith Alone.

Originally Posted by Topper17  My point is (reinforced by McGrath), that the reformers “excluded from the canon of Scripture any works which happened to contradict [their] theology”, and THEN proclaimed that their theology was ‘Scriptural’. This charge is most applicable to Martin Luther, and thus to the theology which bears his name. This refers directly to my contention that Luther's 'problem' with James had primarily to do with the Apostle being so obviously against Luther's radical teaching of Salvation By Faith Alone.

Topper17 uses McGrath to prove the following:

1) McGrath says the Roman Catholic response to Luther was ‘obvious’ because it "makes so much sense and is so logical."

2) McGrath is saying the Reformers deemed certain books non-canonical in order to reject Roman Catholic teaching.

This section of McGrath's book is available via Google Books. The first thing to notice is the reference given is to pages 151-152. Unless a different edition is being utilized, the quote is actually from page 98.

On page 96, McGrath documents the errors in the Latin Vulgate discovered by the humanists. On page 97, McGrath begins his treatment of Protestantism and the canon. McGrath notes that medieval theologians held Scripture meant= the Latin Vulgate. He then says the Reformers "felt able to call this judgement into question." The Reformers doubts on certain Old Testament books were based first on the fact that some were not found in the Hebrew Bible, but only found "in the Greek and Latin Bibles (such as the Vulgate)." Then, "some of the reformers allowed the apocryphal works were edifying reading" but "there was general agreement that these works could not be used as the basis of doctrine." McGrath's basis for the Reformers then is that the medieval church (and Trent) defined the canon according to the Greek and Latin Bibles while the Reformers defined the Old Testament canon according to the Hebrew Bible. With that basis set up, McGrath then explains the relevance of the canon dispute.

Then comes the quote as used by Topper17.

One Catholic practice to which the reformers took particular exception was that of praying for the dead. To the reformers, this practice rested on a non-biblical foundation (the doctrine of purgatory), and encouraged popular superstition and ecclesiastical exploitation. Their catholic opponents were able to meet this objection, however, by pointing out that the practice of praying for the dead is explicitly mentioned in Scripture, at 2 Maccabees 12:40-46. The reformers, on the other hand, having declared that this book was apocryphal (and hence not part of the Bible), were able to respond that, in their view at least, the practice was not scriptural. This merited the obvious riposte from the Catholic side: that the reformers based on their theology on Scripture, but only after having excluded from the canon of Scripture any works which happened to contradict this theology.

McGrath isn't taking one side or the other in this quote, at least in this context. He isn't saying the Roman Catholic response to Luther was "obvious" because it "makes so much sense and is so logical." He's saying that this was the quick and clever reply by the Roman Catholic side. Nor is McGrath conceding the Reformers deemed certain books non-canonical primarily in order to reject Roman Catholic teaching. The entire discussion on pages 97-98 as to the rejection of the apocryphal books was based on criticism of the tradition and errors of the Latin Vulgate.

See the definition of "Vulgate" in McGrath's book on page 274:

The Latin translation of the Bible, mostly deriving from Jerome, upon which medieval theology was largely based. Strictly speaking, "Vulgate" designates Jerome's translation of the Old Testament (except the Psalms, which were taken from the Gallican Psalter), the Apocryphal works (except Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, 1 and 2 Maccabees, and Baruch, which were taken from the Old Latin Version), and all the New Testament. The recognition of its many inaccuracies was of fundamental importance to the Reformation. see pp. 94-95.

Addendum

Today, 3:29 pm

TertiumQuid  Regular Member   Join Date: May 19, 2004 Location: New Jersey Posts: 811 Religion: Reformed

Re: The New Testament Canons of Martin Luther and of Lutheranism Quote: Originally Posted by Topper17  For the benefit of those who are new to the thread I will repost the appropriate and on-topic portion of the McGrath quote: “This merited the obvious riposte from the Catholic side: that the reformers based on their theology on Scripture, but only after having excluded from the canon of Scripture any works which happened to contradict this theology.” McGrath, “Reformation Thought”, pg. 151-2 My point is (reinforced by McGrath), that the reformers “excluded from the canon of Scripture any works which happened to contradict [their] theology”, and THEN proclaimed that their theology was ‘Scriptural’. This charge is most applicable to Martin Luther, and thus to the theology which bears his name. This refers directly to my contention that Luther's 'problem' with James had primarily to do with the Apostle being so obviously against Luther's radical teaching of Salvation By Faith Alone. This section of McGrath's book is available via Google Books. The reference given is to pages 151-152. Unless a different edition is being utilized, the quote is actually from page 98. What I find interesting about the repeated citation from McGrath is that it raises an important methodological question. Why or when should something be cited? In its original context, McGrath isn't intending to make the point Topper17 is making. Rather, he's describing an historical situation and how Catholics responded to Luther. to cite McGrath correctly, one should say: McGrath described the 16th century Catholic response to Luther, and that's my response as well. Why not just simply make the point without citing McGrath? Simply by adding McGrath's name and words out-of-context to a point one is making doesn't give an argument more force. Quoting a book out-of-context actually works against the point being made. Those arguments I find most compelling from those I disagree with are those that present historical research in context and with integrity. Those arguments I find least compelling are those that use quotes in the style of propaganda (information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.) Continue on weary warriors.

Origin of the term "Protestant"

I had always thought that the the etymology of the term "Protestant" was primarily religious. The term referred to those original 16th Century people that stood against Roman theology. I recently came across the following little tidbit from Alister McGrath about the origin of the term. It came about when six German princes and fourteen representatives of imperial cities.... "protested."  McGrath notes the term came about due to the Second Diet of Speyer of the Holy Roman Empire (1529) which met to primarily discuss impending Islamic armies.

 McGrath states:

The second Diet of Speyer was hurriedly convened in March 1529. Its primary objective was to secure, as quickly as possible, a united front against the new threat from the east. Hard-liners, however, saw this as a convenient opportunity to deal with another, lesser threat in their own backyards. It was easy to argue that the reforming movements that were gaining influence throughout the region threatened to bring about destabilization and religious anarchy. The presence of a larger number of Catholic representatives than in 1526 presented conservatives with an opportunity they simply could not ignore. They forced through a resolution that demanded the rigorous enforcement of the Edict of Worms throughout the empire. It was a shrewd tactical move, with immense strategic ramifications. Both enemies of the Catholic church—Islam and the Reformation—would be stopped dead in their tracks. Outraged, yet ultimately powerless to change anything, six German princes and fourteen representatives of imperial cities entered a formal protest against this unexpected radical curtailment of religious liberty. The Latin term protestantes (“protesters”) was immediately applied to them and the movement they represented.

 McGrath, Alister (2009-10-13). Christianity's Dangerous Idea (Kindle Locations 182-183). HarperCollins. Kindle Edition. (Kindle Locations 174-183).

Augustine, Theological Novums, and CTC

I found this comment over on Called to Communion (dated January 16, 2012).  I was pleased that the comment grasped one of the basic points of a few of my older blog articles, and that the CTC person didn't even make a serious attempt to answer it.

The comment summarized my argument as follows:

Bottom Line: You can’t just say Augustine wasn’t Reformed and call it a day (especially citing McGrath). While that might be true, what if Augustine had it wrong in the first place?; while the Reformation might appear as a “theological novum,” what if sola fide actually points to the right direction in Biblical exegesis regardless of the testimony of the Church Fathers? How do you argue against those who don’t care about showing their ancestry in Augustine or proving some sort of historical basis for imputed righteousness?

Tim Troutman of CTC responds:

In reply to your bottom line — if someone agrees that St. Augustine was not Reformed (and that no early Christian was), and still wants to be Reformed, I wouldn’t really argue with them; at least not as far as the point in this post goes. It could be the case that everyone misread the gospel up until Calvin and that Calvin misread most of those who misread the Scriptures, thinking they agreed with him, but at the same time, he correctly read the Scriptures. That’s possible on face value. But it’s also pretty silly. I’m not real excited about trying to argue with anyone who thinks that.

Yeah, silly. Sure. I would point out for clarification, I do care about ancestry and history.

Rome has always set itself and its own aggrandization above the cause of Christ

I’m following on from my last installment on the history of the early [i.e., late fourth century] papacy.

Remember this citation as evidence that the early papacy [and for the papacy, note that “early” here is in the sixth century] had some sort of “divine institution.”

Testimony from the Early Fathers:
In 517 the Eastern bishops assented to and signed the formula of Pope Hormisdas, which states in part: ‘The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers. For it is impossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ who said, “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build My Church” [Matt. 16:18], should not be verified. And their truth has been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See [i.e. Rome] the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied.’ (qtd in This Rock, October 1998).

In the comments from that last thread, the discussion turned to Pope Damasus (366-384 AD). At question was my appellation “the murderer Pope Damasus,” but as I said there, I’ll stand by that appellation. J.N.D. Kelly (“Oxford Dictionary of the Popes”) notes that Damasus hired the mob [and note both the nomenclature and the location], which “savagely attacked the Ursinians”, [followers of Ursinus, a rival of Damasus’s] and killing 137 people in the process.

“Pope St. Damasus,” of course, is officially a Saint of the Roman Catholic Church. He personifies the legacy, which we see today, that any amount of lying or criminal activity can be excused if it is done in the name of Mother Rome.

Since the mid third century there had been a growing assimilation of Christian and secular culture. It is already in evidence long before Constantine with the art of the Christian burial sites round the city, the catacombs. With the imperial adoption of Christianity, this process accelerated. In Damasus’ Rome, wealthy Christians gave each other gifts in which Christian symbols went alongside images of Venus, nereids and sea-monsters, and representations of pagan-style wedding-processions.

This Romanisation of the Church was not all a matter of worldiness, however. The bishops of the imperial capital had to confront the Roman character of their city and their see. They set about finding a religious dimension to that Romanitias which would have profound implications for the nature of the papacy. Pope Damasus in particular took this task to heart. He set himself to interpret Rome’s past in the light not of paganism, but of Christianity. He would Latinise the Church, and Christianise Latin. He appointed as his secretary the greatest Latin scholar of the day, the Dalmatian presbyter Jerome, and commissioned him to turn the crude dog-Latin of the Bible versions [currently] used in the church into something more urbane and polished. Jerome’s work was never completed, but the Vulgate Bible, as it came to be called, rendered the scriptures of ancient Israel and the early Church into an idiom which Romans could recognize as their own. The covenant legislation of the ancient tribes was now cast in the language of the Roman law-courts [emphasis added], and Jerome’s version of the promises to Peter used familiar Roman legal words for binding and loosing -- ligare and solver -- which underlined the legal character of the Pope’s unique claims. (Eamon Duffy, “Saints and Sinners, A History of the Popes, New Haven and London, Yale Nota Bene, Yale University Press ©1997 and 2001, pgs 38-39)

It should be noted that this “Latinization” was one of the things that the Reformation worked to undo. It was the focus of the motto, ”ad fontes” [“To the sources.”] As Alister McGrath has noted in his “Introduction to Christian Theology,” “the Vulgate translation of several major New Testament texts could not be justified.” Nevertheless, he said, “a number of medieval church practices and beliefs were based upon these texts.” So in addition to some of the forgeries and works of fiction upon which the papacy aggrandized itself, Roman doctrines themselves were founded upon or expanded with translation errors. These included:

Ephesians 5:31-32: “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. The Vulgate translation inserted the word “sacramentum” here, where the Greek word is mysterion. Erasmus pointed out that this Greek word simply meant “mystery.” The Ephesians passage had no reference whatsoever to marriage being a “sacrament.” Nevertheless, medieval theologians justified the inclusion of marriage on the list of sacraments, in good part, because of this mistranslation.

Matthew 4:17: From that time on Jesus began to preach, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.” The Vulgate mistranslated the word “repent” as “do penance.” As McGrath noted, “this translation suggested that the coming of the kingdom of heaven had a direct connection with the sacrament of penance. Erasmus, following Valla, pointed out” the correct translation. “In other words, where the Vulgate seemed to refer to an outward practice (the sacrament of penance), Erasmus insisted that the reference was to an inward attitude, that of “being repentant.”

Luke 1:28: The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.” The Vulgate translated the Greek for “highly favored” as “full of grace,” implying that Mary was somehow a reservoir of grace to be dispensed. Erasmus pointed this out as well. “Mary was one who had found God’s favor,” as McGrath notes. Not that she was one who could bestow grace upon others.

Six centuries later, after the east/west split, at which time anyone who was likely to protest was out of the picture, Pope Gregory VII asserted, “That the Roman church has never erred; nor will it err to all eternity, the Scripture bearing witness.” But it erred in the mistranslation of those very Scriptures. It sullied “the catholic religion” with its own efforts to glorify Rome.

Roman Catholics ask us all the time, “when did the Roman church fall?” It was not necessarily a “fall,” but more like an erosion. Constant erosion, at greater and lesser rates of erosion. But it was an erosion of the Gospel message, at the expense of the constant aggrandization of the bishops of Rome, and the constant aggrandization of Rome itself.

"There was one Gospel for 1500 years in both the East and West, and it was not Protestant in any way" ?

There was once a thread over on a discussion board in which one of those "I'm going to join the Roman Catholic Church" announcements was put up. In the thread, a Roman Catholic made the following statement:

The "biblical Gospel" is the Catholic Faith. Once again, I shall remind you (for perhaps the 100th time now) that there was no Evangelicalism nor Protestantism prior to 1517. There was one Gospel for 1500 years in both the East and West, and it was not Protestant in any way.

Statements like this carry assumptions that often don't get challenged. For instance, what was the official Roman Catholic teaching on justification in 1517 or previously? What was the official definition of that "one Gospel"? If there was one consistent biblical gospel taught by the Roman Church, evidence of it should be easy to document. I challenged this particular Catholic to provide such evidence, and well, let's just say a week or two went by so I shut off the lights, locked up, and went home.

The confusion of the Roman Catholic Church on this issue can be seen by looking at two 16th Century Roman Catholics previous to Trent. Alister McGrath discusses Gasparo Contarini and Paolo Giustiniani as an example of the confusion over justification during this time period. Both men were members of a group of Paduan-educated humanists. McGrath notes that Giustiniani chose to enter a local hermitage to have sin expiated (a retreat from the world), while Contarini remained "in the world" believing salvation can't mean such a retreat. Both men corresponded with each other. McGrath states:

The Contarini-Giustiniani correspondence is of importance in that it illustrates the doctrinal confusion of the immediate pre-Tridentine period in relation to the doctrine of justification. Giustiniani was convinced that it was necessary to withdraw from the world and to lead a life of the utmost austerity in order to be saved, whereas Contarini came to believe that it was possible to lead a normal life in the world, trusting in the merits of Christ for salvation. But which of these positions represented, or approximated most closely to, the teaching of the Catholic church? The simple fact is that this question could not be answered with any degree of confidence. This doctrinal confusion concerning precisely the issue over which the Reformation was widely held to have begun inevitably meant that the Catholic church was in no position to attempt a coherent systematic refutation of the teaching of the evangelical faction in its crucial initial phase. (Alister McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification (Third Edition) [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005], 311.

Revised 07-25, editing.

The Alleged Roman Catholic Tradition on Justification

Previously, I addressed Roman Catholic citations of Alister McGrath’s book Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification. In their usage of this book, they attempt to show that that the Protestant understanding of justification was unknown in church history previous to the Reformation. Further, this fact is supposed to prove that the Reformers deviated from the historical Catholic understanding of justification. Implied in this argument is the proposition that the Roman Catholic Church received their understanding of Justification from the Apostles, and subsequent Church history records the passing on of its understanding to the Church Fathers, and then ultimately to its dogmatic proclamation at the Council of Trent.

McGrath’s book is cited because he says:

“A fundamental discontinuity was introduced into the western theological tradition where none had ever existed, or ever been contemplated, before. The Reformation understanding of the nature of justification ­ as opposed to its mode ­ must therefore be regarded as a genuine theological novum." (Alister McGrath - Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification [New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000) 186-187].

A key phrase in the above quote is “western theological tradition.” What does McGrath mean by this? I would assume Roman Catholics think it means their “tradition”- that is, the Roman church received their understanding of justification from the Apostles, and subsequent church history records the passing on of its understanding to the Church Fathers. Luther then came along out of the blue and proclaimed sola fide, quite against the standing "apostolic tradition."

For instance, a defender of Rome, Apolonio Latar says of the McGrath quote: “We also have to note that this doctrine of Sola fide is not an apostolic tradition. We have a Protestant scholar has admitted that Sola fide is not an apostolic tradition.” I wonder if Latar has actually read McGrath’s book. McGrath implies no such thing. McGrath begins his book by studying the Pre-Augustinian “tradition.” He states of this period that "For the first three hundred and fifty years of the history of the church, her teaching on justification was inchoate and ill-defined" [Alister McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 23].

McGrath says of this period:

The history of early Christian doctrine is basically the history of the emergence of the Christological and Trinitarian dogmas. Whilst the importance of soteriological considerations, both in the motivation of the development of early Christian doctrine and as a normative principle during the course of that development, is generally conceded, it is equally evident that the early Christian writers did not choose to express their soteriological convictions in terms of the concept of justification. This is not to say that the fathers avoid the term 'justification': their interest in the concept is, however, minimal, and the term generally occurs in their writings as a direct citation from, or a recognizable allusion to, the epistles of Paul, generally employed for some purpose other than a discussion of the concept of justification itself. Furthermore, the few occasions upon which a specific discussion of justification can be found generally involve no interpretation of the matter other than a mere paraphrase of a Pauline statement. Justification was simply not a theological issue in the pre-Augustinian tradition. The emerging patristic understanding of matters such as predestination, grace and free will is somewhat confused, and would remain so until controversy forced a full discussion of the issue upon the church. Indeed, by the end of the fourth century, the Greek fathers had formulated a teaching on human free will based upon philosophical rather than biblical foundations. Standing in the great Platonic tradition, heavily influenced by Philo, and reacting against the fatalisms of their day, they taught that man was utterly free in his choice of good or evil. It is with the Latin fathers that we observe the beginnings of speculation on the nature of original sin and corruption, and the implications which this may have for man's moral faculties.

It has always been a puzzling fact that Paul meant so relatively little for the thinking of the church during the first 350 years of its history. To be sure, he is honored and quoted, but - in the theological perspective of the west - it seems that Paul's great insight into justification by faith was forgotten. [Alister McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 19].

Far from denying justification by faith as an apostolic teaching, McGrath notes the early church never discusses in any detail what Justification means, and then he posits (via a quote) that the church “forgot” Paul’s teaching for 350 years! Now, is McGrath concluding that Augustine came along and set the record straight on the Biblical term “justification”? No, he’s not, and my previous entry documents this.

Latar has read into McGrath what he wants him to say. There is no unified “Tradition” of the Roman church’s understanding of justification that can be historically linked back to Paul via the Church Fathers. Nor does McGrath state this. What McGrath’s book does is record the church’s struggle to understand the biblical term justification. McGrath never posits a unified Roman Church “tradition” that emerges from the Apostles.

Sola Fide is based on grammatical and exegetical work on the Biblical text, not on the testimony of history. In speaking of the word iustificari, McGrath notes: "...[I]t would appear that the Greek verb has the primary sense of being considered or estimated as righteous, whereas the Latin verb denotes being righteous, the reason why one is considered righteous by others. Although the two are clearly related, they have quite distinct points of reference" [Ibid. 15].

Defenders of Rome: be careful which books you cite to prove your case. Ask yourself: why would Alister McGrath want to defend your church? McGrath is not a Roman scholar, nor is he a liberal scholar. Read a text for what it says, not what you want it to say.

So what of McGrath's "theological novum" statement? After he said this, McGrath goes on to say in in the very next paragraph:

Like all periods in the history of doctrine, the Reformation demonstrates both continuity and discontinuity with the period which immediately preceded it. Chief among these discontinuities is the new understanding of the nature of justification, whereas there are clearly extensive areas of continuity with the late medieval theological movement as a whole, or well-defined sections of the movement, in relation to other aspects of the doctrine, as noted above. That there are no 'Forerunners of the Reformation doctrines of justification' has little theological significance today, given current thinking on the nature of the development of doctrine, which renders Bossuet's static model, on which he based his critique of Protestantism, obsolete. Nevertheless, the historical aspects of the question Continue to have relevance. For what reasons did the Reformers abandon the catholic consensus on the nature of justification? We shall discuss this matter in our study of the development of the doctrine from the Reformation to the present day. [Ibid.187].

Alister McGrath on Augustine and Justification

Those of you that read this blog probably realize I’m interested in citations and sources. One of the most curious sources that I’ve found used by Roman Catholics is Alister McGrath’s book Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification. McGrath is quoted as follows:

A fundamental discontinuity was introduced into the western theological tradition where none had ever existed, or ever been contemplated, before. The Reformation understanding of the nature of justification ­ as opposed to its mode ­ must therefore be regarded as a genuine theological novum." (Alister McGrath - Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification. Vol. I. .....Pg. 186)

The point being made by this quote via Catholic apologists is that the Protestant understanding of justification was unknown in church history previous to the Reformation. Further, it is not a Roman Catholic saying this, it is Alister McGrath, a well respected Protestant theologian. The argument also implicitly assumes the Roman Church has always taught the same thing on justification. This similar quote was cited by another Roman apologist:

Whereas Augustine taught that the sinner is made righteous in justification, Melanchthon taught that he is counted as righteous or pronounced to be righteous. For Augustine, 'justifying righteousness' is imparted; for Melanchthon, it is imputed in the sense of being declared or pronounced to be righteous. Melanchthon drew a sharp distinction between the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous, designating the former 'justification' and the latter 'sanctification' or 'regeneration.' For Augustine, these were simply different aspects of the same thing . . . The importance of this development lies in the fact that it marks a complete break with the teaching of the church up to that point. From the time of Augustine onwards, justification had always been understood to refer to both the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous. Melanchthon's concept of forensic justification diverged radically from this. As it was taken up by virtually all the major reformers subsequently, it came to represent a standard difference between Protestant and Roman Catholic from then on. In addition to differences regarding how the sinner was justified, there was now an additional disagreement on what the word 'justification' designated in the first place. The Council of Trent, the Roman Catholic church's definitive response to the Protestant challenge, reaffirmed the views of Augustine on the nature of justification, and censured the views of Melanchthon as woefully inadequate . . . the concept of forensic justification actually represents a development in Luther's thought . . . .(Alister McGrath, Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 2nd ed., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1993, 108-109; emphasis in original)

Note what the quote said, "From the time of Augustine onwards, justification had always been understood to refer to both the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous."

There are a few things that should be pointed out about Alister McGrath and his explanation of Augustine and justification, which I'd like to reference from Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification. This book is his magnum opus on the topic of justification.

Historically, one can make a case that Augustine didn't know Greek and the entire direction of the Church was redirected away from what the Bible means by justification. Commenting on a point made by Alister McGrath, R.C. Sproul notes, “McGrath sees Augustine’s treatment of justification as pivotal to the subsequent development of the doctrine of justification in the Roman Catholic Church..." Sproul then quotes Mcgrath:

Augustine understands the verb iustificare to mean ‘to make righteous,’ an understanding of the term which he appears to have held throughout his working life. In arriving at this understanding, he appears to have interpreted -ficare as the unstressed form of facere, by analogy with vivificare and mortificare. Although this is a permissible interpretation of the Latin word, it is unacceptable as an interpretation of the Hebrew concept which underlies it. [R.C. Sproul, Faith Alone : The Evangelical Doctrine of Justification, (Grand Rapids: Baker books, 1999), 99].

In other words, McGrath is saying that Augustine misunderstood the term justification. He used it in its Latin sense, not in a Hebrew sense. Since he didn't know Greek, how could Augustine arrive at an accurate interpretation? McGrath goes onto say:

The term iustificare is, or course, post-classical, having been introduced through the Latin translation of the bible, and thus restricted to Christian writers of the Latin west. Augustine was thus unable to turn to classical authors in an effort to clarrify its meraning, and was thus obliged to interpret the term himself. His establishment of a relationship between iustificare and iustitia is of enormous significance, as will become clear[Alister McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 31].

McGrath also points out:

[For Augustine]...[t]he righteousness which man thus receives, although originating from God, is nevertheless located within man, and can be said to be his, part of his being and intrinsic to his person. An element which underlies this understanding of the nature of justifying righteousness is the Greek concept of deification, which makes its appearance in the later Augustinian soteriology [Ibid, 31-32].

McGrath notes in his introduction,

As we begin our study of the development of the Christian doctrine of justification, it is necessary to observe that the early theologians of the western church were dependent upon Latin versions of the Bible, and approached their texts and their subject with a set of presuppositions which owed more to the Latin language and culture than to Christianity itself. The initial transference of a Hebrew concept to a Greek, and subsequently to a Latin, context point to a fundamental alteration in the concept of 'justification' and 'righteousness' as the gospel spread from its Palestinian source to the western world [Ibid, 15].

What conclusions can be made?

First, one must wonder about unquestioned Roman Catholic allegiance to Augustine’s understanding of the term justification. They’re putting all their chips with a guy who didn’t know Hebrew (or Greek on level needed to do Biblical exegesis), and simply used private interpretation to arrive at his etymological understanding.

Second, was Augustine’s view a “theological novum” (a favorite phrase Roman Catholics culled from McGrath)? Who previous to Augustine understood the term the way he did? Consider what McGrath notes: "The pre-Augustinian theological tradition, however, may be regarded as having taken a highly questionable path in its articulation of the doctrine of justification in the face of pagan opposition" [ibid. 18-19]. McGrath mentions that "For the first three hundred and fifty years of the history of the church, her teaching on justification was inchoate and ill-defined"[ Ibid. 23]. So, where is Augustine's view in the early church?

Third, McGrath notes that "...Tertullian has frequently been singled out as the thinker who shackled the theology of the western church to a theology of 'works' and 'merit'..." but notes the blame for this is probably due to the "Latin language itself" [Ibid. 14]. In other words, the concept of merit that means "to be worthy of something" is a Latin meaning, not a Greek meaning. This concept was linked to the word iustitia previous to Augustine. On what basis does a Roman Catholic pick Augustine as interpreting the Bible correctly, rather than the pre-Augustinian theology?

Fourth, that there was a great ambiguity as to what exactly "justification" was even at Trent is documented by Alister McGrath:"The Council of Trent was faced with a group of formidable problems as it assembled to debate the question of justification in June 1546. The medieval period had witnessed the emergence of a number of quite distinct schools of thought on justification, clearly incompatible at points, all of which could lay claim to represent the teaching of the Catholic church." [Alister McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification (New York: Cambridge University Press, 259)]. McGrath goes on to point out "...[T]here was considerable disagreement in the immediate post-Tridentine period concerning the precise interpretation of the decretum de iustificatione" [ibid. 268]. In other words, even after Trent made its decree on Justification, Catholics were confused as to how to interpret it!

Fifth, one must question the infallibility of Trent who "reaffirmed" Augustine's view, when Augustine put forth a misinterpretation of a Hebrew concept, and also put forth a "theological novum".

Sixth, there is also the problem of Roman Catholic apologetic double standards. The Roman Catholic apologists assume Trent was following the tradition of the church, and there was no teaching of “faith alone” previous to Luther. In other words, Luther invented “justification by faith alone”. It didn’t exist until Luther. It can’t be verified in church history. It can’t be true. On the other hand, when the same historical standard is applied to certain Roman Catholic dogmas, like Mary’s Bodily Assumption, Purgatory, Indulgences, etc., this same historical standard is swept under the rug and hidden. One has to seriously question why a standard that Catholic apologists hold Protestants to is not likewise applied to their own beliefs. Wade through the corridors of church history and search for the threads of all Roman Catholic dogma. One falls flat of linking many of them back to the early church, or in some instances, even the Bible.

Now some of you may think that all I've done here is point out this historical debate between Roman Catholics and Protestants is at a standstill. This might sound shocking, but in my opinion, it really ultimately doesn't matter if I were to conclude that sola fide finds no support in any of the Early Church Fathers. Sola Fide is based on grammatical and exegetical work on the Biblical text, not on the testimony of history. In speaking of the word iustificari, McGrath notes: "...[I]t would appear that the Greek verb has the primary sense of being considered or estimated as righteous, whereas the Latin verb denotes being righteous, the reason why one is considered righteous by others. Although the two are clearly related, they have quite distinct points of reference" [Ibid. 15].