Thread by @potamopotos

A THREAD ON SAINT AUGUSTINE AND JUSTIFICATION

An evangelical understanding?

Augustine taught that man's justification, iustificari, consisted of man's inner renewal, that we are made more and more just ontologically. Yet he was also keenly aware that this righteousness would

never suffice. He wrote “To sum up generally and briefly the view which, so far as relates to holy living, I entertain concerning virtue,—virtue is the love with which that which ought to be loved is loved. This is in some greater, in others less, and there are men in whom it

does not exist at all; but in the absolute fulness which admits of no increase, it exists in no man while living on this earth; so long, however, as it admits of being increased there can be no doubt that, in so far as it is less than it ought to be,

the shortcoming proceeds from vice. Because of this vice there is “not a just man upon earth that doeth good and sinneth not;” because of this vice, “in God’s sight shall no man living be justified.”2 On account of this vice, “if we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves,

, and the truth is not in us.” On account of this also, whatever progress we may have made, we must say, “Forgive us our debts,”4 although all debts in word, deed, and thought were washed away in baptism. He, then, who sees aright, sees whence,

and when, and where he must hope for that perfection to which nothing can be added.”
Augustine, Letter 167.4.15 NPNF1.1

Again, notice the language of Augustine, he claims that the defective nature of man’s internal righteousness is such that “because of this defect “No man living will be justified in the sight of God”” and later “on account of this also, no matter what we may have accomplished, it

is necessary for us to say, “forgive us our debts”.” We see here an acknowledgement of the reality of the believer’s internal righteousness. We see the same sentiment in another letter,

“for if all virtues were there, there would be no vice, and if there were no vice, there would be no sin; but where is the man who is altogether without sin? Where, therefore, is the man who is without any vice, that is, fuel or root, as it were, of sin, when he who reclined on

breast of the Lord says, “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us”? It is not necessary for us to urge this at greater length in writing to you, but I make the statement for the sake of others who perhaps shall read this.”

Augustine, Letter 167.3.10 NPNF1.1

I’m not claiming that Augustine had the same vocabulary as a 17th century Lutheran Scholastic. He did indeed denote by the term iustificari “being made just”, but his discussion isn’t ours, so we shouldn’t expect him to use precisely the same

categories as we do, as neither do Roman Catholics expect the ancient fathers to draw or make the same distinctions that later scholastic theologians made. Though Augustine quite often collapses what Lutherans denote as justification with what we’d call sanctification,

then we still find in this great saint a keen acknowledgement of man’s internal lacking righteousness. Again, notice in the first quote how Augustine concludes, after decrying the defective nature of man’s internal righteousness, how

“He, then, who sees aright, sees whence, and when, and where he must hope for that perfection to which nothing can be added” In many passages we see a recognition of an internal righteousness which must grow, e.g. that we must be made more righteous, but likewise we see a clear

confession that this righteousness is not sufficient to make us truly righteous. Again and again he confesses this, “On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins,” in which I mainly discussed the baptism of infants because of original sin, and the grace of God by which we are justified,

that is, made righteous; but [I remarked] no man in this life can so keep the commandments which prescribe holiness of life, as to be beyond the necessity of using this prayer for his sins: “Forgive us our trespasses.”

RETRACTATIONS,” BOOK II. CHAP. 23,

Now Augustine was no Reformation era theologian, so I think we shouldn’t be surprised that he doesn’t treat this topic as systematically as we might want him to, nor expect him to answer all the question we might want to pose to him today.

Yet I want to pose this one question, if I am right that Augustine judged our own internal righteousness to be insufficient to truly make us just, and that we must hope for some perfect righteousness, then, can we in his great corpus find any such comments or hints toward another

type of perfect righteousness? I think we can, and that it shines through sometimes, take for example these comments by Augustine on 2 Cor 5:20f,

He does not say, as some incorrect copies read, “He who knew no sin did sin for us,” as if Christ had Himself sinned for our sakes;

but he says, “Him who knew no sin,” that is, Christ, God, to whom we are to be reconciled, “hath made to be sin for us,” that is, hath made Him a sacrifice for our sins, by which we might be reconciled to God. He, then, being made sin, just as we are made righteousness,

our righteousness being not our own, but God’s, not in ourselves, but in Him”
Augustine, Enchiridion 41 NPNF1.3

Wow, did he really write ” just as we are made righteousness, our righteousness being not our own, but God’s, not in ourselves, but in Him” Yeah he actually did, here is Migne’s Latin,

Ipse ergo peccatum, ut nos iustitia, nec nostra sed Dei, nec in nobis sed in ipso: sicut

ipse peccatum non suum sed nostrum
More passages could be quotes, but let this suffice for now.
To conclude I think I’d like to hear a bit more about how you think that a believer, who is truly guilty of sin, could possibly be judged as righteous by God? I grant that we must

understand God’s justice somewhat in an analogous manner. We are not just in an identical manner as to how God is just. But I would challenge any notion that posits that a man, being guilty of transgresses of God’s divine law, whether venial or not (venial does not equate trivial

could be judged righteous by God and worthy of eternal life. Unless, that is, that nos iustitia, nec nostra sed Dei, nec in nobis sed in ipso [sumus]

@JakobDanish

@Akemi180