We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 February 2009
The first assembly of the World Council of Churches recognised that the aspect of the Roman Catholic-Protestant division which constituted ‘our deepest difference’ was the question of justification. The appearance in 1957 of a work by a then unknown Roman Catholic scholar, claiming that ‘it is undeniable that there is a fundamental agreement between Karl Barth's position and that of the Catholic Church seen in its totality' was therefore the occasion as much for surprise as for pleasure. ‘How one would like to believe it!’ remarked Barth. Küng's study marks a major step toward ecumenical discussion on the issue of justification; however, that discussion must be continued. The present study is a small contribution toward that discussion.
page 517 note 1 The First Assembly of the World Council of Churches, edited Hooft, W. A. Visser't (London, 1949), p. 51.Google Scholar
page 517 note 2 Küng, H., Justification: the doctrine of Karl Barth and a Catholic reflection (London, 1964), p. 264.Google Scholar
page 517 note 3 Barth, K., How I changed my mind (Edinburgh, 1969), p. 70.Google Scholar
page 517 note 4 See the plea of Pole, Cardinal; Concilium Tridentinum (Freiburg, 1901ff), Vol. V, p. 82.Google Scholar
page 518 note 5 On this, and for full details of the development of the doctrine of justification in the Christian tradition, see the three volumes of my Iustitia Dei: a history of the doctrine of justification, to be published by James Clarke and Co.
page 518 note 6 Newman, J. H., lectures on justification (3rd edition; London. 1874), p. 395.Google Scholar
page 518 note 7 e.g. de div quaest ad Simplicianum lib I ii, 3qui iustificat, non pium.sed impium, ut iustificando pium faciat.
page 519 note 8 Hence the ‘deplorable absence of an emphatic distinction between justification and sanctification as Paul and Luther [!] taught it.' Heick, O. W., A History of Christian Thought (Philadelphia, 1964); Vol I. p. 203.Google Scholar
page 518 note 9 See Henninger, J., S Augustinus el doclrina de duplici iustilia (Mödling, 1935), P. 79.Google Scholar
page 518 note 10 See Capánaga, V., La deification en la soteriologia agusliniana, in Augustinus Magister (Paris, 1954), Vol II, pp. 754–754Google Scholar; Stoopio, J. A., Die deificatio hominis in die Sermones en Epistulas van Augustinus (Leiden, 1952).Google Scholar
page 518 note 11 Bavaud, G., La doctrine de la justification d'après Saint Augustin et la Réforme, in Revue des Études Augustiniennes V (1959), pp. 21–32.Google Scholar
page 518 note 12 WA LVI.442.3.
page 518 note 13 WA LVI. 186, 14–20.
page 518 note 14 Institute lib III cap xi, 15.
page 520 note 15 The differences between Luther and Melanchthon on justification are well noted by Lindström, H., Försoningen: en dogmhislorisk och syslematish Undersökning (Uppsala, 1933), pp. 242–243Google Scholar; The same point is made by Josefson, R., Ödmjukhet och tro. En studie i den unge Luthers teologi (Stockholm, 1939), pp. 127; 179.Google Scholar
page 520 note 16 Ritschl, A, Die christliche Lehre von der Rechtfertigung und Versöhnung (Bonn, 1870), pp. 93–94Google Scholar: ‘… den reformatorischen Lehrbegrif von der iustificatio, nämlich die absichtliche Unterscheidung zwischen iustificatio und regeneratio…’. For a readable account of the difference, see Ryle, J. C., Holiness, its nature, hindrances, difficulties and roots (London, 1879), PP. 15–32.Google Scholar
page 520 note 17 Church Dogmatics IV/I, p. 101; my italics.
page 520 note 18 IV/I, pp. 149–50.
page 520 note 19 On Calvin's doctrine of insitio in Christum, see Göhler, A., Calvins Lehre ven der Heiligung (München, 1934).Google Scholar
page 521 note 20 IV/2, p. 503.
page 521 note 21 See the quotation from Moeller; Küng, op cit, p. 257.
page 522 note 22 IV/I, p. 413.
page 522 note 23 III/I, pp. 265–6.
page 522 note 24 III/2, p. 28.
page 522 note 25 111/2, p. 36.
page 522 note 26 III/2, p. 37.
page 522 note 27 IV/I, p. 628.
page 522 note 28 Küng, op cit, p. 179.
page 522 note 29 See McSorley, H. J., Luther: right or wrong? (Minneapolis, 1969).Google Scholar
page 523 note 30 II/2, p. 76.
page 523 note 31 II/2, p. 162.
page 523 note 32 II/2, p. 162–3.
page 523 note 33 II/2, p. 166.
page 523 note 34 II/2, P. 167.
page 523 note 35 II/2, p. 166.
page 524 note 36 II/2, p. 295.
page 524 note 37 II/2, p. 422.
page 524 note 38 e.g. O'Grady, C., The Church in Catholic Theology: dialogue with Karl Barth (London, 1970), pp. 27–34.Google Scholar
page 524 note 39 e.g. Berkouwer, G. C., The Triumph of Grace in the Theology of Karl Barth (London, 1956).Google Scholar
page 524 note 40 IV/3, pp. 565–6.
page 525 note 41 Si quis magnum illud usque in finem perseverantia donum se certo habiturum absoluta et infallibili certitudine dixerit, nisi hoc exspeciali revelatione didicerit, anathema sit.
page 526 note 42 See the closing paragraph of de servo arbitrio, where he praises Erasmus for concentrating on the issue in question – the freedom of the will: WA XVIII. 786.26ff.
page 526 note 43 Rébelliau, A, Bossuet, historien du Protestantisme (Paris, 1909), p. 24.Google Scholar
