Does justification have degrees?

Trent's decree on justification has a chapter "On the increase of Justification received". The justified, it says,

"through the observance of the commandments of God and of the Church, faith co-operating with good works, increase in that justice which they have received through the grace of Christ, and are still further justified" (Session VI, ch. 10).

Canon 24 condemns anyone who says that good works are "merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof".

The Reformed answer is short, and it starts in a courtroom.

"If there is a dispute between men and they come into court and the judges decide between them, acquitting the innocent and condemning the guilty" (Deuteronomy 25:1).

"He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the LORD" (Proverbs 17:15).

Paul uses the same pair of words of God: "It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn?" (Romans 8:33–34). A judge's verdict acquits or condemns. Nobody leaves a courtroom more acquitted than the man beside him, and nobody is acquitted a little now and more later. So if justification is a verdict, it has no degrees, and there is no "increase of justification" for works to cause.

Who has said so

Calvin answered Trent's decree within the year, in his Antidote. Of the council's account of justification he wrote: "I maintain that it is one, and simple, and is wholly included in the gratuitous acceptance of God" (p. 116). And of canon 24: "whosoever asserts that works have the effect of increasing justification, understands neither what is the meaning of justification nor its cause" (p. 158). Turretin, more than a century later, gave a whole question of his Institutes to the point (Topic XVI, question 10): justification is perfect, so that in itself it neither grows nor shrinks. James Buchanan put it in English in 1867: justification is "an act, too, which is completed at once, and not a work which is gradually accomplished by successive acts", and "there is no second Justification, properly so called" (p. 251).

Two limits on the courtroom picture. Wright and Dunn speak of a present and a future justification, a verdict given now and affirmed at the last judgment. That is a verdict given twice, not a verdict that grows, and the step here claims only that a verdict has no degrees, not that it is given once. And not every picture of a divine court has two outcomes: the Talmud's three books, for the wholly righteous, the wholly wicked and those in between (Rosh Hashanah 16b), has three. Those readers do not grant Romans 8:33–34 as Paul reads it, and are not counted against the step.

Where the argument has to go

The courtroom texts settle what a verdict is. They do not settle whether justification is only a verdict, and that is where Trent stands. For Trent, justification is "not remission of sins merely, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man" (ch. 7), and a renewal can grow. So the argument from the courtroom reaches Trent only with the Reformed definition beside it, that justification is a verdict and nothing more (Westminster XI.1).

The checking bears this out in three results.

  • Granted the Reformed definition, justification has no degrees, and works cannot increase it (verdictOnDegrees_establishes, no_degrees_denies_the_increase).
  • Trent can grant every courtroom text, and that a verdict has no degrees. Its increase of justification still stands, because for Trent justification is more than a verdict (trent_grants_that_verdicts_have_no_degrees).
  • So the two part at one claim: whether justification is only a verdict. Add that claim to Trent's position, and it can no longer be held (degrees_turn_on_the_definition). The courtroom texts alone leave the question open (courtroom_texts_leave_degrees_open).

So the argument that justification has no degrees is sound, and it is no stronger than the definition it rests on. The chapter "What Trent means by justification" weighs that definition. What this chapter adds is the reason the Reformers cared about it: on their definition, Trent's increase has nothing to increase.

What this does not show

It does not show that the justified do not grow. Both sides hold that the renewal of the justified grows through good works (renewalGrowsThroughGoodWorks). The Reformed call that growth sanctification, as the Westminster Larger Catechism does when it sets the two side by side (Q. 77): justification "doth equally free all believers from the revenging wrath of God, and that perfectly in this life"; sanctification "is neither equal in all, nor in this life perfect in any, but growing up to perfection". What the courtroom argument denies is that the growth is an increase of justification.

How this is checked

The positions, steps and results behind this chapter, each with the formula or the Lean that checks it

Trent's increase, written out first

increaseMeansDegreesSource

The step from an increase of justification to degrees of it. An increase is more of something, so if works merit an increase of justification, justification admits of more and less. Rated consensus: it is what the word "increase" says, and both sides read Trent's chapter 10 so.

def increaseMeansDegreesSource : Source :=
  { primary := Reference.work waterworthTrent (Bib.Locus.page 37),
    supporting := [Reference.work calvinAntidote (Bib.Locus.page 158)],
    tradition := Tradition.romanCatholic, confidence := Confidence.consensus }

increaseMeansDegreesLine — Trent's increase, as degrees

An increase of justification means degrees of it. If works merit an increase of justification, then justification has degrees.

  • (1) \(\href{claims.html#claim-32}{P_{32}}\) — Works performed in grace merit an increase of justification
  • (2) \(\href{claims.html#claim-32}{P_{32}} \rightarrow \href{claims.html#claim-109}{P_{109}}\)
  • \(\vdash\) \(\href{claims.html#claim-109}{P_{109}}\) — at issue: Justification has degrees: the justified are still further justified

trentOnDegrees — Trent, on the increase of justification

Trent, on degrees of justification. Justification is the renewal of the inward man, the renewal grows through good works, so good works increase justification (ch. 10, canon 24), and justification has degrees.

  • (1) \(\href{claims.html#claim-33}{P_{33}}\) — Justification is not remission of sins only, but renewal of the inward man
  • (2) \(\href{claims.html#claim-35}{P_{35}}\) — The inward renewal of the justified grows as they do good works in grace
  • (3) \((\href{claims.html#claim-33}{P_{33}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-35}{P_{35}}) \rightarrow \href{claims.html#claim-32}{P_{32}}\) — would give: Works performed in grace merit an increase of justification
  • (4) \(\href{claims.html#claim-32}{P_{32}} \rightarrow \href{claims.html#claim-109}{P_{109}}\)
  • \(\vdash\) \(\href{claims.html#claim-109}{P_{109}}\) — at issue: Justification has degrees: the justified are still further justified

No premise here rests on scripture alone.

The courtroom answer

courtroomSource

The step from the courtroom texts to "a verdict has no degrees". Judges acquit or condemn (Deuteronomy 25:1; Proverbs 17:15), and God's justifying is set against condemning in the same way (Romans 8:33–34). Cited to Buchanan (p. 251), with Calvin's Antidote (p. 116) and Turretin (XVI, q. 10).

def courtroomSource : Source :=
  { primary := Reference.work buchananJustification (Bib.Locus.page 251),
    supporting :=
      [Reference.work calvinAntidote (Bib.Locus.page 116),
        Reference.work turretinInstitutes2
          (Bib.Locus.sectionRef "Topic XVI, q. 10")],
    tradition := Tradition.reformedProtestant,
    confidence := Confidence.wellSupported }

courtroomLine — The courtroom (Deuteronomy 25:1; Proverbs 17:15; Romans 8:33–34)

The courtroom line. From Deuteronomy 25:1, Proverbs 17:15 and Romans 8:33–34, a verdict acquits or condemns and has no degrees.

  • (1) \(\href{claims.html#claim-110}{P_{110}}\) — Deuteronomy 25:1, Proverbs 17:15: judges acquit the innocent and condemn the guilty
  • (2) \(\href{claims.html#claim-48}{P_{48}}\) — Romans 8:33–34: it is God who justifies — who is to condemn?
  • (3) \((\href{claims.html#claim-110}{P_{110}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-48}{P_{48}}) \rightarrow \href{claims.html#claim-111}{P_{111}}\)
  • \(\vdash\) \(\href{claims.html#claim-111}{P_{111}}\) — at issue: A verdict acquits or condemns, and has no degrees

noDegreesSource

The step from "justification is a verdict only" and "a verdict has no degrees" to "justification has no degrees". Calvin against canon 24 (Antidote, p. 158), and Turretin (XVI, q. 10).

def noDegreesSource : Source :=
  { primary := Reference.work calvinAntidote (Bib.Locus.page 158),
    supporting :=
      [Reference.work turretinInstitutes2
          (Bib.Locus.sectionRef "Topic XVI, q. 10")],
    tradition := Tradition.reformedProtestant,
    confidence := Confidence.wellSupported }

noDegreesLine — A verdict only, so no degrees

No degrees. If justification is a verdict and nothing more, and a verdict has no degrees, then justification has none.

  • (1) \(\href{claims.html#claim-30}{P_{30}}\) — Justification is a verdict only: pardon and righteousness counted, not poured in
  • (2) \(\href{claims.html#claim-111}{P_{111}}\) — A verdict acquits or condemns, and has no degrees
  • (3) \((\href{claims.html#claim-30}{P_{30}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-111}{P_{111}}) \rightarrow \lnot \href{claims.html#claim-109}{P_{109}}\)
  • \(\vdash\) \(\lnot \href{claims.html#claim-109}{P_{109}}\) — at issue, the denial of: Justification has degrees: the justified are still further justified

verdictOnDegrees — Justification as a verdict, which has no degrees

The Reformed position on degrees. The courtroom texts, that a verdict has no degrees, and the Reformed definition, that justification is a verdict only. So justification has no degrees. It also holds what an increase means, so that it can say what it denies of Trent.

  • (1) \(\href{claims.html#claim-110}{P_{110}}\) — Deuteronomy 25:1, Proverbs 17:15: judges acquit the innocent and condemn the guilty
  • (2) \(\href{claims.html#claim-48}{P_{48}}\) — Romans 8:33–34: it is God who justifies — who is to condemn?
  • (3) \((\href{claims.html#claim-110}{P_{110}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-48}{P_{48}}) \rightarrow \href{claims.html#claim-111}{P_{111}}\) — would give: A verdict acquits or condemns, and has no degrees
  • (4) \(\href{claims.html#claim-30}{P_{30}}\) — Justification is a verdict only: pardon and righteousness counted, not poured in
  • (5) \((\href{claims.html#claim-30}{P_{30}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-111}{P_{111}}) \rightarrow \lnot \href{claims.html#claim-109}{P_{109}}\)
  • (6) \(\href{claims.html#claim-32}{P_{32}} \rightarrow \href{claims.html#claim-109}{P_{109}}\) — would give: Justification has degrees: the justified are still further justified
  • \(\vdash\) \(\lnot \href{claims.html#claim-109}{P_{109}}\) — at issue, the denial of: Justification has degrees: the justified are still further justified

Grounded in scripture alone: Romans 8:33–34: it is God who justifies — who is to condemn?.

verdictAgainstIncrease — Justification as a verdict, against the increase

The same position, against Trent's increase. It concludes what canon 24 condemns: good works do not merit an increase of justification.

  • (1) \(\href{claims.html#claim-110}{P_{110}}\) — Deuteronomy 25:1, Proverbs 17:15: judges acquit the innocent and condemn the guilty
  • (2) \(\href{claims.html#claim-48}{P_{48}}\) — Romans 8:33–34: it is God who justifies — who is to condemn?
  • (3) \((\href{claims.html#claim-110}{P_{110}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-48}{P_{48}}) \rightarrow \href{claims.html#claim-111}{P_{111}}\) — would give: A verdict acquits or condemns, and has no degrees
  • (4) \(\href{claims.html#claim-30}{P_{30}}\) — Justification is a verdict only: pardon and righteousness counted, not poured in
  • (5) \((\href{claims.html#claim-30}{P_{30}} \land \href{claims.html#claim-111}{P_{111}}) \rightarrow \lnot \href{claims.html#claim-109}{P_{109}}\) — would deny: Justification has degrees: the justified are still further justified
  • (6) \(\href{claims.html#claim-32}{P_{32}} \rightarrow \href{claims.html#claim-109}{P_{109}}\) — would give: Justification has degrees: the justified are still further justified
  • \(\vdash\) \(\lnot \href{claims.html#claim-32}{P_{32}}\) — at issue, the denial of: Works performed in grace merit an increase of justification

Grounded in scripture alone: Romans 8:33–34: it is God who justifies — who is to condemn?.

The readings

verdictOnDegreesReading

The Reformed reading: every courtroom text holds, a verdict has no degrees, justification is a verdict only, and so it has no degrees and nothing increases it. Trent's definition does not hold.

def verdictOnDegreesReading : Valuation Claim :=
  fun a =>
    match a with
    | Claim.justificationHasDegrees => False
    | Claim.worksMeritIncreaseOfJustification => False
    | Claim.justificationIncludesSanctification => False
    | x => True

trentOnDegreesReading

Trent's reading, granting the courtroom texts and that a verdict has no degrees: justification is more than a verdict, so its increase stands.

def trentOnDegreesReading : Valuation Claim :=
  fun a =>
    match a with
    | Claim.justificationIsForensicOnly => False
    | x => True

Results

verdictOnDegrees_establishes

Granted the Reformed definition, justification has no degrees. From the courtroom texts, a verdict acquits or condemns and has no degrees; justification is a verdict and nothing more; so it has no degrees.

It does not show that justification is only a verdict. That is the Reformed definition, and Trent denies it.

theorem verdictOnDegrees_establishes : Establishes verdictOnDegrees
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

verdictOnDegrees_is_satisfiable

The Reformed position on degrees can be held without contradiction.

theorem verdictOnDegrees_is_satisfiable : Satisfiable
    verdictOnDegrees.premises
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

no_degrees_denies_the_increase

On the same premises, works do not merit an increase of justification. This is what canon 24 condemns, reached from the courtroom and the Reformed definition.

It does not show that the justified do not grow. Both sides hold that the renewal of the justified grows; the Reformed call it sanctification.

theorem no_degrees_denies_the_increase : Establishes verdictAgainstIncrease
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

verdictAgainstIncrease_is_satisfiable

The same premises, so the same reading shows they can be held together.

theorem verdictAgainstIncrease_is_satisfiable : Satisfiable
    verdictAgainstIncrease.premises
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

trentOnDegrees_establishes

Trent's increase follows from its own premises. Justification is the renewal of the inward man, the renewal grows through good works, and so justification increases and has degrees.

It does not show that Trent's definition is right. The Westminster Confession denies it (XI.1).

theorem trentOnDegrees_establishes : Establishes trentOnDegrees
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

trentOnDegrees_is_satisfiable

Trent's position on degrees can be held without contradiction.

theorem trentOnDegrees_is_satisfiable : Satisfiable trentOnDegrees.premises
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

trent_grants_that_verdicts_have_no_degrees

Trent can grant every courtroom text, and that a verdict has no degrees. Its position on the increase of justification can be held together with Deuteronomy 25:1, Proverbs 17:15, Romans 8:33–34 and the step from them to "a verdict has no degrees". For Trent justification is more than a verdict, so a verdict's having no degrees does not touch it.

It does not show that Trent says verdicts have no degrees. The result says only that nothing in its position denies it.

theorem trent_grants_that_verdicts_have_no_degrees : Satisfiable
    (trentOnDegrees.premises ++ courtroomLine.premises)
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound

degrees_turn_on_the_definition

The two part at one claim: whether justification is only a verdict. Add to Trent's position that a verdict has no degrees, that justification is a verdict only, and the step from those two to "no degrees", and it can no longer be held. Together with trent_grants_that_verdicts_have_no_degrees, this puts the whole disagreement about degrees at the Reformed definition.

It does not claim which side is right about the definition. That is weighed in the chapter What Trent means by justification.

theorem degrees_turn_on_the_definition : ¬Satisfiable (trentOnDegrees.premises
    ++ [p Claim.justificationIsForensicOnly, p Claim.verdictAdmitsNoDegrees,
    noDegreesLine.step])
-- axioms: propext, Classical.choice, Quot.sound

courtroom_texts_leave_degrees_open

The courtroom texts alone leave the question open. Deuteronomy 25:1, Proverbs 17:15 and Romans 8:33–34 are kept alike by the Reformed reading, on which justification has no degrees, and by Trent's, on which it has. What decides between them is the definition, not the texts.

theorem courtroom_texts_leave_degrees_open : Independent [p
    Claim.deut25_1JudgesAcquitOrCondemn, p Claim.romans8_33_34] (p
    Claim.justificationHasDegrees)
-- axioms: propext, Quot.sound