Introduction

In Acts 16:30, the jailer in Philippi asked Paul and Silas, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” For the next two millennia, people have asked the same question. It is the most important question one can ask. Justification, and its companion sanctification, are at the core of the Christian faith. This paper examines the relationship of justification and sanctification in the work of salvation. It begins with a working definition of justification, sanctification, and salvation, then looks at them in the order of salvation (ordo salutis). It discusses the differences between the historic Protestant traditions (Lutheran, Calvinist, Arminian) and Roman Catholicism on justification and sanctification and examines the recent rapprochement between Catholics and Protestants. The paper argues that there are minor differences between Arminians and other Protestants on justification and sanctification but, despite recent rapprochement, more significant differences with Roman Catholics.

Overview of Justification and Sanctification

Justification by faith is at the heart of the Protestant Reformation. Mark Lamport writes: “For Martin Luther, the article of justification was not one among many Christian teachings but instead the indisputable key by which all other Christian truths were to be understood and evaluated.”[1] Anglican theologian Anthony Lane writes that John Calvin identified justification as “the main hinge on which religion turns.”[2] Sanctification is related to justification in the economy of salvation, but there is disagreement about their relationship.

Definitions: Salvation, Justification, and Sanctification

At its most basic, salvation refers to rescue from peril. While liberal theologians, liberal theologians, and Christian existentialists use different definitions, theologian Bruce Demerest defines the traditional view of salvation as “negatively, deliverance from sin, death, and divine wrath and, positively, bestowal of far-ranging spiritual blessings both temporal and eternal.”[3] This paper uses this traditional view of salvation, which can be summarized as reconciliation with God, forgiveness of sins, and eternal life.

Justification is at the heart of salvation. Systematic theologian Millard J. Erickson writes, “Justification is God’s action pronouncing sinners righteous in his sight.”[4] Anglican theologian Michael F. Bird equates it with reconciliation and salvation.[5] At a minimum, justification refers to forgiveness of sins. Sanctification is connected to justification. Erickson writes, “Sanctification is the continuing work of God in the life of believers, making them actually holy.”[6] Bird writes, “sanctification denotes progress in personal holiness, ethical righteousness, godliness, resistance to temptation, and increasing Christlikeness.”[7] Since both justification and sanctification are closely related to salvation, they are included in what theologians call the ordo salutis, or order of salvation, which is discussed below.

Order of salvation (ordo salutis)

Orthodox Christians of all varieties teach that salvation is grounded in Christ’s crucifixion and Resurrection, which make reconciliation between God and humanity possible. Christ’s work must still be applied to individuals, which is laid out in the order of salvation.[8] Paul wrote, “For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified” (Rom 29-30).

According to Demarest, Lutheran theologians define the order of salvation as follows:[9] (1) calling, in which people are called to believe through proclamation of the gospel; (2) illumination, which allows listeners to comprehend the benefits of the gospel; (3) conversion or repentance, when the Holy Spirit leads listeners to have remorse for their sins; (4) regeneration, or new birth, in which the person now believes the gospel; (5) justification, whereby God forgives the new believer his or her sins; (6) mystical union, in which the believer is brought into a supernatural union with Christ; (7) sanctification, the lifelong process in which believers, with the help of the Holy Spirit, become more holy; (8) conservation, in which believers persist in the faith despite the possibility of falling away.

Reformed theologians argue for this order: (1) calling, (2) regeneration, (3) faith, (4) repentance, (5) justification, (6) sanctification, (7) perseverance, (8) glorification.[10] It differs from the Lutheran by placing regeneration before faith and repentance, which regeneration enables, and in the teaching of perseverance. Calvinists believe that if a person really is one of the elect, the Holy Spirit will ensure his or her perseverance until death.[11] This is often termed, “once saved, always saved.” Arminians disagree, arguing, like Lutherans, that believers can fall away.[12] Arminians also argue that people are granted “prevenient grace,” which enables them to respond to the gospel, if they so choose. This is similar to the Lutheran concept of “illumination,” mentioned above. Some evangelicals, such as the Anglican theologian J.I. Packer, place regeneration after conversion and justification, not prior to conversion.[13] This reflects a different view of regeneration from Lutherans and Calvinists, who emphasize that people need to be “born again” (regenerated) in order to believe the gospel. Packer and others assert that being born again begins the process of sanctification for those who already believe the gospel. Gregory Parker and Cameron Clausing argue that “adoption” should have a separate entry between justification and sanctification.[14] Being taken into God’s family provides a motivation for Christians to live as God wants. “Because the Christian has been adopted into the family of God, they are to bear a family resemblance.”[15]

According to Demarest, Roman Catholics also have an order of salvation, which is focused on the sacraments: (1) baptism, which regenerates the soul, unites it with Christ, and works forgiveness of all sins prior to the sacrament; (2) confirmation, in which the young believer receives power from the Holy Spirit; (3) the Eucharist, which provides spiritual nourishment; (4) penance, which remits guilt and punishment for mortal sins after baptism; (5) extreme unction, at the time of death, which pardons all sins not yet forgiven through confession.[16]

Views of the Churches

Relationships of justification and sanctification        

The following is a partial list of relationships between justification and sanctification that can be found among Christians, and is followed by a more detailed discussion:

• Justification by grace through faith, which is the work of the Holy Spirit. Justification results in sanctification, a process that is the work of the Holy Spirit but requires human cooperation and is necessary for salvation. Many Lutheran and Reformed Christians as well as Anglicans believe this, although some tend to the Arminian view discussed below.
• Justification by grace through faith, with simultaneous infusion of righteousness (sanctification). Believers must then cooperate with the Holy Spirit to grow in charity, which is mandatory for salvation. This is the traditional Roman Catholic view.
• Justification by grace through faith, which requires human cooperation. Justification simultaneously begins sanctification, which is necessary for salvation and is the work of the Holy Spirit with our cooperation. This is the Arminian position, which is also common among Lutheran and Calvinist Christians.
• The following are considered heretical:
  • Justification by grace through faith. Sanctification is not necessary for salvation (antinomianism). Sanctification (good works) is a precondition of justification (synergistic salvation). This is a caricature of the Arminian position, which argues that prevenient grace enables people to believe the gospel. Some Catholics also believe this, but it is condemned by the Council of Trent.[17]Universalism: all are justified regardless of faith.
  • “Good people go to heaven,” a popular variant of universalism.

Lutheran and Reformed Christians

The teaching of the Reformation, which began in the first part of the 16^th century, is summarized in the “three solas”: sola scriptura, sola gratia, sola fides (scripture alone, salvation by grace alone, through faith alone). According to Alister McGrath, there is a “reformation doctrine of justification” that is shared by both Lutherans and Calvinists. It consists of these three fundamentals:[18]

1. A forensic declaration that believers are righteous, rather than a process by which they are made righteous.
2. A systematic distinction between justification (the declaration of righteousness) and sanctification (the process by which believers are made righteous).
3. Imputation of God’s righteousness to believers based on their faith. This righteousness is not inherent to them.

Sanctification results from justification. Lamport writes, “Luther believed that love for God and neighbors spontaneously arises from those who are grateful to God for their salvation.”[19] Berndt Hamm writes, “All the great reformers emphatically taught that justification, the absolution and acceptance of godless man, is fundamentally connected with man’s sanctification and renewal in love and the works of love.”[20] He quotes John Calvin’s Institutio: “Christ justifies no one whom he does not at the same time (simul) sanctify.”[21] Millard Erickson writes: “If there are no good works, there has been neither real faith nor justification. We find support for this contention in the fact that justification is intimately linked with union with Christ. If we have become one with Christ, then we will not live according to the flesh, but rather by the Spirit (Rom. 8:1–17). The union with Christ that brings justification also brings the new life.”[22]

Lutherans and Calvinists agree on these fundamentals: justification is by God’s grace, received through faith, which is enabled by the Holy Spirit; in justification, God forgives sins and imputes Christ’s righteousness to the believer; justification results in union with Christ; sanctification is separate from justification but essential for salvation. Someone who rejects the work of the Holy Spirit in sanctification has not really repented and so does not have faith. Hence, that person is not justified.

Roman Catholics (Council of Trent)

Theologian and historian Anthony Lane notes that, at the time of the Protestant Reformation, there was no consensus in the medieval church on the doctrine of justification.[23] The Council of Trent, attempting to counter the Reformation, formulated the official Catholic doctrine. The Council of Trent rejected the Protestant separation of justification and sanctification. Michael Steinmetz writes, “From the Protestant perspective, justification is separate from sanctification, while Roman Catholics see a continual process of co-operation: ‘Jesus Christ himself continually infuses his virtue into the said justified’ (The Council of Trent, 6.16).”[24] Steinmetz concludes that the Lutheran and Calvinist distinction between justification and sanctification is “incongruent with the Council of Trent.”[25] Similarly, Trent taught that good works are necessary for justification.[26] On the other hand, Canon 1 of Session VI clearly states that man cannot be justified by his own works without divine grace through Jesus Christ.[27] Moreover, Chapter VIII affirms justification by faith:

we are therefore said to be justified by faith, because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and to come to the fellowship of His sons; and we are therefore said to be justified gratuitously, because none of those things that precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification.[28]  

Lane understands chapter VII of Session VI as follows: “At conversion we receive a true and Christian righteousness and we need to keep the commandments and preserve our righteousness spotless for the day of judgement and thus gain eternal life (ch.7)”[29] This reflects the medieval church’s teaching: “God’s forgiveness of sins and justification of man is made possible by the granting of grace to man and by his subsequent good works and freedom from acts of mortal sin; these aspects of his nature then also become the condition of his sanctification after death.”[30] For Lutherans and Calvinists, on the other hand, the only condition for salvation is faith, not continued good works. They do, of course, insist that someone who has faith will strive to do good deeds and cooperate with the Holy Spirit in sanctification, but this is a result of justification, not a condition for it.

Trent teaches that Christians can lose their justification, and hence salvation, by committing a mortal sin and can only regain justification through the sacrament of penance, in which they confess their sins, receive absolution, and perform appropriate works to make satisfaction.[31] Similarly, Trent teaches that one cannot be certain that one has “obtained the grace of God (ch. 9).”[32] This contrasts with the Calvinist teaching of the perseverance of the saints. It also differs from Lutheran teaching, which does not condition salvation on avoidance of unconfessed mortal sins. Unlike Calvinists, Lutherans reject the doctrine of perseverance of the saints, arguing that Christians can fall away. For assurance of salvation, Lutherans look to the promises of God, who made them His own in the sacrament of baptism.[33]

In summary, the Council of Trent affirmed that justification and sanctification are not distinct and that salvation is a synergistic process that involves the efforts of both the person and God. At conversion, God’s righteousness is imparted to the believer, not just imputed. Believers must then avail themselves of the sacraments offered by the Church to maintain their salvation. Trent affirms that faith is a prerequisite for justification, and so affirms justification by faith, but it must be followed by good works or salvation is lost.

Arminians

Arminianism originated in the Dutch Reformed church and is associated with Jacob Arminius (1560-1609). According to Arminian theologian Roger Olson, Arminians include Methodists, Restorationists, and Pentecostals, and “many if not most Baptists.”[34] Olson also suggests that later Lutherans, following Melanchthon, agree with Arminians on human participation in conversion.[35] Arminius defended “an evangelical form of synergism (belief in divine-human cooperation in salvation) against monergism (belief that God is the all-determining reality in salvation, which excludes free human participation).”[36] Arminians likewise reject unconditional election, whether to salvation or damnation.[37] Unlike Calvinists, Arminians believe that people can choose to accept the gospel thanks to prevenient grac,. On the other hand, Arminians do not deny total depravity or the need for “supernatural grace for even the first exercise of a good will toward God.”[38]

Arminianism affirms the Reformation teaching of justification by faith alone and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to believers.[39] The difference between Arminians and other Protestants is with a purely forensic righteousness. Olson writes, “Arminians have always been uncomfortable with a purely forensic (declaratory) righteousness and have attempted to balance that with an inward, imparted righteousness that actually begins to transform a sinner into a righteous person.”[40] This comes close to the Roman Catholic understanding expressed at the Council of Trent. Some Arminians go further, adhering to the teaching of Philip Lohrbach, who taught that “saving faith is an act of our own obedience and our own work.”[41] Arminius affirmed the separation of justification from sanctification, and did not teach that justification depends in any way on sanctification.[42] Similarly, Wesley distinguished between justification and sanctification, which is “not the cause but the effect of justification.”[43]

Wesley emphasized sanctification, partly in reaction to antinomianism, which claimed “free grace as license to sin.”[44] Similarly, New Testament scholar and Methodist elder David A. deSilva strongly emphasizes the importance of sanctification. He writes: “The sanctifying work of the Spirit is not an ‘add-on’ here, but prerequisite to salvation—along with our conscientious alignment of ourselves with the Spirit’s leading at every step along the way.”[45] This appears inconsistent with the Reformation teaching of the distinction between justification and sanctification and appears to contradict the principles of sola gratia and sola fide. On the other hand, deSilva argues that “We are not relying on ourselves; we are relying on what Paul has promised that the Spirit will do within us and, in this meanwhile, we are positioning ourselves day-by-day to discern and yield to the Spirit’s work.”[46] He defines this as part of genuine faith.[47] To the objection that we cannot know how much transformation is enough for salvation, deSilva replies, “We don’t know, and we don’t have to know, because God is good, generous, and invested in our deliverance.”[48] This brings deSilva back to the Reformation understanding of reliance on God.

According to Anglican theologian William H. Petersen, Anglicans agree with the Lutheran teaching on justification, but add that “the concept ‘salvation’ has been more expansive in Anglicanism than in Lutheranism, extending beyond forgiveness of sins to include a call to and promise of sanctification.”[49] This brings Anglicans close to the Arminian view.

Other Perspectives

Other perspectives on justification and sanctification have arisen throughout the history of Christianity. One of them is antinomianism. As Uche Anizor, Robert Price, and Hank Voss write that many believers have “perished on the cliff of antinomianism—the belief that Christians have a ‘license to sin,’ since laws no longer apply to them.”[50] At the time of the Reformation, Johannes Agricola challenged Luther and Melanchthon with an antinomian argument, arguing that “no law is given to the righteous.”[51] This resulted in a series of disputations between Luther and Agricola and culminated in Luther’s writing of Against the Antinomians in 1939.

Christian Universalism assumes that every person will be justified regardless of faith or works. Michael Bird notes that Origen (185-253) taught apokatastasis, which is the belief that God would ultimately restore all things to their original state before the fall of Adam.[52] This view was condemned at the Synod of Constantinople (AD 543) and the Fifth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (AD 553).[53] Universalism has cropped up repeatedly over the years but remained a minority view until recently.[54] Michael McClymond argues that, “Most ministers and laypersons in the older, established, or so-called mainline Protestant churches—Lutheran, Reformed, Episcopal, Congregationalist, Methodist—no longer argue much about eternal salvation and the possibility of eternal punishment. The general presumption is that everyone, sooner or later, will be saved.”[55] A light form of universalism is that “good people go to heaven.” While widely accepted among the general population, this view has little support in Scripture.

Catholic-Protestant Rapprochement

On October 31, 1999, after extensive dialog, the Lutheran World Federation and the Roman Catholic Church issued a Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification. This Declaration was subsequently ratified by the Anglican Communion, the World Methodist Council, and the World Communion of Reformed Churches. The fifth clause of the Preamble states that Lutheran churches and the Roman Catholic Church “are now able to articulate a common understanding of our justification by God’s grace through faith in Christ,” and that the remaining differences “are no longer the occasion for doctrinal condemnations.”[56]

South African theologian Peter Langerman notes that the churches that ratified the Joint Declaration were not required to accept one another’s positions but merely needed to tolerate them.[57] Clause 40 or the Joint Declaration states: “In light of this consensus the remaining differences of language, theological elaboration, and emphasis in the understanding of justification described in paras. 18 to 39 are acceptable.”[58] Clause 41 declares that the condemnations issued by both churches in the 16^th century are inapplicable, but clause 42 states that “they remain for us ‘salutary warnings’ to which we must attend in our teaching and practice.”[59] The teachings of the Council of Trent and of the Augsburg Confession regarding justification remain unchanged.

Not all Lutheran churches are members of the Lutheran World Foundation and so have not ratified the Joint Declaration. Conservative or confessional Lutheran churches normally belong to the International Lutheran Council (including the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod) or the Confessional Evangelical Lutheran Conference (including the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod) and have not ratified the Joint Declaration.

Discussion

The differences between Lutherans and Reformed Christians on justification and sanctification are minor. The differences between Arminians and both Lutherans and Calvinists are somewhat greater, with Arminians including imparted righteousness with imputed righteousness in the act of justification. Arminians connect justification and sanctification more closely and so come closer to the Roman Catholic teaching. As a practical matter, Lutherans, Calvinists, and Arminians affirm justification by grace through faith as well as the need for sanctification, in which believers cooperate with the Holy Spirit.

Despite the consensus found in the Joint Declaration, significant differences between Protestant and Roman Catholic teaching on justification-sanctification remain. One difference is terminology. Lane writes, “that the Protestant understanding of justification relates more to the Catholic understanding of sacramental reconciliation and the Catholic understanding of justification relates more to the Protestant understanding of sanctification.”[60] Unlike Protestants, Catholics do not systematically distinguish between justification and sanctification.[61] Lane explains this difference as whether “we are accounted righteous because of Christ’s righteousness imputed to us (Reformers) versus imparted to us (Trent).”[62] This has practical consequences. Catholics fear that imputed righteousness can cause believers to ignore sanctification, while Protestants fear that imparted righteousness can cause believers to depend on their own righteousness and lead to a loss of assurance as well as a weak view of sin.[63]

The Catholic view results in a major practical difference: the sacrament of penance and belief in punishment in purgatory. Chapter XIV of the Sixth Session of the Council of Trent declares that those who have fallen away can be restored through the sacrament of penance. In addition to confession and repentance, penitents must perform “satisfaction by fasts, alms, prayers, and the other pious exercises of a spiritual life.”[64] The eternal punishment is remitted, but the temporal punishment is not. Finnish Catholic Emil Anton writes: “the truly decisive element in standard Catholic soteriology is the dynamic of mortal sin and confession. What really determines one’s standing before God and one’s eternal destiny is whether one lives and dies in ‘the state of (sanctifying) grace’ – the term that Catholics normally use instead of ‘justification’ or ‘righteousness’.”[65] If Christians commit a mortal sin, they lose the state of sanctifying grace, which is only restored through confession and penance.[66]

Catholic theologian Matthew Levering argues that penitence is needed to enable us to break free from our vices, which involves suffering. We must “‘suffer with him [Christ] in order that we may also be glorified with him’ (Rom 8:17)”[67] If the temporal punishment is not satisfied at death, this suffering can carry over into purgatory.

Kevin Vanhoozer responds that this makes sense “only if one assumes that justification includes actually becoming holy (i.e., inner transformation).” He further argues, “to say that the merits of the saints are necessary is tacitly to deny the infinity of Christ’s merits and the sufficiency of his work.”[68]

The Catholic requirement for penance to restore a state of grace is foreign to Protestant teaching on justification. While Protestants affirm the need for repentance, they trust in the mercy of Christ for forgiveness. Protestants must renounce sin and repent but trust in Christ’s sacrifice on the cross for full remission of sins.

Conclusion

After defining relevant terms, the paper looked at justification and sanctification in the order of salvation, examined similarities and differences between the historic Protestant traditions and Roman Catholicism, and examined recent rapprochement between Roman Catholics and Protestants. This rapprochement has resulted in greater mutual respect and cooperation, but significant differences remain. While Catholics affirm justification by faith alone, their insistence on the sacrament of penance for forgiveness of mortal sins and affirmation of continued temporal punishment of sins, including in purgatory, are serious differences that weaken the power of Christ’s atonement. While there are minor differences between Arminians and other Protestants on justification and sanctification, significant differences with Roman Catholics remain.

Bibliography

Anizor, Uche, Robert B Price, and Hank Voss. Evangelical Theology. First edition. London: T&T Clark, 2020

Anton, Emil. “The Catholic Trouble with Justification: Comments on Scott Hahn’s Romans.” Theology. 122, no. 5, 2019: 355–62.

Bird, Michael F. Evangelical Theology: A Biblical and Systematic Introduction. 2^nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2020.

Council of Trent, Session VI, “Decree Concerning Justification and Decree Concerning Reform.” Trent, 1547.

deSilva, David A. “The Spirit, Sanctification, and Salvation: What Paul Has Joined, Let No Theologian Rend Asunder.” Bulletin for Biblical Research / 33, no. 3, 2023: 304–23.

Demarest, Bruce A. The Cross and Salvation: The Doctrine of God. Wheaton, Ill: Crossway Books, 2006.

Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology, 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013.

Hamm, Berndt, and Robert James Bast. The Reformation of Faith in the Context of Late Medieval Theology and Piety: Essays by Berndt Hamm. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2004.

Judisch, Neal. “Persevering Most Assuredly: One Reason to Prefer Luther over Calvin,” Called to Communion: Reformation Meets Rome. Apr 6, 2009. https://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/04/persevering-most-assuredly-one-reason-to-prefer-luther-over-calvin/ accessed May 2, 2025 11:59 p.m. CEDT.

Langerman, Peter D. “The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification and Social Ethics.” Verbum Et Ecclesia, 42(1), 2021.

Lane, Anthony N. S. Justification by Faith in Catholic-Protestant Dialogue: An Evangelical Assessment. London: T&T Clark, 2006.

Lamport, Mark A., ed. Encyclopedia of Martin Luther and the Reformation. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2017.

Levering, Matthew, and Kevin J Vanhoozer. Was the Reformation a Mistake?: Why Catholic Doctrine Is Not Unbiblical. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017.

McGrath, Alister E. Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification. Fourth edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020.

McClymond, Michael J. The Devil’s Redemption.2 volumes. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2018.

Olson, Roger E. Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities /. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009.

Parker Jr., Gregory and Cameron Clausing. “Is There Room in the Inn?: Visiting Adoption in Herman Bavinck’s Ordo Salutis.” Perichoresis, Volume 22. Issue 1. March 2024: 4-20.

Petersen, William H. “The Lutheran-Roman Catholic Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification: Soteriological and Ecclesiological Implications from an Anglican Perspective.” Journal of Ecumenical Studies. 38, no. 1. Winter 2001.

Simuț, Corneliu C. “J. I. Packer’s Theology of Justification—His Reception and Appropriation of a Classic Protestant Doctrine.” Religions 14, no. 12. 2023: 1-12.

Steinmetz, Michael N. “Redemption unto Life: Kierkegaardian Anthropology and the Relation Between Justification and Sanctification.” Religions, 15: 1455. November 2024: 1-12.

The Lutheran World Federation and the Roman Catholic Church, Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, 20th Anniversary Edition. Geneva: The Lutheran World Federation, 2019.

---

[1] Mark A. Lamport, ed. Encyclopedia of Martin Luther and the Reformation (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2017), 392.

[2] Anthony N. S. Lane, Justification by Faith in Catholic-Protestant Dialogue: An Evangelical Assessment (London, UK: T&T Clark, 2006), 141.

[3] Bruce A. Demarest, The Cross and Salvation: The Doctrine of God (Wheaton, Ill: Crossway Books, 2006), 24.

[4] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013), 883.

[5] Michael F. Bird, Evangelical Theology: A Biblical and Systematic Introduction, 2^nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2020), 594.

[6] Erickson, Christian Theology, 897.

[7] Bird, Evangelical Theology, 595.

[8] Demarest, The Cross and Salvation, 31.

[9] Ibid., 32.

[10] Ibid., 33.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Simuț, Corneliu,C. “J. I. Packer’s Theology of Justification—His Reception and Appropriation of a Classic Protestant Doctrine.” Religions 14, no. 12 (2023): 7.

[14] Gregory Parker Jr. and Cameron Clausing. “Is There Room in the Inn?: Visiting Adoption in Herman Bavinck’s Ordo Salutis.” Perichoresis, Volume 22. Issue 1 (March 2024), 16.

[15] Ibid., 18.

[16] Demarest, The Cross and Salvation, 32.

[17] Council of Trent, Session VI, “Decree Concerning Justification and Decree Concerning Reform,” (Trent, 1547), Canon 3.

[18] McGrath, Alister E. Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification. Fourth edition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020), 188.

[19] Lamport, ed. Encyclopedia of Martin Luther and the Reformation, 393.

[20] Berndt Hamm and Robert James Bast, The Reformation of Faith in the Context of Late Medieval Theology and Piety: Essays by Berndt Hamm (Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2004), 191.

[21] Ibid. Hamm’s citation: Inst. (1559), III, 16, 1 (OS IV, 249, 8–11).

[22] Erickson, Christian Theology, 890.

[23] Lane, Justification by Faith, 46.

[24] Michael N. Steinmetz, “Redemption unto Life: Kierkegaardian Anthropology and the Relation Between Justification and Sanctification.” Religions, 15: 1455, (November 2024), 2.

[25] Ibid.

[26] Ibid.

[27] Council of Trent, Session VI, “Decree Concerning Justification and Decree Concerning Reform,” (Trent, 1547), Canon 1.

[28] Ibid., Chapter VIII.

[29] Lane, Justification by Faith, 75.

[30] Hamm, The Reformation of Faith, 192.

[31] Lane, Justification by Faith in Catholic-Protestant Dialogue, 76.

[32] Ibid., 77.

[33] Neal Judisch, “Persevering Most Assuredly: One Reason to Prefer Luther over Calvin,” Called to Communion: Reformation Meets Rome, (Apr 6, 2009), https://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/04/persevering-most-assuredly-one-reason-to-prefer-luther-over-calvin/ accessed May 2, 2025 11:59 p.m. CEDT.

[34] Roger E. Olson, Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009), 12.

[35] Ibid., 12.

[36] Ibid., 11.

[37] Ibid., 17.

[38] Ibid., 15.

[39] Ibid., 194.

[40] Ibid., 195.

[41] Ibid., 203.

[42] Ibid., 201.

[43] Ibid., 205.

[44] Ibid., 206.

[45] deSilva, David A. “The Spirit, Sanctification, and Salvation: What Paul Has Joined, Let No Theologian Rend Asunder,” Bulletin for Biblical Research / 33, no. 3 (2023), 319.

[46] Ibid.

[47] Ibid., 320.

[48] Ibid., 322.

[49] William H. Petersen, “The Lutheran-Roman Catholic Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification: Soteriological and Ecclesiological Implications from an Anglican Perspective,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies, 38, no. 1 (Winter 2001), 3.

[50] Anizor, Uche, Robert B Price, and Hank Voss. Evangelical Theology. First edition (London: T&T Clark, 2020), 168.

[51] Lamport, Encyclopedia of Martin Luther, 8.

[52] Bird, Evangelical Theology, 639.

[53] Ibid.

[54] Michael J. McClymond, The Devil’s Redemption: 2 Volumes (Grand Rapids, M): Baker Academic, 2018), 59.

[55] Ibid., 59.

[56] The Lutheran World Federation and the Roman Catholic Church, Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, 20th Anniversary Edition, (Geneva: The Lutheran World Federation, 2019), cl. 5, 8-9.

[57] Peter D. Langerman, P. D. “The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification and Social Ethics.” Verbum Et Ecclesia, 42(1), (2021), 2.

[58] Joint Declaration, cl. 40, 19.

[59] Ibid.

[60] Lane, Justification by Faith, 153.

[61] Ibid., 154.

[62] Ibid., 159.

[63] Ibid., 160.

[64] Council of Trent, Session VI, “Decree Concerning Justification and Decree Concerning Reform,” (Trent, 1547), Chapter XIV.

[65] Emil Anton, “The Catholic Trouble with Justification: Comments on Scott Hahn’s Romans.” Theology. 122, no. 5 (2019), 357.

[66] Ibid.

[67] Matthew Levering and Kevin J Vanhoozer, Was the Reformation a Mistake?: Why Catholic Doctrine Is Not Unbiblical (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017), 138.

[68] Ibid., 195.