Why Protestants "Strawman" Catholics on Justification: A Legacy of the Via Moderna

Walk into many a Protestant church today, listen to a sermon on salvation, or engage in a casual theological discussion, and (if they try to distinguish their view from the Catholic position) you're likely to encounter a familiar refrain: Catholics believe in "faith and works" for salvation. 

This pervasive assertion paints a picture of a theological system where human effort stands co-equal with divine grace, a system fundamentally at odds with the Protestant rallying cry of sola fide—faith alone.

Yet, this commonly held belief about the Catholic Church's doctrine of justification is, in fact, a significant misrepresentation. Catholic theology unequivocally teaches that salvation is by grace through faith, in Christ alone.

For a fantastic explanation of the Catholic position (the real Catholic position, distinct from the Protestant caricature) see Jimmy Akin's recent video:  "Faith Alone: What EVERYBODY get Wrong" 

So why, then, does this tenacious "faith and works" caricature persist, even in direct discussions and debates with Catholic theologians who earnestly try to clarify their position?

The answer, I believe, lies deeper than simple "Romophobia" or an ingrained anti-Catholic bias, though these certainly play a role. While prejudice can undoubtedly cloud understanding, the roots of this enduring misunderstanding are far more complex and historically situated.

They stretch back to the turbulent intellectual and theological landscape of the late Middle Ages, to specific debates within scholasticism that shaped Martin Luther's own theological formation and, subsequently, the very foundations of the Reformation's understanding of justification.

To truly grasp why Protestants continue to insist on this "faith and works" strawman, we must delve into a forgotten chapter of theological history – one where the shadows of the via moderna still loom large, obscuring the richness and nuance of Catholic teaching on justification even to this day.

Debates on "Justification" Prior to Luther

One significant reason why many Protestants misunderstand the Catholic position on justification lies in a largely forgotten theological landscape: the debates within late medieval scholasticism. Most are unaware that the theology of justification was a hotly contested topic before Martin Luther. These debates largely centered around two prominent schools of thought: the via antiqua (the old way), primarily represented by Thomism and Scotism, and the via moderna (the modern way), often associated with nominalism and figures like William of Ockham and Gabriel Biel.

The via antiqua generally emphasized God's grace as a transformative reality within the believer, allowing them to perform truly meritorious works with God's assistance. As Alister McGrath explains, "The older Augustinian tradition, represented by both Thomas Aquinas and Bonaventure, tended to think of grace as a divine substance or quality, permanently present within the soul, which healed and elevated human nature." (McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, 4th ed., p. 2). In this view, grace infused into the soul enables a person to act in a way that is genuinely pleasing to God.

In contrast, the via moderna held a different understanding. They often emphasized God's absolute power (potentia absoluta) and viewed justification more in terms of God's acceptance or declaration of righteousness, rather than an intrinsic change in the believer. As Heiko Oberman notes, the via moderna stressed that "God accepts man for what he does by grace, but this grace is not necessarily a quality inherent in man; it is God's favorable will." (Oberman, Forerunners of the Reformation: The Shape of Late Medieval Thought, p. 154). This perspective often led to a greater emphasis on God's extrinsic imputation of righteousness, where God, by His sheer will, declares a person righteous without necessarily making them intrinsically so.

Martin Luther, trained in the via moderna tradition, particularly influenced by Gabriel Biel, found himself reacting strongly against aspects of this theological framework prevalent in his time. When Luther challenged the Church in Rome, many of his criticisms, particularly concerning justification, were directed at interpretations influenced by the via moderna. His emphasis on sola fide (faith alone) and the imputation of Christ's righteousness can be understood, in part, as a rejection of what he perceived as a system of earning salvation through works, a caricature he often associated with the prevailing theological climate shaped by the via moderna.

Explicit Arguments Against the Via Moderna in Luther and Lutheran Confessions:

Luther's early lectures and disputations reveal his direct confrontation with via moderna theology. For instance, in his 1517 Disputation Against Scholastic Theology, Luther explicitly challenged the notion that humans could prepare themselves for grace by doing their best (facere quod in se est), a concept often associated with the via moderna. Thesis 3 reads: "Man's will without grace is not free, but is the servant of sin." And Thesis 13: "Free choice, after the Fall, is only an empty name, and when it acts it sins mortally." These statements directly contradict the via moderna's optimism about human capacity to, in some sense, merit initial grace through natural effort. As Alister McGrath argues, "Luther's doctrine of justification by faith alone arose as a direct response to what he perceived to be the semi-Pelagianism of the late medieval via moderna." (McGrath, Iustitia Dei, p. 174).

Luther's biggest problem with the via moderna was precisely this emphasis on facere quod in se est – "to do all that is in us" – as a prerequisite for receiving initial grace. This left Luther in a profound spiritual crisis. How could one ever know if they had truly "done their best"? This "do your best, God will do the rest" mentality, prevalent in certain nominalist circles, instilled immense anxiety, as the individual was left to perpetually question the sufficiency of their own efforts before God's grace would "kick in" and complete the process. For Luther, this approach was a theological dead end, leading to despair rather than assurance of salvation.

The Lutheran Confessions further enshrine this reaction. The Augsburg Confession (1530), Article IV, "Of Justification," famously states:

"Also, they teach that men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for Christ's sake, through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor, and that their sins are forgiven for Christ's sake, who, by His death, has made satisfaction for our sins. This faith God imputes for righteousness before Him, Rom. 3 and 4."

This formulation directly counters the via moderna's emphasis on human preparation or congruous merit, asserting that justification is freely given and received through faith alone, not by human strength or works. The language of "imputes for righteousness" further highlights a forensic, declarative understanding of justification, which stood in stark contrast to any notion of inherent righteousness being earned or merited by human effort, however assisted by grace.

Luther's Nuanced Position: Declaration as Creation

While Luther began with a nominalist-influenced emphasis on the declarative aspect of imputed righteousness—God's declaration of the sinner as righteous through faith in Christ—his understanding was far from a mere legal fiction or external covering. He famously employed the metaphor of a "hill of dung covered in snow" to illustrate the imputed righteousness of Christ covering the sinner's inherent sinfulness. However, it is crucial to recognize that for Luther, this declaration was not simply an intellectual pronouncement, but possessed the same efficacious power as God's Word in creation.

For Luther, when God declares a sinner righteous, that Word creates righteousness. It is not merely a statement about reality, but a statement that brings about reality. As Gerhard Ebeling, a prominent Luther scholar, explains, "The Word of God is not an empty sound, but a creative word, which brings into being what it proclaims." (Ebeling, Luther: An Introduction to His Thought, p. 88). This means that the forensic declaration of righteousness, while extrinsic in its origin (coming from God), does not leave the individual unchanged. Instead, it initiates a profound, internal transformation. The "dung" is not simply covered, but, in an ongoing sense, is being made new.

In this respect, Luther's understanding actually sided more with the via antiqua's emphasis on the transformative power of grace, albeit through a different theological mechanism (the creative power of the Word rather than infused habits). While his starting point was a nominalist emphasis on divine declaration, his theology moved beyond a purely external understanding to insist on the real, albeit imperfect, righteousness that begins to characterize the justified believer. This declared righteousness, therefore, is not a static state but the beginning of a dynamic process where the justified person is simultaneously righteous and a sinner (simul iustus et peccator), continually being renewed and conformed to Christ. This "new creation" is precisely what Paul speaks of in 2 Corinthians 5:17, a reality that flows from God's creative declaration.

The "Enshrined" Catholic Position in Protestant Minds and Continuing Confusion:

This foundational reaction against the via moderna permeated subsequent Protestant confessional traditions. Confessions like the Heidelberg Catechism (1563) and the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646), while distinct in their theological nuances, consistently affirmed justification by faith alone and the imputation of Christ's righteousness, often by implicitly or explicitly contrasting it with any idea of human merit contributing to justification.

For example, the Heidelberg Catechism, Question 60, asks, "How are you righteous before God?" and answers:

"Only by a true faith in Jesus Christ; so that, though my conscience accuses me, that I have grievously sinned against all the commandments of God, and have never kept any of them, and am still prone to all evil; notwithstanding, God, without any merit of mine, but only of mere grace, grants and imputes to me the perfect satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness of Christ; as if I never had had, nor committed any sin, and myself had been perfectly obedient to all the righteousness that Christ has wrought for me; if only I embrace such benefit with a believing heart."

This stark articulation of "without any merit of mine" and the emphasis on God's imputation cemented in the Protestant mind an opposition to what they understood as the Catholic position on justification—a position that, in reality, was often a caricature of the via moderna rather than a full representation of the broader Catholic tradition.

Via Antiqua "Merit" as Reward, Not Earning, and "Ongoing Justification" as Sanctification:

Here's where the misunderstanding deepens. While Protestants reacted against the via moderna's implications of earning salvation, the via antiqua (Thomism, in particular) understood "merit" not as earning a reward independently of God's grace, but as a reward for works performed under the influence and by the power of God's grace. St. Thomas Aquinas famously stated, "When God crowns our merits, He crowns His own gifts." (Augustine, On Grace and Free Will, 6.12, quoted by Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I-II, q. 114, a. 1). This means that any good work a justified person does is already a result of God's prior grace and empowering presence. The "merit" is not a claim based on inherent human ability, but God's gracious promise to reward what He Himself has enabled.

This concept of ongoing justification in the via antiqua is, in fact, remarkably close to what Protestants understand as sanctification. Catholic theology holds that justification is not a one-time forensic declaration but an ongoing process of being made righteous, where infused grace transforms the believer and enables them to grow in holiness and perform good works. These good works, enabled by grace, are genuinely meritorious de condigno (condignly, in strict justice, by virtue of God's gracious covenant and Christ's merits) for an increase in grace and eternal life.

For example, the Council of Trent, in its Decree on Justification (Chapter X, "On the Increase of Justification Received"), states:

"Having, therefore, been thus justified, and made the friends and domestics of God, advancing from virtue to virtue, they are renewed, as the Apostle says, day by day; that is, by mortifying the members of their flesh, and by presenting them as instruments of justice unto sanctification, they, 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."

 

This continuous growth in "justice" (righteousness) through good works, enabled by Christ's grace, aligns strongly with the Protestant concept of sanctification—the progressive transformation of the believer into the likeness of Christ, which flows from justification but is distinct from the initial declarative act.

The Continuing Protestant Confusion: Blurring Initial Justification and Sanctification:

Luther's position, while beginning with a nominalist-influenced emphasis on divine declaration, moved towards an understanding where this declaration creates righteousness, thus incorporating a transformative aspect that shares common ground with the via antiqua. However, his theology is a unique synthesis, neither wholly via moderna nor entirely via antiqua, and therefore distinct from contemporary Catholic teaching.

The confusion arises because Protestants, continuing to emphasize "initial justification" as the singular, definitive event of God's forensic declaration, tend to blend their arguments against the historical via moderna's view of human effort in initial justification with Catholic arguments about ongoing justification. They often interpret Catholic statements on the necessity of good works for an increase in justification or for salvation as if these works were meant to initiate justification in a semi-Pelagian sense. In essence, Protestants are often confusing what Catholics call "initial justification" (the first reception of grace and forgiveness) with what they themselves term "sanctification" (the subsequent process of growing in holiness).

This historical amnesia perpetuates a misunderstanding that continues to hinder productive ecumenical dialogue on one of Christianity's most central doctrines. By understanding the specific historical context of Luther's initial theological formation and the nuances of his own developed theology, we can begin to see how deeply ingrained, yet outdated, some Protestant critiques of Catholic justification truly are. The continuing reaction to a 16th-century debate, particularly against a theological school that no longer defines mainstream Catholic thought, creates a significant barrier to genuine understanding and reconciliation.