Journal: Westminster Theological Journal
Volume: WTJ 82:2 (Fall 2020)
Article: Justification By Faith In Ambrosiaster’s Commentary On Romans: A Response To Dongsun Cho
Author: Peter J. Dubbelman

WTJ 82:2 (Fall 2020) p. 255

Justification By Faith In
Ambrosiaster’s Commentary On Romans:
A Response To Dongsun Cho

Peter J. Dubbelman

Peter J. Dubbelman is an associate pastor at Apex Baptist Church in Apex, NC, and a PhD student in theological studies at Southeastern Theological Seminary.

This article defends the thesis that Ambrosiaster, in his Commentary on Romans, both grounded salvation in a baptism that established the catechumen’s union in Christ (which included justification sola fide) and recognized the descent and ascent of the Son as both a movement of reconciliation and a movement of revelation. Within this framework of soteriology, Ambrosiaster knew justification sola fide as both a forensic and a sanative event. Therefore, he did not strictly separate Paul’s presentation in Romans of justification from sanctification, though he understood the former primarily as a one-time event.

To some degree, this thesis diverges from Dongsun Cho’s last two essays on Ambrosiaster (2012 and 2014). There is much to commend in Cho’s two essays. However, I present here what Cho did not say about portions of Ambrosiaster’s doctrine of justification in Romans in emphasizing other aspects of this doctrine. I argue that Ambrosiaster’s view of justification sola fide is misunderstood if it does not also include the opportunity for dehumanized humanity to be saved, healed, and reunited to the Creator by Jesus Christ, who is the source and embodiment of the new creation, and the model for the Word becoming flesh in the redeemed, who are the body of Christ.

Prior to Erasmus’s condemnation of him (1527), Ambrosiaster was widely quoted within Western Christianity.1 He influenced the likes of both Augustine and Pelagius, served as a forerunner to a method of scriptural

WTJ 82:2 (Fall 2020) p. 256

commentary that Western Christianity accepted, wrote the oldest extant Latin commentary on Romans (late 370s to early 380s), and, as I soon note, took a pro-Nicene/Constantinople Creed (315/381) and pre-Chalcedonian Creed (451) stance that influenced his understanding of justification.2 Maurice Wiles states he may be “the most important exegete” of all the Latin Fathers.3 Gerald Bray builds upon this thought, “Ambrosiaster must be regarded as one of the greatest of the ancient biblical commentators, whose work can often stand alongside that of modern scholars.”4 Yet despite Ambrosiaster’s recent acclaim, David Hunter laments, “Of all the latter Latin Fathers, Ambrosiaster...