# LCMS Convention Workbook_St. Louis Missouri_2001_S423
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

ADDITIONAL THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS AND REPORTS—OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 423

A Response to the Joint Declaration
on the Doctrine of Justification

Prepared by the Department of Systematic Theology
Concordia Seminary, Saint Louis, Missouri
The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod

Introduction

This is an evaluation on the basis of Scriptural and Confessional
principles of the “Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification
1997” (Final Proposal), published jointly by the Lutheran World
Federation and the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian
Unity. This evaluation is written at the request of the President of
The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. In his letter, the President
requested: |) an indication of whether or not “this document is an
adequate confession of the doctrine of justification,” 2) that the doc-
ument’s strengths and deficiencies be indicated, and 3) a reaction to
the notion that this document represents a “significant breakthrough
in a doctrine that has long divided Rome from Wittenberg.”

This evaluation will be structured according to the President’s
requests, listed above. First, however, a summary of the purpose
and conclusions of the “Joint Declaration” is necessary.

A summary of the purpose and conclusions
of the “Joint Declaration.”

The present document will attempt to remain as faithful to the
President of Synod’s request as possible, confining itself to the
“Joint Declaration,” and not entering into the long and interesting
history of Lutheran/Roman Catholic dialogues which lies behind
it. In fact, the “Joint Declaration” itself wishes to be received, not
as a “new, independent presentation alongside the dialogue reports
and documents to date, let alone a replacement of them” (6).! It is,
rather, a summary of “the results of the dialogues on justification,”
enabling the various Lutheran churches and the Roman Catholic
Church to “make binding decisions” concerning these results (4). A
listing of all the resources, including references to all the previous
dialogue documents, together with pertinent quotes from these doc-
uments, is attached to the “Joint Declaration” for handy reference.

The purpose, or “intention” of the “Joint Declaration” is to
show that “the subscribing Lutheran churches2 and the Roman
Catholic Church are now able to articulate a common understand-
ing of our justification by God’s grace through faith in Christ” (5).
It does not cover all that either of the churches confesses regard-
ing the doctrine of justification, much less the many other, serious
theological differences related to it,? but merely a “consensus on
basic truths of the doctrine of justification” (5). It also purports to
show that the remaining differences regarding the doctrine of justi-
fication “are no longer the occasion for doctrinal condemnations”
(5). The removal of the condemnations is a necessary step along
the way towards declaring the remaining differences regarding the
doctrine of justification as no longer church-dividing (1).

The “Joint Declaration” identifies three types of remaining dif-
ferences: 1) differences of language; 2) differences of theological
elaboration; and 3) differences in emphasis in the understanding of
justification. These remaining differences are termed “acceptable.”
Thus, the Lutheran and Catholic explications of justification “are in
their difference open to one another and do not destroy the consen-
sus regarding basic truths” (40).*

Is the “Joint Declaration” an adequate confession
of the doctrine of justification?

This question can be answered very simply: No. The reasons
for this can be found in the next section, which will deal, not only
with the strengths of the “Joint Declaration” but also with its obvi-
ous and, in our opinion, alarming deficiencies.

Strengths and deficiencies of the “Joint Declaration”

Strengths

The “Joint Declaration” is not a strong document. Yet, although
it does not dwell on it, the document does point out the necessity,
when dealing with contemporary Roman Catholics, of taking into
account the significant, even profound changes brought about by
(or reflected in) the documents of the Second Vatican Council. As
Lutherans, we often still tend to deal with contemporary Catholics
on the basis of the pre-Vatican II Catholicism. Although in that
Council they retracted none of the offensive doctrines promulgated
by the Council of Trent, they began in the spirit of Vatican II to
give more value to Scripture (while at the same time continuing to
emphasize unwritten tradition), restoring to an important place in
their churches the liturgical homily.* At any rate, the document is
helpful in reminding us that the witness of the Roman Catholic
church today is very much more complex than many Lutherans
think, if they continue to base their assessment of it solely on the
basis of pre-Vatican II sources.

In fact, there is in the “Joint Declaration” much affirmed by
both dialogue partners in which we can rejoice. The show that
Lutherans and Roman Catholics are Christians who have much
more in common than what divides them. We rejoice in the affir-
mation: “In faith we together hold the conviction that justification
is the work of the triune God. The Father sent his Son into the
world to save sinners. The foundation and presupposition of justi-
fication is the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ” (15).

Section | (paragraphs 8-12), which deals with the biblical mes-
sage of justification, is pretty good. Although, in typical fashion,
many of the thornier issues of biblical interpretation, and although
it is focused far too narrowly on the Bible passages dealing with
justification,° and in this case it fails to point out the strongly legal,
forensic character of justification, it is at least good that the discus-
sion begins with Scripture. In the end, the only way we will be able
to make significant inroads in our dialog with Catholics is rigidly to
confine our discussions to the Scriptures. This is, therefore, a good
Starting point.

Finally, there is much good to be said merely for the fact that
the Lutherans and Roman Catholics are engaging in dialog. We
should be in these discussions too. Especially in view of the appar-
ent dissolution of many forms of historic Christianity, and in view
of the fact that the Roman Catholic Church is the largest Christian
denomination (by far!), we should be engaging in dialog with them.

Deficiencies

The “Joint Declaration” is a weak document. This evaluation’s
discussion of its deficiencies will be structured, not as a line-by-
line response, but in several general categories.

Methodological concerns

In general, the document embraces a false methodology, one
that is patently self-contradictory. For example, it claims that a
“common listening, together with the theological conversations of
recent years, has led to a shared understanding of justification. This
encompasses a consensus in the basic truths, the differing explica-
tions in particular statements are compatible with it” (14, see also
7). Later the “Joint Declaration” identifies three types of remain-
ing differences: 1) differences of language; 2) differences of theo-
logical elaboration; and 3) differences of emphasis in the under-
standing of justification (40). This raises several questions. How
can there be a genuine consensus in basic truths, while the explica-
tions, the Janguage, the elaborations and the emphases of these
truths differ? How is it meaningful to speak of consensus in this
way? And how can it be truly a consensus when there remain such
fundamental differences?

But, the “Joint Declaration” goes even further. It asserts that
these differences are “acceptable” (40). One wonders what differ-

2001 Convention Workbook