LCMS Convention Proceedings St. Louis, Missouri — 1998, Page 117

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS
tion on the presence of Christ in the Sacrament (FC Ep.
VII, 21–42; FC SD VII, 111–28), and they clearly affirm
what the Scriptures teach, namely: “We believe, teach, and
confess that in the Holy Supper the body and blood of
Christ are truly and essentially present and are truly distributed and received with the bread and wine. We believe,
teach, and confess that the words of the testament of Christ
are to be understood in no other way than in their literal
sense, and not as though the bread symbolized the absent
body and the wine the absent blood of Christ, but that because of the sacramental union they are truly the body and
blood of Christ” (FC Ep VII, 6–7).
The ELCA in 1997 also formally accepted the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification. The purpose of this
statement is “to show that on the basis of their dialogue the
subscribing 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” (p. 2). While recognizing that this common understanding “does not cover all that either church teaches
about justification,” this statement declares that “the remaining differences in its explication are no longer the occasion for doctrinal condemnation” (p. 2). However, these
“differences in ... explication” as articulated in this statement itself have to do with such critically important issues
as the following:
• The centrality of the doctrine of justification in its relationship to all other teachings of Scripture (para. 18)
• The Roman Catholic view “that persons ‘cooperate’ in
preparing for and accepting justification by consenting
to God’s justifying action” (para. 20)
• The relationship between the Lutheran understanding
that “the sinner is granted righteousness before God in
Christ through the declaration of forgiveness” and the
Roman Catholic emphasis on “the renewal of the interior
person through the reception of grace imparted as a gift
to the believer” (para. 23–24)
• The precise role of faith in justification; i.e., the significance of the difference in the Lutheran understanding
that “God justifies sinners in faith alone (sola fide)” and
the Roman Catholic understanding which only “sees
faith as fundamental in justification” (para. 26–27)
• The compatibility of the Lutheran understanding of “the
Christian as a being ‘at the same time righteous and sinner’ ” and the Roman Catholic view that the inclination
toward sin in the justified Christian is not really “sin in
the authentic sense” (para. 30)
It is clear that Roman Catholics and Lutherans have not
yet resolved substantive points of disagreement over the
doctrine of justification.
WHEREAS, The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America’s actions—i.e., the declaration of full communion with
three Reformed church bodies while recognizing continuing
disagreements between them regarding the understanding
of the bodily presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the
Altar; and also its adoption of the Joint Declaration on the
Doctrine of Justification which claims a common understanding between Lutherans and Roman Catholics on the
sinner’s justification by God’s grace through faith in Christ
in spite of continuing lack of agreement between them on

117

critically important aspects of the doctrine of justification—
have significant implications for all Lutherans and other
Christians in the United States and around the world; and
WHEREAS, The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod desires to remain faithful to its commitment to Holy Scripture and the Lutheran Confessions as stated in Article II
of its Constitution, even while striving to resolve differences in doctrine with other church bodies; therefore be it
Resolved, That in faithfulness to God’s Word and the
Lutheran Confessions, and motivated by our love and concern for the people and pastors of the ELCA, we express our
deep regret and profound disagreement with these actions
taken by the ELCA; and be it further
Resolved, That we encourage all members of the LCMS
to commit themselves to engage in theological discussions
with the members of the ELCA; and be it further
Resolved, That the LCMS support its President as he
continues to work together with the Presiding Bishop of the
ELCA in arranging for discussions of these issues between
representatives of our two church bodies; and be it further
Resolved, That these discussions address such theological issues as the doctrine of justification, the Lord’s Supper,
the nature of Lutheran identity, and the appropriate relationships with churches of other theological traditions in
today’s confusing and changing ecclesiastical landscape;
and be it finally
Resolved, That the CTCR be asked to prepare an evaluation of the ELCA/Reformed A Formula of Agreement and
the Lutheran/Roman Catholic Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification for use in discussing these issues
throughout the Synod.
Action: Adopted (8)

To Address Commission on Theology
and Church Relations Workload
and Priorities
RESOLUTION 3-09
Overtures 3-104–9 (CW, pp. 184–85)
Preamble
The Commission on Theology and Church Relations
(CTCR) was established by the Synod in 1962 (Res. 6-03)
to “assist the President at his request in discharging his
constitutional responsibilities” and to “provide guidance to
the Synod in matters of theology and church relations”
(Bylaw 3.925 a, b). It was designed to have broad representation, and this representation has been changed twice in
response to changing needs (1981 Res. 2-18B, 1986 Res. 361). Today its membership includes seminary faculty members, parish pastors, a parish teacher, one member from the
faculties of the synodical colleges, a District president, and
laypersons. This representative body is elected or appointed
by the Synod in convention, the seminary faculties, the
President of the Synod and the Council of Presidents
(Bylaw 3.921). It has served the Synod well in providing
guidance to the Synod on a wide variety of theological issues.
Because of the workload, the complex nature of the issues before the CTCR, and the mandate often given by the