LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2001, Page 415

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

ADDITIONAL THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS AND REPORTS—OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 415

The Joint Declaration
on the Doctrine of Justification
in Confessional Lutheran Perspective

An Evaluation of the Lutheran-Roman Catholic
“Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification”
by the Departments of Systematic Theology
Concordia Theological Seminary, Fort Wayne and
Concordia Seminary, Saint Louis

In response to a request from
President Alvin Barry
The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod

With a summary and study guide prepared by
The Commission on Theology and Church Relations
The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod

A Summary of the Seminary Evaluations

1. The “Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification”
(JDDJ) was prepared between 1995 and 1997 by Roman Catholic
and Lutheran theologians under the auspices of the Vatican and the
Lutheran World Federation (of which the LCMS is not a member).
It forms the culmination, to date, of several Lutheran-Roman
Catholic dialogs in various places. The final version of this docu-
ment was adopted by the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
(ELCA) assembly in August 1997, by a 97% majority.

Side-by-side differences

2. The basic conclusion of the JDDJ is that past and remaining
differences between Lutherans and Roman Catholics do not disrupt
their present “consensus” on the doctrine of justification. JDDJ
identifies three types of differences that remain: differences of lan-
guage, of theological elaboration, and of emphasis in the under-
standing of justification. But here an important question arises
about JDDJ’s own claims. How can there be a genuine consensus
on basic truths if the language, the elaborations, and the emphases
differ?

3. What kind of “consensus” does JDDJ have in mind? It says
that “the Lutheran and the Catholic explications of justification are
in their difference open to one another and do not destroy the con-
sensus regarding basic truths.” What does this mean? Further, what
possible differences might not be open to one another? It does not
serve the cause of dialog to operate on the principle that two or
more theologically contradictory statements can all be true. Such
thinking does not take the history of Lutheran-Roman Catholic dif-
ferences seriously enough, nor does it sufficiently honor the in-
tegrity of each side. Did the two sides really intend the statements
that they made in the 16th century, and since then, to amount only
to “salutary warnings,” as JDDJ suggests?

Unresolved issues:

Justification, Grace, Faith, Original Sin

4. JDDJ does not settle the major disagreement between
Lutheran theology and Roman Catholic theology on justification.
Lutherans teach that justification is essentially a declaration of “not
guilty” and “righteous” pronounced by God on a sinner because of
Christ and His work. Roman Catholics teach that justification in-
volves an internal process in which a believer is transformed and
“made” more and more righteous. The non-settlement of this issue
forms the chief defect of JDDJ.

5. Correspondingly, JDDJ fails to define clearly the word grace.
Content to use the term “justification by grace,” the document does
not resolve the classic question whether such grace is God’s unde-

served favor (Lutheran) or whether it is a spiritual power poured
or “infused” into the soul that enables one to love God and merit
salvation (Roman Catholic). Rome’s view of grace as infused
stands at the base of its theology of justification as a process.

6. Although JDDJ uses the biblical phraseology “through faith”
or “by faith,” at critical points it speaks of justification “in faith.”
This new wording is ambiguous and allows for the Roman Catholic
idea of infused grace. It does not clearly state that faith’s role in
justification is exclusively to receive Christ’s benefits given to sin-
ners by God in His grace. Therefore, it fails to make clear that the
cause of justification is God’s saving work in Christ, not ourselves
or anything in us.

7. JDDJ contains an expression of the Lutheran position that
original sin, which remains after baptism, is really sin. It also in-
cludes the Roman Catholic view that original sin is eradicated by
baptism, and that the desire to sin that remains after baptism is not
really sin. JDDJ leaves this historic disagreement, like other dis-
agreements mentioned above, unresolved.

Too little attention to justification

8. Lutherans confess that justification is the article that integrates
all faith and theology. This centrality of justification is lost in JDDJ.
The Vatican insisted on changing a draft of JDDJ that said this arti-
cle should be seen “as criterion” which “constantly serves to orient
all the teaching and practice of our churches to Christ.” The Pontif-
ical Council for Promoting Christian Unity would go no further than
to say that “the doctrine of justification is an indispensable crite-
rion” [emphasis added]—which is the final wording of JDDJ.

9. Accordingly, JDDJ does not address itself directly to disputed
beliefs and practices such as the “meritorious” value of good works,
purgatory, indulgences, the papacy, the significance of the saints,
devotion to Mary, and so forth. Lutherans cannot speak of consen-
sus on justification as long as these related issues remain unsettled.

10. If justification as the result of Christ’s atoning work is not
allowed to be central in all the other articles of faith as they apply
to the believer, giving them their shape, it will no longer truly serve
as the doctrine by which the church stands or falls. When the other
articles of faith are not related to justification, those articles will be
misunderstood or misconstrued, Ultimately, Christ will be robbed
of His honor as the Savior of sinners.

“Hasn’t Rome changed on justification?”

11. The Second Vatican Council has exerted a massive influ-
ence on the Roman Catholic Church of today. While that council
retracted none of the offensive doctrines put forth by the 16th-cen-
tury Council of Trent (which responded to the Reformation),
nonetheless the Roman Catholic Church’s witness today is much
more complex than is sometimes thought.

12. For example, in describing “Assurance of Salvation,” JDDJ
says: “Catholics can share the concern of the Reformers to ground
faith in the objective reality of Christ’s promise. . . . No one may
doubt God’s mercy and Christ’s merit... . Recognizing his own
failures, however, the believer may yet be certain that God intends
his salvation.” Here is a departure from traditional Roman Catholic
theology in JDDJ, although it does not connect well with the rest of
the document.

13. Although change has taken place in the Roman Catholic
church since Vatican II, JDDJ shows how very little headway has
been made toward a genuine resolution of the differences between
Lutherans and Roman Catholics on justification. This statement is
not a “breakthrough.”

All in all

14. All Christians can rejoice with JDDJ’s affirmation that “jus-
tification is the work of the triune God. The Father sent his Son
into the world to save sinners. The foundation and presupposition

200] Convention Workbook