LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2001, Page 419

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

ADDITIONAL THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS AND REPORTS—OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 419

view seemingly found support in St. Paul and St. Augustine. . . .
The teaching of canon 5 on concupiscence laid the foundation of
the subsequent decree on justification.””4

An earlier version of the Joint Declaration contained this bald
statement: “Properly speaking, [concupiscence] therefore is not
sin.” This was criticized in some detail, particularly by the Finnish
response, which suggested “that the last sentence (‘Properly speak-
ing, it therefore is not sin’) be eliminated.” The final version com-
plies technically, but safeguards the Tridentine substance by having
paragraph 30 say that baptismal grace takes away all that is sin “in
the proper sense” and that is “worthy of damnation” (Rom. 8:1).
There does, however, remain in the person an inclination (concu-
piscence) that comes from sin and presses toward sin. Since, ac-
cording to Catholic conviction, human sin always involves a per-
sonal element and since this element is lacking in this inclination,
Catholics do not see this inclination as sin in an authentic sense.

Although this inclination is “objectively in contradiction to
God,” it “does not merit the punishment of eternal death and does
not separate the justified person from God.” Here excuses for sin
are substituted for forgiveness and justification!”

5. Justification: Christological Core and Center

Defining justification is a delicate task. Even some Reforma-
tion-era Lutherans slipped into a Roman-like (scholastic) under-
standing of it.*° Justification is also the most central of all articles of
faith, because it gives form and shape to all the other articles as
they apply to the believer. Without relating a particular article to
justification, that doctrine is not properly understood. So when jus-
tification is misunderstood, the entire body of doctrine is off bal-
ance. Justification describes the believer’s relationship to God as
he is accepted for Christ’s sake. So it is not only a matter of how a
particular article is biblically demonstrable (sola scriptura [AC XX,
11 {Eph 2:8-9}]), but also how it relates to justification as the core
article by which the church stands or falls. Justification is a distinct
article but it belongs to and is never separate from christology
(solus Christus). Christology and justification are two sides of one
doctrine—what God accomplishes in Christ (atonement), He ap-
plies to believers (justification).°’ Rome sees justification as what
God accomplishes in the believer (transformist view). The
Lutheran christological view stands diametrically opposed to the
Roman anthropological one. Lutherans quarreled not with Rome’s
christology qua christology (that is, the Second Article of the
Nicene Creed), but with Rome’s doctrine of justification, which
rendered this christology ineffective for the believer. So it was not
simply that such things as Masses for the dead or purgatory lacked
biblical support, which of course they did, but more importantly,
these were rejected because they detracted from Christ’s work and
deprived Him of His glory.

Rome’s view of grace as an infused substance, gratia infusa,
stands at the base of its theology of justification as a process.
Lutherans hold that justification is first of all a universal, world-
embracing act and judgment of God in Christ, which is received by
faith alone: “The first and chief article is this, that Jesus Christ, our
God and Lord, ‘was put to death for our trespasses and raised again
for our justification’ (Rom, 4:25)” (Smalcald Articles, I/I/1). “In-
deed, the entire Gospel that we preach depends on the proper un-
derstanding of this article. Upon it all our salvation and blessed-
ness are based, and it is so rich and broad that we can never learn it
fully” (Large Catechism, Creed, Second Article, 33). The Formula
of Concord (SD, ILI, 25) lists four “essential and necessary ele-
ments” of justification: |. the grace of God; 2. the merit of Christ;
3. the Gospel; and 4. faith.-’ The first three constitute what has been
called “general” or “universal” justification, which then becomes
“personal” or “individual” justification when appropriated by faith
(what the Apology calls fides specialis [personal faith}). (The terms
“objective” and “subjective,” though sometimes used by Lutherans

in this context, fit the Calvinist view more closely, which rejects
universal grace and regards the “subjective” aspect of justification
as the “experience” of it in one’s soul or conscience.)

Personal justification takes place by faith. God’s justification of
the world in Christ (universal justification) is prior to anyone’s faith
and constitutes its object and substance. All this is, at best, periph-
eral to the Declaration. Justification exemplifies the Lutheran un-
derstanding of all doctrine: grace means that God acts prior to faith.
A parallel is the example of the Lutheran understanding of the
Lord’s Supper where Christ’s bodily presence in the bread and
wine is prior to our reception of it and is not dependent on our faith.
God justifies the world while it is still ungodly.*? Justification is a
reality in Christ, and is therefore prior to anyone’s reception of it by
faith. It possesses an objective reality in God alone. Abraham be-
lieved in the God who justified the ungodly, Rom. 4:3-5. God was
justifying the ungodly before Abraham believed. The Declaration
cites | Cor. 1:30, “Christ is our righteousness,” but does not un-
fold its christological content.

The Declaration speaks of justification in terms of what it does.
its effects (the tranformist view), and does not touch upon it as a
divine accomplishment in Christ, as other commentators also note.
Where Roman Catholics see justification as something happening
in man (anthropological view), Lutherans see justification as ac-
complished in Christ (christological view). Atonement and objec-
tive justification are coterminous, but the latter is dependent and a
result of the former. Justification is not an arbitrary decision of God
that is accomplished by sovereign decree, but flows from God’s re-
gard for the work of Christ.*! God justifies and He understands His
act of justifying (justification) as His own saving accomplishment
in Christ. So also Outmoded Condemnations? of the Géttingen fac-
ulty: “Corresponding to God’s being God, justification occurs
through Christ alone (solo Christo), by grace alone (sola gratia),
and in faith alone (sola fide).”** This justification in Christ is as
universally expansive as is the divine condemnation of the world in
Adam. In both the universal condemnation and justification, He is
acting according to justice or righteousness. God’s justification of
the world in Christ must exceed His universal condemnation of the
world in Adam. Without this belief, Christ’s work becomes infe-
rior to Adam’s, a horrific doctrine by all standards (Rom. 5:15).
God’s universal acceptance of al] of mankind in Christ is essential
to the Lutheran doctrine that justification takes place in the blood of
Christ, who on this account can be called our justification. Rom.
5:9: “Since, therefore, we are now justified by His blood, much
more shal] we be saved by Him from the wrath of God.” Universal
justification does not imply the universalism of an apokatastasis,
which makes personal participation in justification inconsequen-
tial. We quote from Hans Kiing, “Ail men are justified in Jesus
Christ and only the faithful are justified in Jesus Christ.”

By contrast, justification for Rome is basically a grace-driven
process in man. And it is this view that dominates the Joint Decla-
ration. It is true that the strong Finnish representations succeeded in
reshaping a previously bland, “anthropologically” orientated para-
graph into an express confession of Trinitarian-Christological sub-
stance: “!5....The foundation and presupposition of justification is
the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ. Justification thus
means that Christ Himself is our righteousness, in which we share
through the Holy Spirit in accord with the will of the Father... .”
Had this been the document’s real starting point, rather than a dec-
orative afterthought, the result might have been different. “Justifi-
cation thus means that Christ Himself is our righteousness” is in
need of development, but, as mentioned, this does not happen.
Given the “transformist” commitments of the document, even
noble Trinitarian-Christological language can do little more than
remind us of the painful contrast between the confessional “ought”
and the ecumenical “‘is.”

2001 Convention Workbook