LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2001, Page 429

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

ADDITIONAL THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS AND REPORTS—OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 429

“All Under One Christ,” statement on the Augsburg Confession
by the Roman Catholic-Lutheran Joint Commission, !980, in:
“Growth in Agreement,” edited by Harding Meyer and Lukas Vis-
cher, New York/Ramsey, Geneva, 1984, 241-247.

Comments of the Joint Committee of the United Evangelical
Lutheran Church of Germany and the LWF German National Com-
mittee regarding the document, The Condemnations of the Refor-
mation Era—Do They Still Divide?, in “Lehrverurteilungen im
Gespraich” [“Condemnation Tenets in Dialogue”’], Géttingen, 1993
(hereafter: VELKD).

Denzinger-Schénmetzer, Enchiridion Symbolorum .. . , 32nd
to 36th edition (hereafter: DS).
Denzinger-Hiinermann, Enchiridion Symbolorum .. . . since the

37th edition (hereafter: DH).

Evaluation of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian
Unity of the Study, Lehrverurteilungen— kirchentrennend? [Con-
demnation Tenets—Church Dividing?], Vatican, 1992, unpub-
lished document (hereafter: PCPCU).

“Justification by Faith,” Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue
VII, Minneapolis, 1985 (hereafter: USA).

The Condemnations of the Reformation Era—Do they Still Di-
vide?, edited by Karl Lehmann and Wolfhart Pannenberg, Min-
neapolis, 1990 (hereafter: LV:E).

To [part] 3: The Common Understanding of Justification (para-
graphs 14 and 18) [LV:E 68f.; VELKD 95]:

“,..a faith centered and forensically conceived picture of jus-
tification is of major importance for Paul and, in a sense, for the
Bible as a whole, although it is by no means the only biblical or
Pauline way of representing God’s saving work” [USA, no. 146].

“Catholics as well as Lutherans can acknowledge the need to
test the practices, structures, and theologies of the church by the
extent to which they help or hinder ‘the proclamation of God’s free
and merciful promises in Christ Jesus, which can be rightly re-
ceived only through faith’ (para. 28)” [USA, no. 153].

Regarding the “fundamental affirmation” [USA, no. 157; cf. 4]
it is said: .

“This affirmation, like the Reformation doctrine of justification
by faith alone, serves as a criterion for judging al] church practices,
structures, and traditions precisely because its counterpart is ‘Christ
alone’ (solus Christus). He alone is to be ultimately trusted as the
one mediator through whom God in the Holy Spirit pours out his
saving gifts. All of us in this dialogue affirm that all Christian
teachings, practices, and offices should so function as to foster ‘the
obedience of faith’ (Rom. 1:5) in God’s saving action in Christ
Jesus alone through the Holy Spirit, for the salvation of the faithful
and the praise and honor of the heavenly Father” [USA, no. 160].

“For that reason, the doctrine of justification—and, above all,
its biblical foundation—will always retain a special function in the
Church. That function is continually to remind Christians that we
sinners live solely from the forgiving love of God, which we
merely allow to be bestowed on us, but which we in no way—in
however modified a form—’earn’ or are able to tie down to any pre-
conditions or postconditions. The doctrine of justification, therefore,
becomes the touchstone for testing at all times whether a particular
interpretation of our relationship to God can claim the name of
‘Christian.’ At the same time, it becomes the touchstone for the
Church, for testing at all times whether its proclamation and its praxis
correspond to what has been given to it by its Lord” [LV:E 69].

“An agreement on the fact that the doctrine of justification is
significant not only as one doctrinal component within the whole of
our church’s teaching, but also as the touchstone for testing the
whole doctrine and practice of our churches, is—from a Lutheran
point of view—fundamental progress in the ecumenical dialogue
between our churches. It cannot be welcomed enough” [VELKD
95;-cf. 157].

“For Lutherans and Catholics, the doctrine of justification has a
different status in the hierarchy of truth; but, both sides agree that
the doctrine of justification has its specific function in the fact that
it is ‘the touchstone for testing at all times whether a particular in-
terpretation of our relationship to God can claim the name of
“Christian.” At the same time, it becomes the touchstone for the
Church, for testing at all times whether its proclamation and its
praxis correspond to what has been given to it by its Lord’ [LV:E
69]. The criteriological significance of the doctrine of justification
for sacramentology, ecclesiology, and ethical teachings still de-
serves to be studied further” [PCPCU 96].

To [part] 4.1: Sin and Human Powerlessness in Relation to Jus-
tification (paragraphs 19-21) [LV:E 42ff.; 46; VELKD 77-81,
83f.]:

“Those in whom sin reigns can do nothing to merit justifica-
tion, which is the free gift of God’s grace. Even the beginnings of
justification, for example, repentance, prayer for grace, and desire
for forgiveness, must be God’s work in us” [USA, no. 156.3].

“Both are concerned to make it clear that . .. human beings can-
not... cast a sideways glance at their own endeavors . . . But, a re-
sponse is not a ‘work.’ The response of faith is itself brought about
through the uncoercible Word of promise, which comes to human
beings from outside themselves. There can be ‘cooperation’ only
in the sense that in faith the heart is involved, when the Word
touches it and creates faith” [LV:E 46f].

“Where, however, Lutheran teaching construes the relation of
God to his human creatures in justification with such emphasis on
the divine ‘monergism’ or the sole efficacy of Christ in such a way,
that the person’s willing acceptance of God’s grace—which is itself
a gift of God—has no essential role in justification, then the Tri-
dentine canons 4, 5, 6 and 9 still constitute a notable doctrinal dif-
ference on justification” [PCPCU 22].

“The strict emphasis on the passivity of human beings concern-
ing their justification never meant, on the Lutheran side, to contest
the full personal participation in believing; rather it meant to ex-
clude any cooperation in the event of justification itself. Justifica-
tion is the work of Christ alone, the work of grace alone” [VELKD
84, 3-8].

To [part] 4.2: Justification as Forgiveness of Sins and Making
Righteous (paragraphs 22-24) [USA, nos. 98-101; LV:E 47ff.;
VELKD 84ff.; cf. also the quotations to 4.4]:

“By justification we are both declared and made righteous. Jus-
tification, therefore, is not a legal fiction. God, in justifying, effects
what he promises; he forgives sin and makes us truly righteous”
[USA, no. 156,5].

“Protestant theology does not overlook what Catholic doctrine
stresses: the creative and renewing character of God’s love; nor
does it maintain . . . God’s impotence toward a sin which is
‘merely’ forgiven in justification but which is not truly abolished in
its power to divide the sinner from God” [LV:E 49].

“The Lutheran doctrine has never understood the ‘crediting of
Christ’s justification’ as without effect on the life of the faithful,
because Christ’s Word achieves what it promises. Accordingly the
Lutheran doctrine understands grace as God’s favor, but neverthe-
less as effective power . . . ‘for where there is forgiveness of sins,
there is also life and salvation’” [VELKD 86, 15-23].

“Catholic doctrine does not overlook what Protestant theology
stresses: the personal character of grace, and its link with the Word;
nor does it maintain . .. grace as an objective ‘possession’ (even if
a conferred possession) on the part of the human being—something
over which he can dispose” [LV:E 49].

To [part] 4.3: Justification by Faith and through Grace (para-
graphs 25-27) [USA, nos. 105ff.; LV:E 49-53; VELKD 87-90]:

“If we translate from one language to another, then Protestant
talk about justification through faith corresponds to Catholic talk
about justification through grace; and on the other hand, Protestant

2001] Convention Workbook