LCMS Convention Workbook St. Louis, Missouri — 2026, Page 214

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

214

THEOLOGICAL DOCUMENTS­­—COMMISSION ON THEOLOGY AND CHURCH RELATIONS

stress on justification by faith alone, full stop, must be preserved. Lutheran theology forthrightly
declares that justification means to be declared righteous by God for Christ’s sake (Ap IV, 72). It
indicates that faith’s primary effect must be seen apart from any emphasis on our love or our
sanctification because faith effectively receives what it is promised: the forgiveness of sins for
Jesus’ sake. We understand that the main point of this section is that for both sides faith never
remains alone (sola fides numquam sola). So also, faith is never divorced from sanctification. 45
Similarly, as the Final Report goes further into 3.4 Shared Aspects of Justification, we
appreciate the concern to emphasize the levels at which participants found agreement. Here the
main point of agreement is that for both sides justification requires a faith that is dependent on
grace as mediated by the church where the gospel is preached and the sacraments are
administered. And, again, that such faith is never alone—never without works.
Thus the Report argues that the Council of Trent and Book of Concord are closer than
“previously supposed.” If there are indeed such “closer affinities,” does that judgment give
proper recognition to the discontinuity that remains? As “Concordia Lutherans” we would never
reject the teaching of sanctification or that faith is active in love. Yet, the Lutheran confessors
were always also wary about any emphasis on sanctification that called into question the chief
article—that justification is by faith alone.
Therefore, even if the converted and believers have the beginnings of renewal,
sanctification, love, virtues, and good works, yet these cannot, should not, and must not
be introduced or mixed with the article of justification before God, so that the proper
honor may continue to be accorded our Redeemer Christ and (because our new obedience
is imperfect and impure) so that the consciences under attack may have a reliable
comfort. 46
Section “3.5 Cooperation?”—human cooperation in justification—is appropriately stated as a
question. The Report indicates that Rome would answer with an unambiguous affirmative,
insisting on “man’s personal consent” to justification, even if such “consent to God’s will” is not
by human power (left unsaid is the assumption of infused grace). Lutherans, however, can only
speak of cooperation as something that occurs after God’s justification of sinners.

The essential claim of JDDJ was the existence of “a common understanding of our justification
by God’s grace through faith in Christ” (Preamble, § 4.). That is, past differences between
Lutherans and Roman Catholics do not overrule a present “consensus on basic truths of the
doctrine of justification” (Preamble, § 5.). The response of the LCMS did not affirm such a
consensus, finding that JDDJ adopted a transformational view of justification rather than the
Lutheran understanding: that justification is God’s declaration of righteousness based on his
utterly undeserved favor for fallen, un-transformed, sinners, on account of Christ and his merits
alone. 47
We see a milder and more modest claim here in the Final Report that we can generally affirm. It
argues that there is common ground on the doctrine justification as illustrated in sections 3.3 and
3.4 (Faith Becomes Effective through Love Commonalities). This common ground is most
evident in the affirmation that faith never remains alone (sola fides numquam sola). However,
what Lutherans mean is that sanctification always flows from faith, but is never its cause.
At the same time, we want to emphasize the points of disagreement that remain. And, contrary to
JDDJ, the mutual condemnations of the 16th century remain as an ecumenical challenge because
of the central question—Is justification solely on account of the undeserved favor of God
received only by faith or is it finally dependent on a man’s transformation (the process of
sanctification)?
However, we also hasten to add that such a frank assessment of the remaining differences is not a
repudiation of these discussions between the ILC and the Roman Catholic Church. Rather, it
points to the value—indeed the necessity—of ongoing respectful conversations for the sake of
the church catholic and her mission. Moreover, honest assessments are the only way that
meaningful ecumenical progress can be envisioned. 48
IV.

Conclusion

Another difference remains regarding 3.6 Certainty of Salvation. The Lutheran side holds that
the certainty of God’s undeserved favor toward sinners results in the certainty of salvation. The
Roman view claims only a certainty about God intending salvation.

In our extensive review of the Final Report we have emphasized questions and points of
concern—some of which may be viewed as disagreements with the conclusions of the discussion
participants. For that reason we want to emphasize yet again our overall support for the ongoing
conversations. Our response is intended to indicate our profound appreciation for the obviously
cordial and respectful character of these conversations, our acknowledgment of important points
of agreement and clarification, and our encouragement that such ecumenical meetings between
ILC church representatives and Roman Catholics would continue.

The last portion of the discussion of justification in the Final Report, 4. Open Questions, is a
vital addendum to the previous discussions. We affirm the need for a discussion of eschatology
(§ 4.1). We are particularly grateful for § 4.2’s characterization of the different views on
“Christian renewal.” Sections 4.3 and 4.4 are also helpful as clarifications.

With regard to further meetings, we gladly affirm section IV. Ecumenical Tasks in the Horizon
of Intentional Catholicity. We also appreciate section V. Ministry and Ordination—
Addendum. Given that the conversations surfaced a legitimate concern by an LCMS participant
on the matter of ordination, we are grateful that the discussion process allowed for a further

b. Affirmation

45
46

47
The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification in Confessional
Lutheran Perspective (1999), pp. 17-18. We also note a recent document that distinguishes the LCMS from the
Lutheran World Federation (LWF)The LWF Today (2024), especially pages 12-14.
48
Please see the document cited earlier: “Theological Dialogue with Other Christian Church Bodies,” September 17,
2011, document link is at https://files.lcms.org/dl/f/F44DF93E-1ADB-45DB-ABDC-D128581EEA15.

Final Report, Commonalities, section 3.3, p. 19.
FC SD III, 34; KW 568.

9

clarification of the LCMS understanding of ordination by including a letter from President
Matthew C. Harrison and a document provided by the staff of the LCMS Commission on
Theology and Church Relations.
In closing, we would suggest some additional topics for discussion. We encourage further
meetings to consider the cult of saints and purgatory, especially in the context of ongoing
discussions of the doctrine of justification. With regard to church and ministry, we hope the
topics of apostolic succession, the ordination of women, and the papacy as well as the priesthood
of all believers might be given attention. In addition, we think a thorough discussion and
comparison of views on the doctrine of the church is of great importance. And, lastly, we believe
that attention to moral teachings and social issues would be a particularly beneficial discussion
and may be an encouragement for confessional Lutherans and Roman Catholics to cooperate in
these areas.
Thank you for inviting our response. And thank you for your patience and understanding given
the length of time between your request and this response.
Adopted
Commission on Theology and Church Relations
October 4, 2024

11

2026 Convention Workbook

10