joint declaration on the doctrine of justification: which side gave up more?

P r e u s | 1

Justification: Roman and Lutheran

The Joint Declaration and Its Consequences: Which Side Gave Up More? A study of the difference between the Roman Catholic and the Lutheran teachings on justification

On October 31st, 1999 representatives from the Lutheran World Federation

(LWF) and Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity (PCPC) signed the Joint

Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (JD). The title of this paper implies that the

JD was a compromise. Calling it a compromise implies that there were some political

motives involved. But I am not so much concerned with the politics among the Roman

Catholics and the LWF; rather, in discussing the teaching of justification in the theology

of Lutherans and of the Roman Catholics, I intend on peering in to what extent this

agreement was a theological compromise. Was it even a compromise? And if it was,

who gave up more? The historical teaching of both parties on this article of faith along

with reactions to the JD from Lutheran and Roman Catholic perspectives will help

determine the answer to these questions.

The divide between the Lutherans and Papists obviously started in the sixteenth

century. Article IV of the Augsburg Confession (AC) gives the Lutheran position, and its

Apology defends it against the Papists Confutation of the Augsburg Confession. In the

first paragraph of Apology IV Melanchthon states:

they condemn us because we teach that men, not on account of their own merits (propter sua merita),

but freely on account of Christ (propter Christum),

obtain remission of sins by faith in Christ.1

The Confutation agreed with the Lutheran condemnation of the Pelagian doctrine;

that is, they agreed that one cannot merit eternal life by ones own powers without the

1 All citations to the Book of Concord will come from:

Triglota Concordia: The Symbolical Books of the Ev. Lutheran Church. German-English-Latin. St. Louis:

Concordia Publishing House, 1921. 118. Print.

P r e u s | 2


grace of God.2 So can they really condemn the Lutherans for teaching that man does not

obtain remission of sins by his own merits? The Confutation continues by rejecting the

teaching that excludes mans merit; they argue rather that through the assistance of

divine grace, human merit can earn eternal life.3

We see therefore that the principle grace alone (sola gratia) is quite different

from not without grace. The papists held that man, with the assistance of Gods grace,

obtains remission of sins by his merits. This is where every Christian must stand alert.

The Roman Catholics will agree even that our works are not worthy without Gods grace;

we can agree with that. Paul says that he counts those things he did in the flesh as loss

for the sake of Christ (Phil 3:8). However, their false teaching enters in when they claim

that these works made worthy by grace (meriti condigni)4 can earn eternal life.

5

In the Council of Trent6 the Papists declare:

If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is

justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else

is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining

the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any

way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by

2 Kolb, Robert, and James A. Nestingen. "The Confutation of the Augsburg Confession." Sources and

Context of the Book of Concord. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2001. 108. Print. 3 Ibid

However, to reject human merit, which is acquired through the assistance of divine grace, is to agree with the Manichaeans and not the catholic church. St. Paul says: I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. From now on there is reserved for me the crown of righteousness, which the

Lord, the righteous judge, will give me on that day, 2 Timothy 4[:7-8]. 4 Apology IV, 19 (Triglota)

Et quod fingunt discrimen inter meritum congrui et meritum condigni, ludunt tantum, ne videantur aperte pelagianizein. And because they arrange a distinction between a merit of congruity and a merit of condignity, they play so far that they are not found manifestly to palagianize. According to this distinction, God apparently gives grace to those who do works of congruity so that they

can become works of condignity, thus earning favor with God and remission of sins. Melanchthon

demonstrates in the following paragraph that no one can really be certain that he is doing works of condignity or not. 5 Confutation, 109

All Catholics admit that our works of themselves have no merit but Gods grace makes them worthy to earn eternal life. 6 Session 6, Canon 9,

P r e u s | 3


the movement of his own will; let him be

anathema.7

The Papists accurately represent the Lutheran position. When the Lutherans read

from Romans 3:28 that man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law, they

also mean apart from the movement of his own will in preparation for justification.

When it all boils down, sola fide holds much more weight than sola gratia; sola gratia

must not be understood apart from sola fide or propter Christum per fidem. This

becomes evident in the difference between the Papists and the Lutherans in the definition

of grace. An examination of the Papists understanding of grace will illuminate this

point.

By Grace

Trent also states that if anyone teaches that man is justified by works apart from

grace, then he must be anathema;8 so it is clear that they still hold that grace is necessary.

From this it follows that Lutherans believe in justification by grace alone through faith

alone while Rome holds that man is justified by grace assisting man in his merits of faith,

hope, and love. But what happens when Rome holds that man is justified by grace alone?

To the naked eye of a Lutheran, this might cause rejoicing, since we would have reached

Concordia on this matter. In the JD the Roman Catholics did in fact confess with the

LWF that

[b]y grace alone, in faith in Christs saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are

accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who

7 "Council of Trent the Sixth Session." Hanover Historical Text Project. J. Waterworth, London, Dolman;

1848, 1995. Web. 10 May 2011.

. 8 Sixth session, Cannon 1

P r e u s | 4


renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to

good works.9 (emphasis added)

If one is careful, one will notice that this specific statement does not mention

justification. Roman Catholics have no reason for compromising in this statement. In

fact Adian Nichols (2001), a Dominican Catholic and a critic of the JD, says that he

considers the above paragraph the most successful formulation in the Declaration.10

Although Lutherans would understand acceptance by God as synonymous with

justification, the Roman Catholics do not necessarily understand it that way. For them,

justification is a process, and the declaration of righteousness is only a formal

justification;11

but the formal righteousness of Christ is not actually given to us, so it is

not yet a reality.12

The Papists can certainly agree that God is the first cause in

justification

In JD (4.1) they confess together that [j]ustification takes place solely by Gods

grace. Here we have them actually talking specifically about justification, and they say

that it is by grace alone. But in the way it is worded here, the Roman Catholics also need

not compromise their teaching. That is because they define justification and grace

9 "Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification." The Lutheran World Federation. Lutheran World

Federation and the Catholic Church, 1998. Web. 10 May 2011.

. 10 Nichols, Adian. "The Lutheran-Catholic Agreement on Justification: Botch or Breakthrough?." New

Blackfriars. 82.967 (2001): 380. Print. 11 4. Preus, Robert. "Perennial Problems in the Doctrine of Justification." Concordia Theological Quarterly.

45.3 (1981): 173. Print.

The fourth assault against the doctrine of justification is too deny its reality, or, what is the same thing, to define it merely

formally. 12

Preus, Perennial Problems, 168

Preus writes: In the nineteenth century the greatest Jesuit controversialist of the era, Perrone, argued in exactly the same fashion [as seventeenth century Roman Cathlics]. Commenting on Romans 4:5, he says, God accepts our faith gratuitously, and this faith as an actual disposition of ours he imputes for righteousness in view of the

merit of Christ. However, He does not impute the formal righteousness of Christ to us, so that by this we

are counted just. Again the same blind refusal to see anything but a remote connection

P r e u s | 5


differently. The Justification taking place can mean either a forensic imputation or a

transformational infusion. Grace can mean either Gods favorable disposition toward

man, or Gods cooperation and assistance toward man, God being merely the first

cause.13

On this point, in a letter from 1971, Hermann Sasse writes:

Romes doctrine can in a way be expressed by sola gratia Gods grace alone makes it possible for me to prepare myself for the reception of justifying

grace and to live a life of sanctification. Gods grace alone makes my poor works meritorious. It is a

great misunderstanding if today even Lutherans

regard the sola gratia as the mark of the

Reformation.14

Sasse continues by pointing out that if we take it far enough the concept of sola

gratia is not even unique to Christianity.15

The Lutheran confession of sola gratia Sasse

emphasizes must remain inseparably bound up with propter Christum per fidem.16 It

follows therefore that grace finds its meaning when we understand it in light of a

rationale; that is, for Christs sake. In fact, AC IV does not even use the term sola gratia;

rather, it says that men are justified by God freely (gratis iustificentur) because of Christ

through faith (propter Christum per fidem).

13 gratia adiuvans seu cooperans: helping or cooperating grace; as a helping or co-operating grace (gratia adiuvans seu cooperans), it produces the act conjointly with the will. According to this

explanation, not only does Divine grace make a supernatural act possible, but the act itself, though free, is

wholly dependent on grace, because it is grace which makes the salutary act possible and which stimulates

and assists in producing it. Hebermann, George, Edward Aloysius Pace, and C. B. Pallen. The Catholic Encyclopedia. X. Albany,

NY: Encyclopedia Press, Inc, 1913. 438. Print. 14 Sasse, Hermann. "The Rev. H.P.V. Renner." Letter 207 of Lutheran Church of Australia Archives and

Research Centre. Nundah, Queensland: Lutheran Church Australia, 1995. 8. Print. 15

Ibid

Elert has called our attention to the fact that even pagans know of the sola gratia. Side by side with the strict rejection of the possibility of forgiveness in the law of Karma stands in Hinduism the religion of

bhakti with its strong belief in divine grace. Northern Buddhism has made the Buddha a sort of saviour. If

sola gratia were the full expression of the Christian Faith, it would perhaps provide the basis for unity not

only among all Christians, but also of all religious men on earth. 16 Ibid

P r e u s | 6


This helps us understand grace as a favorable disposition of God rather than a

substance or an extra gift (donum superadditum) which He gives to assist us in our

sanctification. If God justifies us because of Christ, this means that Gods action of

justifying man is based on Christs merits. The Papists will not deny that grace is a

disposition, but this is only on the part of man when he has received the gift of grace

from God. They would understand this as habitual grace.17

Man is given grace so that he

may turn away from sin and toward God. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC)

explains this concept of grace as the gift which moves man to accept forgiveness and

righteousness, and they quote Trent:

Justification is not only the remission of sins, but

also the sanctification and renewal of the interior

man.18

So if the grace of God is primarily defined as that which moves man in

justification, then man can participate in his justification. On the other hand, if the grace

of God is that personal disposition of God that moves Him to act in mercy, then we find a

different focus of understanding in justification.

In order that we might better understand the definition of grace, we must examine

how the Scriptures use it. The Hebrew noun (hen) is translated as favor or grace,

and it derives from the verb (hanan), which means show favor or be gracious.19

We find this used in various places in the Old Testament. Ruth finds favor ) in the eyes

17 Catechism of the Catholic Church. Para 2000. Latin Typical Edition. Ottawa: Publications Service,

Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1992. Print.

Habitual grace, the permanent disposition to live and act in keeping with Gods call, is distinguished from actual graces which refer to Gods interventions, whether at the beginning of conversion or in the course of the work of sanctification. 18 Ibid, par 1989

quoted from Trent, session six, chapter VII 19 Brown, Francis, Samuel Driver, Charles Briggs, and Wilhelm Gesenius. The Brown, Driver, Briggs

Hebrew and English lexicon. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Pub, 1996. 335. Print.

P r e u s | 7


of Boaz (Ruth 2:10). Noah find favor ) in the eyes of the LORD (Gen. 6:8). Luther

says regarding this passage:

This expression very clearly rules out any merit

and gives praise to faith, by which alone we are

justified before God, that is, are acceptable to

God and please Him.20

The Greek equivalent for is .21 We find this same Semitic idiom in the

Greek (Luke 1:30) when the angel Gabriel says to Mary, Fear not Mary, for you have

found favor () before God. The angel greets Mary (1:28): Greetings, oh favored

one. The Greek word for favored one is , which is the perfect passive

participle of , meaning I show grace (or favor). So according to the angel she

is the one to whom favor has been shown.

When Paul says that we are justified freely by [Gods] grace as a gift through the

redemption, which is in Christ Jesus, (Rom. 3:24) we should understand the grace of

God ( ) instrumentally (causa instrumentalis) on Gods part (parte Dei).

The Scriptures clearly use grace as an instrument in justification, but we do not

gain anything by simply rejecting Romes definition of grace as a gift if we do not also

acknowledge Scriptures use of as a gift. Paul says in Ephesians 4:7 that grace

was given to each of us according to the measure of the gift of Christ. The Papists

would use this in support of their teaching that grace is a substance, which God gives to

man and becomes habitual grace on mans part. However, this passage does not need to

imply that grace itself is a substance given to man. Along with any other passage that

talks of God giving His grace, we may simply understand this passage as metonymy.

20 Luther, Martin. Luther's Works. AE. 2. St. Louis: Concordia Pub. , 1968. 54. Print. 21 The same word is used here for grace or favor as in Ruth 2:10 in the LXX.

P r e u s | 8


This is a way of speech in which something is not called by name, but rather by that to

which it is closely related. For example, Jesus took the cup (Matt. 26; Mark 14; Luke 22;

1 Cor. 11), and He declared it to be His blood. From the very birth of the Christian

Church, it has always been understood as the wine within the cup. Since the wine is

associated so closely with the cup, the texts all simply say cup. We also find this in Job

when he speaks of his arrow afflicting him, referring to the wound caused by the arrow.22

Likewise, we can do the same with grace. We could also understand the gift of

grace in the usage of synecdoche, by which the effect is replaced by the cause or vice

versa.23

When Paul talks about justification, he speaks of grace as instrumental on the

part of God, so we can understand the gift of grace as that gift which closely relates to or

comes from the grace of God. This gift can include a number of things depending on the

context,24

but this does not change the meaning of justifying grace itself. Grace is still

that favorable disposition of God, by which He justifies the ungodly for the sake of Christ

and through faith in Christ.

Catholic Critics of the JD

Two notable Romans Catholic critics of the JD are Adian Nichols (2001) and

Christopher Malloy (2005).25

Malloys book gives a much more detailed critique than

22 In Job 34:6, KJV translates simply as my wound even though it is literally translated my arrow. 23 Melanchthon uses this to explain passages such as her sins, which are many, are forgiven her, for she loves much (Luke 7:47) and the doers of the law shall be justified (Rom. 2:13). He writes (Ap, IV, 131): In this sense it is said: The doers of the Law are justified, i.e., they are pronounced righteous who from the heart believe God, and afterwards have good fruits, which please Him on account of faith, and,

accordingly, are the fulfillment of the Law. 24 BDAG, 886 on : 4. of exceptional effects produced by divine grace, above and beyond those usual experienced by Christians. 25 Malloy, Christopher. Engrafted into Christ: a critique of the Joint Declaration. New York: Peter Lange

Publishing, 2005. Print.

P r e u s | 9


Nichols article; however, they equally show their dissent in much of the same issues,

Malloy elaborating much more. One major opposition to the JD includes the acceptance

of the paradox simul iustus et peccator. Malloy draws from this that if Catholics accept

this paradox, they must also to some degree accept forensic justification. Nichols points

out that this paradox was of utmost concern for many Roman Catholics who dissent to

the JD.26

According to Malloy, the idea that the justified man also possesses damnable

sin is not compatible with the Roman Catholic view of a progressive justification through

sanctifying grace. He writes:

If damnable sin can exist within the justified person, the formal cause of justification cannot

be simply sanctifying grace...but must be or at

least include something extrinsic, e.g., the

imputed righteousness of Christ.27

Malloy even points out that the final draft of the JD drew closer to the Lutheran

position of concupiscence than the draft of 1995, which expressly declares that

concupiscence is not sin (26). The final draft of 1999, however, describing

concupiscence as a contradiction to God, the Lutherans position calls it truly sin.28

Malloy takes objection to this, and he even criticizes the Vaticans official response, also

known as the Annex.29

The Annex describes the Lutheran position on concupiscence

along with the Roman Catholic position on voluntary sin (2.B); Malloy points out that

these two descriptions are almost identical, especially with both definitions including a

26 Nichols, 381 27 Malloy, 275; Malloy says (277):

The editorial development of the JDs three paragraphs on the simul iustus et peccator topic clearly moves in a Lutheran direction. What is most troubling in the final draft, from the Catholic perspective, is

the damnable nature of the sin that remains. 28 JD, 29 29 Denzinger, Henrici. "Gemeinsame offizielle Feststellung zur Gemeinsamen Erklaerung zur

Rechtfertigungslehre (*5073f) mit dem Anhang (Annex) zur Gemeinsamen offiziellen Feststellung, 31.

Oktober 1999 (2000)." Enchiridion symbolorum definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum.

Edition XLIII. Freiburg: Verlag Herder GmbH, 2010. 1461-1465. Print.

P r e u s | 10


selfish or self-seeking desire. Malloy says that if the Lutheran teaching on concupiscence

equals the Roman teaching on sin, then the Annex betrays any ambiguity.30 In other

words, if the Annex accepts concupiscence as sinful desire, even if they do not call it

truly sin, then it is clear that Rome has compromised on their teaching on

concupiscence.

Malloys concerns about Rome compromising on concupiscence and sin are

certainly valid if his analysis is correct; however, Malloy might be able to reconsider his

criticism on this point if he acknowledges the qualifying language in the Annexs

definition of sin. It is the selfish desire of the old person. (emphasis added) It is true

that neither the Lutherans nor the Roman Catholics would imply that the new man sins;

however, the qualification of the old person helps them retain their teaching on sin and

concupiscence. Dealing with AC II, the Confutation gave a qualification in accepting the

Lutheran position:

But if they are speaking in the manner of St.

Augustines teaching and call the inherited sin concupiscence in the sense that is ceases to be

sin in Baptism, then this teaching can be

accepted, for it is in accord with St. Paul, who

said, We are all born children of wrath. [Eph. 2:3]

31

The Roman Catholics can understand sin as the selfish desire of the old person if

they understand old person as the unregenerate who has not been baptized; however,

another notable difficulty for Roman Catholics, which Malloy points out, comes from

paragraph 17 of the JD. The English translation reads:

[Justification] tells us [Catholics and

Lutherans] that as sinners our new life is

30 Malloy, 279 31 Kolb, Sources and Contexts, 107-08

P r e u s | 11


solely due to the forgiving and renewing

mercy that God imparts as a gift and we

receive in faith, and never can merit in any

way.

The Roman Catholics could agree with this if when it says as sinners they

understand it to refer to themselves prior to regeneration. However, Malloy points out

that the German version reads we sinners (wir Snder).32 This could only be

understood in light of what the Annex (2.A) says on this matter. It says that in so far as

the regenerate are assailed by the power of sin, they can agree with the Lutheran paradox

of simul iustus et peccator, despite their different approaches to this subject, as

expressed in JD 29-30.33 So for the Roman Catholics, the regenerate being a sinner only

means that he is attacked by the power of sin. However, one can still see why Malloy

and other Roman Catholics would be concerned. No matter how the Annex words it, the

JD still has the Lutherans and Catholics declaring together to be sinners.

At least the Roman Catholics have the Annex to explain what they really meant.

The Lutherans did not officially have anything giving a tidy summary of the JDs

interpretation that would hold nearly as much weight for the Lutherans as the Annex does

for the Roman Catholics. After all, the Annex comes from the Vatican. Even if some of

the Lutherans offered their own interpretations for the JD, the division within

Lutheranism worldwide makes it impossible for them to have an official interpretation of

the JD. Nichols points out that of the 124 churches represented in the LWF, 44 churches

did not subscribe to the JD due to either refusal or failure to do so.34

He writes:

[W]hat degree of confidence can be attached

to the claim of the Lutheran World Federation

32 Ibid, 286 33 Denzinger, 1462 34 Nichols, 377-78

P r e u s | 12


that the assent of so many (80) of its 124

member churches constitutes, in the

Federations words, a magnus consensus?35

Nichols makes a very good point here. Also, due to the fact that the LWF itself

does not represent the orthodox Lutherans of the LCMS, (W)ELS36

, and others, there is

no way for them to jointly present the Lutheran position.

The Annex is carefully written in order to explain the Roman Catholic position.

Paragraph 28 of the JD distinguishes between the power of sin still pressing its attacks

and the lifelong struggle against the contradiction to God within the selfish desires of the

old Adam. It is worded in such a way that one could understand these two things as

synonymous; however, the Annex demonstrates that they are distinct. According to

Rome, the power of sin is not the same thing as the selfish desire of the old Adam; they

did not compromise on this point.

The Annex also waters down the Lutheran position on sin and concupiscence by

suggesting that from a Lutheran perspective, desire can become the opening through

which sin attacks.37 Here is something on which it seems that Lutherans and Roman

Catholics can agree. But when we look closely, the Annex brings the Lutherans into

accepting concupiscence as at least not necessarily sin. If desire (;

concupiscencia) is only that which can make it possible to sin, and the Lutherans agree

with this statement, then the Lutherans have compromised. The Lutheran teaching on

35

Ibid, 382; Nichols is reiterating concerns of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a Roman

Catholic group who dissented to the Joint Declaration. 36 Ever since the Evangelical Lutheran Synod (ELS) adopted by a slim majority the Wisconsin Synods (WELS) formless teaching of the office of the ministry, I am reluctant to distinguish between the two

synods. Regardless, there are still orthodox Lutherans in all of these synods, and these church-bodies are

not represented by the LWF. 37Denzinger, 1463; Annex, 2.B

P r e u s | 13


this matter does not leave any room for concupiscence not necessarily being sin.

Concupiscence is truly sin (vere sit peccatum).38

Malloy also objects to the deficiency of the Roman Catholic teaching concerning

growth of grace. He points out that when the JD deals with good works (4.7), it does not

say growth of grace, but rather growth in grace. According to Malloy, this minor change

makes a big difference, since it weakens the Roman Catholic teaching by making it

vague. It causes a begging of the question whether grace itself grows in the believer, or

whether the believer, who is in grace, grows while the grace stays the same. The

Lutheran position takes it to mean that righteousness is always complete. Malloy rightly

demonstrates the ambiguity in these statements. He also points out that the use of the

term preservation has the same effect. Instead of righteousness growing, the Roman

Catholics (par. 38) speak of righteousness preserved.39

Malloy again rightly points out the ambiguity of the JD; however, the Lutherans

end up compromising on good works more than the Roman Catholics. In paragraph 37,

they jointly declare that [s]ince Christians struggle against sin, the consequence of

justification, that is good works, is an obligation they must fulfill. It is certainly true

that it is the Christians duty to do good works; however, this is not because he struggles

against sin. He seeks comfort in the forgiveness of sins because he struggles against sin.

He walks in good works because he is righteous before God.

To say that the Christian does good works because of his struggle with sin implies

that he battles against the flesh by means of good works. In Romans 13:11-14, Paul talks

38 AC II: Also they teach that since the fall of Adam all men begotten in the natural way are born with sin, that is, without the fear of God, without trust in God, and with concupiscence; and that this disease, or vice

of origin, is truly sin, even now damning and bringing eternal death upon those not born again through

Baptism and the Holy Ghost. 39 Malloy, 286

P r e u s | 14


about battling the flesh by putting on the Lord Jesus Christ. We dont do good works

because we are sinners; we do good works because we have been justified and saved.

After declaring that we have been saved by grace through faith, Paul says (Eph. 2:10) that

we are Gods workmanship created by Him for good works, which He prepared for us to

walk in. This is why we do good works. It is certainly true that we do good works also

in watchfulness not to sin, since sin hurts faith. Walking in good works helps us keep

focused on Gods will (2 Peter 1:10), but this does not mean that we use them for keeping

us in the faith. Besides, hearing the Word in faith is ultimately how we retain the Spirit,

not by works (Gal. 3:5). The Lutherans also failed to clearly distance themselves from

the Majorism error that good works keep us in the faith (par. 39). They certainly

maintain that good works do not merit eternal life, but in talking about preservation, they

did not clearly express that God, by His Word and Sacraments not our works keeps us

in this faith.

It may be true that the Roman Catholics compromised in their wording, saying

growth in grace rather than growth of grace, but compared to the Lutherans, the Roman

Catholics end up with a problem more so of ambiguity than anything else. This is not to

say, however, that the Roman Catholics did not give anything up. The Annex, for

example, allowing the phrase simul iustus et peccator certainly hits the nerves of many

conservative Roman Catholics, even though it clarifies what it means by sinner.

The REAL Compromise

It would take a much larger study to discuss every instance the Roman Catholic

critics of the JD claim that they compromised. We can admit that they certainly did

P r e u s | 15


compromise, at least to the extent of severe ambiguity. In this regard, orthodox

Lutherans can find some common ground with these Roman Catholics who decry the JD;

however, we cannot find true theological common ground with them or any other Roman

Catholic unless we establish the real basic truths of the article of Justification. This is

where the real compromise comes in, that is when the JD says that Lutherans and

Catholic have a consensus in the basic truths of the doctrine of justification (par. 43).

They claim that John 3:16 unites them (par. 8). Although it would be a joyous occasion

if we could only come together on this passage, we cannot honestly claim unity here

either. What does God loving the world mean? What does believing in His Son mean?

Although Rome teaches that faith is a gift, they also say it is a work of man. The

CCC quotes Thomas Aquinas in saying, Believing is an act of the intellect assenting to

the divine truth by command of the will moved by God through grace.40 Their

understanding of the phrase Faith without works is dead means that faith needs works

in order for it to work. The fact is that even if God is the one moving us by His grace,

they still teach that God justifies man through his own merits. Even if the Roman

Catholics teach that good works are gifts from God by His grace, if they teach that they

contribute in justification, they in effect teach works righteousness. This is far from a

consensus in the basic truth of justification. Vatican II (Lumen Gentium, V) says that

Christians are justified by Christ, and that through baptism and in faith, they become sons

of God. However, at the same time they maintain that helped by Gods grace, Christians

mold themselves in [Christs] image by following in His footsteps.41

40 CCC, 44, 155; quoted from Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica II-II, 2,9 41 Documents of Vatican II. Baltimore: The American Press. 1966. 66-67.

P r e u s | 16


The Annex still teaches this. Rome still denies justification apart from works.

They can say grace alone only because they understand grace as also habitual. The

concept of habitual grace allows for the Roman Catholic teaching that works merit

justification, because grace now becomes not only something God does, but also

something man does. Since Trent, the concept of habitual grace has been a central

feature to their polemics against the Lutherans.42

Even though grace, which causes the

Christian to do good, is a gift, and Gods love is unearned, it is up to man not to reject the

gift. The New Catholic Encyclopedia declares that the gratuity of grace does not

preclude merit.43 It is evident therefore that when Trent confirms Pauls words that

grace is no more grace if it be by works44

(Rom. 11:6), they understand grace in the sense

of the first cause.

We must also make sure that our definition of justifying faith maintains its true

integrity. Although it is true that faith agrees with the whole counsel of God, Chemnitz

makes the point that the object which makes faith justifying faith is not the whole Word

of God per se. He writes: For faith does not justify because it accepts the fall of the

walls of Jericho with the intellect.45 The object of justifying faith is Gods free

forgiveness and justification of man for the sake of Christs satisfying obedience unto

death. The object of justifying faith is in Christs resurrection, by which He defeated sin

and death forever. It is not merely knowledge of history (notitia historiae); rather it is

67: In order that the faithful may reach this perfection, they must use their strength according as they have received it, as a gift from Christ. In this way they can follow in His footsteps and mold themselves in His

image, seeking the will of the Father in all things 42

Whalen, John P. "Grace." New Catholic Encyclopedia. Reprinted. VI. Palatine: Jack Heraty and

Associates, INC, 1981. 669. Print. 43 Ibid, 674; Also, they say: Yet the outcome is in mans control, for man can reject Gods offered gift... If man does not reject it, God will work in him both the will and the performance. 44 Trent, Session 6, Chapter VIII 45 Chemnitz, Martin. The Examination of the Council of Trent. Translated by Fred Kramer. I. St. Louis:

Concordia Publishing House, 1971. 572. Print.

P r e u s | 17


knowledge, trust, and assent. This is why the Christian can be certain of his salvation.

The JD only says that the believer may yet be certain that God intends his salvation (par.

36). We can certainly agree with Trent when they affirm that no sins are remitted

except gratuitously by the mercy of God for Christs sake;46 however, they still

condemn us for teaching that the believer can by faith have full confidence in his own

salvation. Of course we agree that we can be certain of Gods intentions! But the JD

avoids the real issue. Can a believer personally have certainty in his own justification?

The fact that the JD avoids to settle these major disputes of grace, merit, and faith,

while still declaring that these differences of language, theological elaboration, and

emphasis (par. 40) do not divide us in justification proves that the Lutherans have failed

miserably. If the forensic declaration of Christs righteousness given completely to me

personally by faith here and now is not among the basic truths of justification, and it is

merely a theological elaboration that does not divide, then the Lutherans have severely

compromised.

The ecumenical dialogues between the LWF and the Roman Catholics made this

point of the basic truth of the gospel long before 1999. Rolf Preus (1987) attributes

this line of reasoning to the historical higher critical method of Biblical interpretation.

Justification by forensic imputation of Christs righteousness to the sinner became one

way among others for expressing the gospel. Another way to express this gospel can be

the transformational infusion of grace progressively throughout the life of sanctification.

Just as Rudolph Bultmann used his demythologization of Scripture to express the

existential truth of man realizing his own value, Preus demonstrates that the LWF did the

same thing for justification at Helsinki in 1963. Imputation became a word picture.

46 Trent, Session 6, Chapter IX

P r e u s | 18


The Helsinki Lutherans found the reality of justification not in the imputation of Christs

righteousness, but rather in the mystical union.47

The gospel itself becomes valuable only

in its communication of Gods love, rather than in its substance.48 If the true value of the

gospel were in its substance, then the theological elaborations for how man is justified

would matter a lot more than the JD allows.

The fact is that Lutherans and Roman Catholics do not agree on the basic truths

of justification. The Lutheran teaching on grace maintains that it is the favorable

disposition of God toward man; Rome teaches that it is a substance God gives to man so

that man can use it habitually to achieve perfection. The Lutherans teach that faith is the

receiving organism (organon lepticon) that passively receives the promises of God,

thereby possessing the complete righteousness of Christ; Rome teaches it is a habit of

mans intellect, which is effective when works are applied.49 The Lutherans teach that

the righteousness of God in Christ is completely given when God reckons our faith as

righteousness; Rome teaches that the justified are not completely righteous until they

mold themselves into Christs image.

We cannot in anyway consider the JD a breakthrough for Lutherans. It does not

take a joint declaration to say that Roman Catholics and Lutherans agree that God loved

the world. If the basic truth of the article of justification does not include that on

account of Christs atoning sacrifice, God forgives and justifies man by faith apart from

any merit or work on mans part, by which God gives His own righteousness fully and

completely when He gives to man the gift of faith, then the Lutherans have deeply

47 Preus, Rolf. An Evalutation of Lutheran/Roman Catholic Conversations on Justification. Fort Wayne: A

thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Sacred Theology,

Concordia Theological Seminary, 1987. 43-45. Print. 48 Ibid 48 49 Trent, Session 6, Chapter VII

P r e u s | 19


compromised, and they have lost their very foundation. We cannot brush off as merely

optional the theological explanations of the doctrine on which the Church stands or falls.

The full imputation of Christs righteousness must stand as a reality for the Christian.

The righteousness of God in Christ for all who believe (Rom 3:22) is not wishful

thinking; it is Gods Word; it is His decree. We orthodox Lutherans say Amen to this

decree, and we defend it as the most valuable treasure ever bestowed upon man. This is

what we believe, teach, confess, and sing. This is our confidence. So we pray:

Naught have I, O Christ, to offer

Naught but Thee, my highest Good.

Naught have I, O Lord, to proffer

But Thy crimson-colored blood.

Thy death on the cross hath death wholly defeated

And thereby my righteousness fully completed;

Salvations white raiment I there did obtain,

And in them in glory with Thee I shall reign.

Amen

Andrew Preus is in his last academic year at Concordia Lutheran Theological Seminary