Pr eus |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.
Pr eus |2 Justification: Roman and Lutheran
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 man‟s 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 God‟s 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 God‟s 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 God‟s grace makes them worthy to earn eternal life.” 6 Session 6, Canon 9,
Pr eus |3 Justification: Roman and Lutheran
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 Christ‟s 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. <http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct06.html>. 8 Sixth session, Cannon 1
Pr eus |4 Justification: Roman and Lutheran
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 God‟s 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. <http://www.lutheranworld.org/LWF_Documents/EN/JDDJ_99-jd97e.pdf>. 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”
Pr eus |5 Justification: Roman and Lutheran
differently. The “Justification taking place” can mean either a forensic imputation or a transformational infusion. Grace can mean either God‟s favorable disposition toward man, or God‟s cooperation and assistance toward man, God being merely the first cause. 13 On this point, in a letter from 1971, Hermann Sasse writes: Rome‟s doctrine can in a way be expressed by sola gratia… God‟s grace alone makes it possible for me to prepare myself for the reception of justifying grace and to live a life of sanctification. God‟s 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 Christ‟s 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
Pr eus |6 Justification: Roman and Lutheran
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 God‟s action of justifying man is based on Christ‟s 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 and it derives from the verb
(hen) is translated as “favor” or “grace,”
(hanan), which means “show favor” or “be gracious.”19
We find this used in various places in the Old Testament. Ruth finds favor
17
) in the eyes
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 God‟s call, is distinguished from actual graces which refer to God‟s 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.
Pr eus |7 Justification: Roman and Lutheran
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 χάρις.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 (χάριν) before God. The angel greets Mary (1:28): “Greetings, oh favored one.” The Greek word for “favored one” is κεχαριτωμένη, which is the perfect passive participle of χαριτόω, 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 [God‟s] grace as a gift through the redemption, which is in Christ Jesus,” (Rom. 3:24) we should understand the grace of God (τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι) instrumentally (causa instrumentalis) on God‟s part (parte Dei). The Scriptures clearly use grace as an instrument in justification, but we do not gain anything by simply rejecting Rome‟s definition of grace as a gift if we do not also acknowledge Scripture‟s use of χάρις 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 man‟s 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 21
Luther, Martin. Luther's Works. AE. 2. St. Louis: Concordia Pub. , 1968. 54. Print. The same word is used here for “grace” or “favor” as in Ruth 2:10 in the LXX.
Pr eus |8 Justification: Roman and Lutheran
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 Malloy‟s book gives a much more detailed critique than
In Job 34:6, KJV translates חציsimply as “my wound” even though it is literally translated “my arrow.” 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 χάρις: “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. 22 23
Pr eus |9 Justification: Roman and Lutheran
Nichol‟s 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 Vatican‟s 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 Malloy, 275; Malloy says (277): “The editorial development of the JD‟s 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. 27
P r e u s | 10 Justification: Roman and Lutheran
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. Malloy‟s 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 Annex‟s 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. Augustine‟s 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 31
Malloy, 279 Kolb, Sources and Contexts, 107-08
P r e u s | 11 Justification: Roman and Lutheran
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 Sünder).”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 JD‟s 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 Denzinger, 1462 34 Nichols, 377-78 33
P r e u s | 12 Justification: Roman and Lutheran
that the assent of so many (80) of its 124 member churches constitutes, in the Federation‟s 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)ELS 36, 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 (ἐπιθυμία; 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 Synod‟s (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. 37 Denzinger, 1463; Annex, 2.B
P r e u s | 13 Justification: Roman and Lutheran
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 Christian‟s 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 Justification: Roman and Lutheran
about battling the flesh by putting on the Lord Jesus Christ. We don‟t 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 God‟s 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 God‟s 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 Justification: Roman and Lutheran
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 God‟s grace, Christians “mold themselves in [Christ‟s] image” by following in His footsteps.41
40 41
CCC, 44, 155; quoted from Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica II-II, 2,9 Documents of Vatican II. Baltimore: The American Press. 1966. 66-67.
P r e u s | 16 Justification: Roman and Lutheran
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 God‟s 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 Paul‟s 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 God‟s free forgiveness and justification of man for the sake of Christ‟s satisfying obedience unto death. The object of justifying faith is in Christ‟s 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 man‟s control, for man can reject God‟s 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 Justification: Roman and Lutheran
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 Christ‟s 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 God‟s 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 Christ‟s 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 Christ‟s 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 Justification: Roman and Lutheran
The Helsinki Lutherans found the reality of justification not in the imputation of Christ‟s righteousness, but rather in the mystical union. 47 The gospel itself becomes valuable only in its communication of God‟s 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 man‟s 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 Christ‟s 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 Christ‟s atoning sacrifice, God forgives and justifies man by faith apart from any merit or work on man‟s 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 Justification: Roman and Lutheran
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 Christ‟s 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 God‟s 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; Salvation‟s 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