4 - 1998

Joint Declaration on Justification

New Consensuses, Defused Conflicts and Protestant Anxieties

by Wolfhart Pannenberg

The demarcation line against Rome was for a long time an effective integration factor within Protestantism. After Vatican II this boundary appeared to be overcome. The author criticises the statement of the Protestant professors, which appears to invoke the ancient ghosts, and acknowledges essential beginnings made with the Joint Declaration.

The demarcation line against Rome has been for a long time an effective identity factor for Protestantism. The opinion researcher Gerhard Schmidtchen pointed to its effectiveness many years ago. It was thought that after the ecumenical awakening of the Second Vatican Council the significance of this factor, at least among Protestant theologians, would diminish. However, the statement of a large number of German Protestant theologians from January 1998 against the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification which was negotiated with Rome by the Lutheran World Federation is a reminder of it.

The second of the seven articles of the statement of these professors is aimed against the Declaration's claim to be able to set forth a "consensus in basic truths of the doctrine of justification". Is that correct?

The Joint Declaration speaks with Paul about the Gospel as "the message which gives 'justification'"(par. 10). It asserts the conveyance of justification "through faith in the gospel of the Son of God (Romans 1:1-3)" (par. 11) and speaks of "faith which comes from the Word of Christ" (par. 12). Through Christ "alone we are made righteous, in that we receive this salvation in faith. This faith is itself God's gift through the Holy Spirit who works through word and sacrament in the community of believers" (par. 15). To what extent in this Declaration is a consensus on justification taking place solely through the word (and the sacraments administered according to the word) and being accepted by faith then missing?

Formulated Consensus

What about the consensus on the sinner being justified by faith alone? The Joint Declaration emphasizes: "It is solely by grace in faith in Christ's saving work and not because of any merit in us that we are accepted by God ..." (par. 15). Does the word "solely" here refer only to grace and not to faith? Stated without reservations at any rate is that "the sinner is justified by faith in the saving act of God in Christ" (par. 25). Faith here, unlike in some older formulations of Catholic teaching, is characterized comprehensively as the medium for the reception of justification. The wording "through faith alone" is admittedly characterized in the next article (26) as specifically Lutheran, but it is not thereby essentially contrasted with what was said before. Rather, this specifically Lutheran formulation is dealt with as being identical in content with the previous joint statement.

Is a consensus about faith's assurance of salvation missing? The Council of Trent condemned the Reformation teaching about assurance because it misunderstood it as certainty about one's own state of grace. The teaching of the Reformation, however, was based on the assurance of the promise of God. And so in the Joint Declaration now stands that the believers can (may) "build ... on the effective promise of God's grace in word and sacrament" and are thus sure of this grace (par.34, cf. 36). For the Catholic side as well is now stated that one cannot in complete faith "believe in God and at the same time consider the divine promise untrustworthy" (par. 36). Where is still a contradiction here?
In regard to the relationship between faith and works, the Statement also judges that there is no consensus. The Joint Declaration states that good works "follow" justification (par. 37). This is also not denied on the Lutheran side: Faith must result in good works (par. 25).Therefore good works are distinguished from justification but are not separated from it (par. 26).
"Whatever in the justified precedes or follows the free gift of faith is neither the basis of justification nor merits it" (par. 25). In this matter there is consensus. Admittedly the meritoriousness of good works is retained for the Catholic side in the sense that they "are promised according to the biblical witness a reward in heaven" (par.38). In regard to this "reward" the Lutherans do not speak of merit (par. 39). But is this any more than a difference of language? It is emphasized that for the Catholic side people's good works are due to the grace of God and that "justification always remains the unmerited gift of grace" (par. 38).

Unfounded Assertions

In all of these points which were contested at the time of the Reformation, the Declaration not only asserts but also formulates a consensus on the issues. The Statement aimed against it, however, merely asserts that in all of these points there is no consensus. Not a single argument is offered for why the consensus formulations of the Declaration should be incorrect. That surely cannot simply be assumed to be obvious, as though there were no need for proof of the asserted lack of substantial agreement. How can anyone who has read the text of the Joint Declaration agree to such unfounded assertions? Three points remain in which there are indeed problems. It is criticised that in the consensus formulation on the relationship between law and gospel (JD 31 - 33) it does not deal with the relationship between the Old and the New Testament. This is correct. However, no difference which divides the churches is asserted in this matter. Nonetheless the issue remains in need of clarification. Thereby the quite different meanings of the concepts "law" and "gospel" in the various biblical writings and their relationship to the Catholic and Reformation doctrines about this subject should be dealt with.

The second problematic point relates to the function of the doctrine of justification as "criterion" for the correctness of the life and teaching of the church. The applicable article in the Joint Declaration (18) was unfortunately changed for the worse in the final revision. In an earlier version of the text "a comprehensive critical and normative function" for teaching and practice of the church had been jointly attributed to the doctrine of justification because through the doctrine on the justification of the believer it would be "constantly focussed ... on the heart of the biblical witness to Christ."

In the final version of the text (Würzburg II from Jan. 18, 1997), an unhappily formulated distinction of the confessional positions in this question took the place of this good formulation. Jointly the doctrine of justification is merely termed "an" indispensable criterion, alongside of which for the Catholics "a number of criteria" are spoken of. This formulation on its own is unfortunate because it is not said what the other criteria are. If it were, for example, the dogma on the Pope from 1870, then there would indeed be at this point a fundamental difference. It would be something else if, for example, the unity in substance of the Son with the Father as meant by Nicea 325 were meant, especially since this formula (homoousios), in a way similar to the doctrine of justification, orients the whole doctrine and praxis of the Church toward God's salvation revealed in Christ. Eberhard Jüngel has also, by the way, conceded that in regard to the function of the doctrine of justification as criterion, the issue is not the "terminology of justification" (Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche 94, 1997, 402). But then can this doctrine as such, which is surely not to be separated from its terminology, be the criterion, or is this rather to be seen in the act of salvation of God in Jesus Christ, toward whom the doctrine orients? Here lack of clarity remains on both sides.

The by far most important substantial difference, for which no solution was found in the Joint Declaration, concerns the relationship between baptism, sin and justification, which is dealt with in the Declaration under the problematic title "The Justified as Sinners" (par.28-30). Jointly stated, admittedly, is "that the Holy Ghost in baptism unites the person with Christ, justifies and truly renews him", but that nonetheless the baptised Christian, too, is not exempt from the onslaught of sin" and must lead a lifelong struggle against it (par. 28).
The joint understanding of this issue is questioned, because it is asserted for the Catholic side that the remaining evil desires (concupiscence) in the baptised are not to be regarded, "properly speaking, as sin" (par. 30) - a thesis that contradicts not only Pauline usage (Romans 7:5ff.) but also that of Augustine. The reason given, that "according to the Catholic understanding a personal element belongs to sin" (ibid.), is only understandable for the single sin of commission but not in regard to original sin. Therefore it also does not do justice to the Catholic teaching.
The controversial question, whether original sin is eradicated after baptism or merely no longer attributed, remains untouched. Indeed, par. 30 calls upon Paul's statement in Romans 8:1, that for those who are in Jesus Christ there is no longer condemnation, but this statement applies to the Christians insofar as they are precisely "in Christ" through baptism and faith. That could also have been the key to the solution. For the baptised Christian is "in Christ" a new human being, a new person, a new creature (II. Kor. 5:17). That he is a "sinner" no longer applies for him. Thus the Lutheran formulation "at the same time justified and sinner" is not found in Paul. As new persons "in Christ" Christians are free from sin, though for the rest of their lives they will have to continue to struggle with sin "in the flesh". Further clarification is needed here.

Further Efforts Towards Agreement Necessary

At this point it becomes especially clear that the different Protestant and Roman-Catholic understandings in the single statements cannot easily be termed different "developments" of what is commonly held, as the Joint Declaration asserts rather euphemistically (par. 14, par. 40). These are much more originally contradictory positions whose difference today is defused by the consensus formulations. In the question of the relationship between baptism, sin and justification this has not yet succeeded. On the other hand, one can very well speak of a consensus about justification "in faith" in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, about faith's assurance of salvation and about the relationship between faith and works. This should legitimate the claim of the Declaration that "a consensus in basic truths of the doctrine of justification exists" (par. 40), although in several places further efforts toward agreement still remain necessary.

The "Statement" written against the Declaration does not do justice to these facts. It denies the asserted consensus without giving factual reasons. In Article III of the Statement concern is expressed that the Declaration "could become normative for the interpretation of the Lutheran confessional writings". Compulsion through church law which would limit the freedom of interpretation of the Lutheran confessions is in no way connected with the acceptance of the Joint Declaration. These are Protestant anxieties which lack real foundation. The assertion linked with them that the Lutheran confessional writings were then no longer to be interpreted in the sense of justification "through faith alone" is completely false. This assertion clearly contradicts the text of the Joint Declaration itself (par. 12, 15, 25f.).

Protestant fears are also expressed in Art. V of the Statement. According to this, the Joint Declaration would be a "building block within a whole specific ecumenical program, ... which leads by way of a series of doctrinal consensuses toward the integration of the Protestant clergy, too, in the structure of the Roman Catholic hierarchy." This fear is also unfounded and has no real grounds in the reception of the Declaration in any case.

Certainly a series of further consensuses are needed on the way to a eucharistic fellowship which is mutually agreed upon by the churches' leadership, particularly about Holy Communion itself and about the church's ministry which is called to administer the sacraments. The goal of the ecumenical process is not the incorporation of the Protestant clergy in the Roman Catholic hierarchy, but rather the formal mutual recognition between the existing churches, so that they accept one another in the full sense as churches of the one Lord Jesus Christ: "To remain churches and to become one church", as Joseph Ratzinger has said. To call for intercommunion now, already, without such complete reconciliation of the still-separated churches and their teachings, ignores the connection between eucharistic community and church community, which is established through the common participation in the one Body of Christ (I Cor. 10:17). If the way toward such complete reconciliation, which must also include the reconciliation with Rome (though without the subordination to papal jurisdiction), is refused, then the invitation to Catholics to participate in the Protestant Lord's Supper (Art. VI of the Statement) is a call to infidelity in the relationship to their own church community. This cannot be the meaning of Protestant ecumenism. Joint Communion presupposes the clarification of the differences in the teachings of the churches which are not yet completely removed (or anticipates it). The Joint Declaration on Justification is a necessary step on this path.

Wolfhart Pannenberg is Professor Emeritus for Systematic Theology and was for many years a member of the WCC-Commission on Faith and Order. He lives in Munich. First published in "idea", 2.2.1998; reprinted in "epd.Dokumentation" 11/98. Slightly abridged translation.