Laidlaw CollegeTe Wananga Amorangi

Assignment Coversheet

Course: 204.715 Theology: Salvation in History and Beyond……………..CDL

Assignment Details

Assignment: Research Essay Date Due: Midnight Sunday end of semester week 9

Word count: 3500 words % of total grade: 45%

Expected time: 40 hours Lecturer CDL

Student Details

Name: Cameron Coombe Date Submitted: 27 September 2013

ID No.:

1130025 Word Count: 3667

Criteria – D + – C + – B + – A +

Writing Inadequate grasp of material

Answers the question but is not well written and lacks coherence

Mostly well written but uneven in quality and focus

Well writtenEngagingFocused

Creative IntegrationVery little original content or structure

Mostly a few sources cobbled together

Creative and integrated in part, but not consistent throughout

Creative.Own voice coming through.Good integration and unity to essay

Theological Method and Critical Interaction

Little real theological insight

Some theological insights but mostly reporting what others think

Good development, but inconsistent in terms of method and insight.Uneven level of critical analysis.

Theological insights are thoughtful.Good grasp of theological method. Critical interaction with the material.

Structure and Presenta-tion

Inadequate grasp of English, sloppy referencing, lack of bibliography

Adequate English but hard to understand, or frequent lapses of grammar or incomplete referencing

Good English and referencing on the whole. Some lapses.

Good English.Good use of referencing and bibliography

Letter Grade

A+ 9-10 Exceptional

A 8.5 Excellent

A- 8 Superior

B+ 7.5 Very good

B 7 Good

B- 6.5 Competent

C+ 6 Satisfactory

C 5.5 Acceptable

C- 5 Marginal

D 4 Unsatisfactory

E 1-3 Poor

Overall feedback

[Marker to insert overall comments]

Abbreviations

AC “The Augsburg Confession,” in Jaroslav Pelikan and Valerie Hotchkiss, eds., Creeds and Confessions of the Faith in Christian Tradition, vol 2 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2003), 53-118.

CCC Catholic Church, Catechism of the Catholic Church, trans. Libreria Editrice Vaticana (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius, 1994).

FC Ep “The Formula of Concord Epitome,” in Jaroslav Pelikan and Valerie Hotchkiss, eds., Creeds and Confessions of the Faith in Christian Tradition, vol 2 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2003), 168-203.

JD “Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification,” in Anthony S. Lane, Justification by Faith in Catholic-Protestant Dialogue: An Evangelical Assessment (New York, NY: T&T Clark, 2002), 239-259.

Introduction

Justification and sanctification have had a colourful history since the Reformation. Protestants were

so sold on the centrality of justification that they famously named it “the article by which the church

stands or falls.”1 Alan J. Spence writes of justification that “No other doctrine in the history of the

Church has given rise to so large a body of learned literature; has evoked so much passion and

controversy and has tragically fuelled an inter-Christian conflict of so implacable a nature.”2 For

Lutherans, justification is the message of the gospel and the base of all salvation, including

sanctification. Conversely, Catholics make no such distinction between justification and

sanctification, viewing justification as a process which includes sanctification, rather than a single

event.

This essay will follow Luther's unique development of the doctrine of justification and its further

reshaping in the later Lutheran confessions, laying the foundation for Lutheran orthodoxy. It will

then compare this with the Catholic doctrines of justification and sanctification developed at the

Council of Trent, and their recapitulation in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Finally, it will

assess these traditions in light of 20th Century Catholic-Lutheran dialogue on justification, the

1 Alister McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification (Kindle Edition) (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2005), vii.

2 Alan J. Spence, Justification: A Guide for the Perplexed (New York, NY: T&T Clark International, 2012), 1.

Finnish school on Luther's rediscovery of the importance of union with Christ in Luther's thought,

and Liberationist critiques of justification.

Unfortunately, for want of space, this essay lacks many important dialogue partners such as the

New Perspective on Paul, Karl Barth's exploration of justification, and Reformed and Arminian

approaches.

Justification in Lutheran Tradition

Although it was later revised, Luther's understanding of justification and sanctification played a

significant role in shaping Lutheran theology. Luther prioritised soteriology over ecclesiology,

viewing the doctrine of justification in the church of his day as Pelagian.3 Justification, as an

extension of Christology, is the goal of theology, bringing ultimate glory to Christ, as opposed to

sanctification which is merely an extension of justification.4

Distinctive to Luther's theology was the passivity of humans in justification through the bondage of

the will, being completely dependent upon grace for righteousness.5 In contrast to Augustine, Luther

understood God's righteousness not as something belonging to his nature but the gift by which he

justifies sinners.6 This justification was sourced in Christ's alien righteousness, located in Christ and

completely extrinsic to the believer, who, though justified remains a sinner (simul iustus et

peccator).7 Effectively, the believer is as great a sinner as the unbeliever,8 but God overlooks the

remaining sin because he knows it will one day be fully eradicated.9 Luther's sharp awareness of the

totality of human sin led him to frame justification as so entirely external and Christological that the

3 McGrath, 223.4 David P. Scaer, "Sanctification in the Lutheran Confessions," Concordia Theological Quarterly 53, no. 3 (July 1,

1989): 166.5 McGrath, 220-221.6 Ibid., 222; Spence, 63.7 McGrath, 226-227.8 Spence, 72-74.9 McGrath, 227.

believer even receives faith in it.10 This was closely related to his teaching on the bondage of the

will and double predestination.11

In contrast to medieval justification which was based upon the individual's ability to do that which

was in them (quod in se est), Luther contended that humans could not fulfil this so that God himself

met the demand through Christ.12 The role of the law was to show the individual that they were a

sinner, so that seeking righteousness through it would only yield condemnation.13 However, for

Luther good works were in a sense still necessary to salvation, as they demonstrated its reality even

though they did not cause it.14 Although Luther's understanding of intrinsic righteousness through

union with Christ was also an important part of his soteriology, it largely faded with later

Lutheranism and thus will be explored in a separate section below.

Melanchthon followed Luther and developed his concept of alien righteousness, defining it as God's

declaring the sinner as righteous, and distinguishing it from regeneration, based on Erasmus's new

translation of the Vulgate, which also defined righteousness in forensic terms.15 The Augsburg

Confession followed Luther's Christocentric justification, stating “men cannot be justified before

God by their own strengths, merits, or works but are freely justified for Christ's sake through faith,”

faith itself being imputed.16 This would provide comfort for those who had tried yet failed to uphold

the law.17 Similarly, the Formula of Concord stated that God forgives and imputes righteousness not

on the basis of any “preceding, present, or subsequent work.”18

The two documents distinguished between justification and sanctification. The Augsburg

10 Ibid., 229.11 Ibid., 230; Spence, 71.12 McGrath, 223.13 Spence, 64.14 McGrath, 231-232.15 Ibid., 238-240.16 AC 4.1, 3; McGrath, 240.17 AC 20.15-18.18 FC Ep 3.4.

Confession curtly states that after justification, “good works, which are the fruits of repentance, are

bound to follow.”19 Good works are necessary not to gain merit but because they are commanded,20

the Holy Spirit renewing the heart to make them possible.21 Faith thus does not forbid but enable

good works.22 The Formula of Concord made this distinction clear in that all biblical references to

justification were to be interpreted as nothing other than the absolution of sin.23 Even regeneratio

and vivificatio are to be interpreted forensically if the context suggests justification.24 Although faith

always produces good works, they “do not belong in the article of justification.”25 Faith,

righteousness, and justification are in no way dependent upon sanctification and the works it

brings,26 the believer remaining saved not through works but the Holy Spirit.27 Like the Augsburg

Confession, all are commanded to do good,28 yet good works, “like fruits of a good tree, certainly

and indubitably follow genuine faith.”29 One Lutheran notes, “only the Lutheran position on

sanctification, when properly stated, is the only one among the major western religions which offers

a doctrine of sanctification which is not intrinsically moralistic.”30 Sanctification, grounded in

external justification, cannot be measured by good works.31 In the tradition of simul iustus et

peccator, the justified still fall short of the law “down to their graves,” yet nonetheless maintain

certitude regarding their justification.32 The Formula nonetheless took a softer stance on good

works, revising Luther's polemical statements and calling it “offensive” and “subversive” to say that

say that they can hinder salvation.33

19 AC 12.6.20 AC 20.27; McGrath, 247.21 AC 20.29.22 AC 20.35.23 FC Ep 3.15.24 FC Ep 3.7-8.25 FC Ep 3.11; cf. 4.7.26 FC Ep 3.19, 20, 23.27 FC Ep 4.15.28 FC Ep 4.8.29 FC Ep 4.6.30 Scaer, 165.31 Ibid., 170.32 FC Ep 3.9.33 FC Ep 3.17.

Justification in Catholic Tradition

Early Roman Catholic responses to Luther were not so much concerned with his theology of

justification as with issues such as indulgences and the papacy, peripheral to Luther's soteriological

concerns.34 Similar approaches to justification were already hinted at in Italians such as Gasparo

Contarini,35 and the later “Evangelism” movement.36 As Protestant views of justification gained

prominence, the Diet of Regensburg was initiated from Rome for the purpose of dialogue, but failed

in that it only addressed surface issues.37 Later the Council of Trent was convened, not so much to

settle the many differences between Catholic theologians as to identify unifying themes in contrast

to Protestant theologies.38 Catholic theologians at Trent came from a range of backgrounds, though

interestingly the teachings associated with these backgrounds “exercised considerably less influence

upon the proceedings on justification than might be expected.”39 This may be because the issues

raised by the Protestants were new issues that could not be resolved completely with reference to

previous teachings, or more likely because of “an increasingly independent intellectual environment

... which enabled theologians to break free from the thought patterns of the medieval theological

schools.”40 Whatever the case, Trent became the new authoritative foundation for a Catholic

understanding of justification and sanctification.

Concerns at Trent regarding justification included whether justification included sanctification, the

relationship between faith and works, the role of the active human will, the relationship between

justification and baptism and penance, and how humans could be certain of their justification,

among other things.41 Some such as Marcus Laureus defined justification purely as remission of

sins, without reference to regeneration, liberally interpreting Aquinas.42 Some Franciscans also

34 McGrath, 308.35 Ibid., 310-311.36 Ibid., 316-317.37 Ibid., 315.38 Ibid., 318.39 Ibid., 324.40 Ibid.41 McGrath, 324-325.42 Ibid., 326.

subscribed to a purely extrinsic understanding of justification.43 But against the Protestants, Trent

understood that justification was based not merely on imputed righteousness, but required the sinner

to also become righteous, interpreting the Protestant distinction between justification and

sanctification as an “exclusion of any transformational dimension from Christian existence

altogether.”44 Gerald O'Collins illustrates this in defining justification as a “perfomative utterance,”

so that “if a jury says at the end of a trial, 'we find the accused not guilty,' that statement does things

and transforms the situation: the accused is free to walk away.”45 Whereas Protestants excluded the

necessity of works from the initiation of justification, Trent interpreted this as exclusion of the

importance of works altogether.46 Following this logic, Trent condemned sola fide, writing that

justification was on the basis of faith and works.47 Similarly, faith was understood as necessary but

not sufficient, as it must be united with love.48

Trent's inclusion of works in the definition of justification gave rise to the difficulty of double

justification, that is justification on the basis of both imputed and inherent righteousness. This was

soon condemned.49 Because God made sinners righteous through inherent righteousness, there

seemed no need for double justification, let alone imputed righteousness by itself.50 Other

differences included the rejection of simul iustus et peccator because the justified do not remain

sinners but in a state of concupiscence, propensity to sin.51 The formal cause of justification was

completely based in the righteousness of God, imputed righteousness contributing nothing.52

Although there was great difference of opinion among the theologians at Trent, the council

43 Ibid., 327.44 Ibid., 329.45 Gerald O'Collins, S.J., “Traditional Reformed View: Roman Catholic Response,” in Justification: Five Views, eds.

James K. Beilby, and Paul Rhodes Eddy (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2011), 127.46 McGrath, 329.47 Ibid., 329-330.48 Gerald O'Collins, S. J., and Oliver P. Rafferty, S. J., “Roman Catholic View,” in Justification: Five Views, eds. James

K. Beilby, and Paul Rhodes Eddy (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2011), 280.49 Ibid., 279.50 McGrath, 331-333.51 O'Collins and Rafferty, 288; Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, “Deification View,” in Justification: Five Views, eds. James K.

Beilby, and Paul Rhodes Eddy (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2011), 231.52 McGrath, 340.

ultimately rejected the Lutheran position on certitude because of the necessary fallibility of faith.53

There were differing opinions on Luther at Trent, one Cardinal warning that “not everything Luther

said was to be rejected just because he had said it.”54 Clear influence of Protestant theology can be

seen in Trent maintaining that justification is given freely, not on the basis of works or even faith, 55

and, although naming justification a single process, preserving the Protestant distinction between

justification and sanctification in identifying “first” and “second” justification.56

The term “justification” gradually disappeared from Catholic homiletical and catechetical literature,

although Karl Rahner explored it and reaffirmed the traditional Catholic stance,57 and the 1992

Catechism of the Catholic Church accorded some value to the doctrine.58 Citing Trent, the

Catechism maintains that justification is not merely remission of sins but sanctification.59

Justification “detaches man from sin,” not just absolving it but renewing the heart and setting free. 60

Additionally, it is synergistic, established through the cooperation of grace and human freedom,61

grace being present before conversion to prepare the individual for justification.62 The Catechism

revises Trent's position that ultimate certitude is not possible, suggesting it is effectively attainable,

as “reflection on God's blessings in our life and in the lives of the saints offers us a guarantee that

grace is at work in us.”63 Merit, awarded for good works, is a result of God's grace,64 looking to final

justification as believers “rightly hope for the grace of final perseverance and the recompense of

53 Ibid., 336-337; O'Collins and Rafferty, 280-281.54 O'Collins and Rafferty, 279.55 McGrath, 339, 341.56 Ibid., 342.57 Paul Rhodes Eddy, James K. Beilby, and Stephen E. Eenderlein, “Justification in Historical Perspective,” in

Justification: Five Views, eds. James K. Beilby, and Paul Rhodes Eddy (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2011), 30-31.

58 McGrath, 355-356; Eddy, Beilby, and Eenderlein, 29-30.59 CCC, 1989, 1995.60 CCC, 1990, 1991.61 CCC, 1993, 2002; O'Collins and Rafferty, 268.62 CCC, 2001; O'Collins and Rafferty, 280.63 CCC, 2005, emphasis added.64 CCC, 2008, 2009; O'Collins and Rafferty, 269.

God their Father for the good work accomplished with his grace in communion with Jesus.”65

20th Century Catholic-Lutheran Dialogue

Alister McGrath writes that his own reading of systematic theologies written post-WWII from

Catholic, Lutheran, and other traditions “does not suggest that there is any emerging consensus that

the language and conceptual framework of the doctrine of justification is about to be recovered

within mainline Christian theology,” so that “the only consensus that I can discern is a growing

sense that these belong to the past.”66 Regardless, the ecumenical spirit of Vatican II encouraged a

new enthusiasm for dialogue between historically antagonistic traditions. The Catholic theologian

Hans Küng's book, Justification, was an important step in identifying common ground between

Catholic and Lutheran justification.67 Another important document was the 1983 Justification by

Faith, identifying major points of convergence such as justification's forensic nature, and

characterising differences as “complementary rather than contradictory,” such as extrinsic and

intrinsic righteousness.68

Catholic-Lutheran dialogue culminated in the 1997 Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of

Justification.69 The summary states that Catholics and Lutherans have reached a “consensus in the

basic truths of the doctrine of justification” and, with this clarification, notes that the condemnations

from Trent and the Lutheran confessions do not apply either to the teaching of Lutheran churches or

the Catholic Church, respectively.70 Areas of difference which are mutually acknowledged to hold

validity by either party include the centrality and complementarity of justification in wider

soteriology,71 the passivity and cooperation of the human will in justification,72 external and intrinsic

65 CCC, 2016.66 McGrath, 406.67 Ibid., 414-415.68 Ibid., 415-416.69 See JD, 3, for a list of other important Lutheran-Catholic dialogues70 JD, 13, 40, 41.71 JD, 18.72 JD, 19-21.

righteousness,73 declarative and renewing justification,74 sin and concupiscence after justification,75

infallible and limited certitude,76 and rewards in connection with works and unmerited rewards.77 In

light of the survey so far, these are significant points of consensus. The articles consistently stress

that behind either tradition's respective stances are legitimate concerns regarding how too much

emphasis on aspects of the other's doctrine of justification lead to questionable theological, even

practical, implications. So while Lutherans would maintain infallible certitude as not to undermine

the efficacy of God's saving power, Catholics would maintain a limited certitude as not to overstate

the ability of humans to believe for their salvation.78

The Declaration, however, does not cover all Lutheran-Catholic differences, such as the Lutheran

doctrine of imputed righteousness, and may be attempting unity through silence.79 Additionally, the

Declaration was not without theological difficulty, with a group of over 150 Lutheran theologians

signing a statement of opposition in 1998.80 Lingering concerns among Lutherans include such as

defining justification transformatively, Catholic differentiation between sin and concupiscence, and

the Declaration's description of justification “in faith” rather than “through faith.”81 While most

concerns expressed have come from Protestants, the Vatican was largely supportive of the

Declaration and was also accepted by the Lutheran synod.82 However, some Catholics continue to

have reservations concerning aspects of Lutheran justification expressed in the Declaration, such as

the non-imputation of sins without reference to justifying transformation, and the denial of human

cooperation with grace.83 Interestingly, Lutherans have maintained the general Reformation

73 JD, 22-24.74 JD, 25-27.75 JD, 28-30.76 JD, 34-36.77 JD, 37-40.78 JD, 34-36.79 Anthony N. S. Lane, Justification by Faith in Catholic-Protestant Dialogue: An Evangelical Assessment (New York,

NY: T&T Clark, 2002), 126, 224.80 Ibid., 121.81 Ted M. Dorman, "The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification: Retrospect and Prospects," Journal of the

Evangelical Theological Society 44, no. 3 (September 1, 2001): 428-429.82 Lane, 121-126.83 Dorman, 427.

concerns regarding justification, whereas many Catholics have progressively moved in this

direction, warming to these concerns.84 While not providing a decisive answer to theological

differences, the Declaration surely highlights the value of dialogue, allowing historically opposed

traditions to better understand and appreciate the underlying reasons for holding to a particular

doctrine of justification.

Union with Christ: A Finnishing Touch on Luther

The Finnish school on Luther has identified aspects in Luther's theology similar to the Eastern

Orthodox concept of deification. Luther claimed that through faith, the individual enters into union

with Christ, participating in his righteousness through his presence,85 and receiving both his divine

person and his work.86 This union is “'real-ontic,' not just a subjective experience or God's 'effect' on

the believer,” with the believer receiving God's essential properties, God himself.87 Here Luther's

doctrine of justification is both forensic, through grace (gratia), and effective, through gift (donum),

justifying the sinner both externally and internally.88 The gratia, Christ's alien righteousness, is the

foundation for human righteousness and good works, developed through the donum of Christ's self-

giving.89 Luther viewed justification as a process, anticipating the consummation of righteousness,90

closer to the position of Trent than is often otherwise thought.91 But this aspect of Luther's thought

faded into the background as Lutheranism developed, Melanchthon reading Luther's justification in

strictly forensic terms.92 By the time of the Formula of Concord, a strict demarcation between

extrinsic and intrinsic justification had developed, the latter becoming sanctification.93

84 Lane, 226.85 McGrath, 225.86 Kärkkäinen, “Deification,” 223-224; idem., “The Holy Spirit and Justification: The Ecumenical Significance of

Luther's Doctrine of Salvation,” PNEUMA The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies 24, no. 1 (Spring 2002): 31-32.

87 Kärkkäinen, “Deification,” 225-226.88 Roland Chia, “Salvation as Justification and Deification,” Scottish Journal of Theology 64, no. 2 (May 2011): 133;

McGrath, 225; Kärkkäinen, “Deification,” 227.89 Kärkkäinen, “Deification,” 227-228; Chia, 134.90 McGrath, 227.91 Ibid., 232.92 Kärkkäinen, “Holy Spirit,” 26.93 Chia, 134.

Although deification has not played a large part in Catholic theology, “the concept … has been

more acceptable for the simple reason that their understanding of salvation includes the idea of

making righteous rather than merely pronouncing just in the eyes of God.”94 The Catechism of the

Catholic Church refers to deification under its section on justification, citing Athanasius.95 The Joint

Declaration, following Luther, presents renewal in terms of union with Christ,96 a mediating

position between Lutheran forensic and Catholic effective justification, though maintaining the

traditional distinction between justification and sanctification.97 Highlighting deification in Luther's

theology has also been helpful for dialogue between Lutherans and Eastern Orthodox churches,

maintaining even such central concepts as simul iustus et peccator, though elsewhere running into

trouble with such as Eastern Orthodoxy's synergistic understanding of salvation.98

Incorporating Luther's theology of union with Christ into Lutheran theology clearly has ecumenical

value, with regards to justification, specifically illustrating the unity of justification and

sanctification. However, if differences between Catholic and Lutheran justification are explained

away with reference to union with Christ, then it begs the questions of what Luther was really

concerned about in the first place and how distinct his theological contribution actually was.

Rereading Luther should not discourage serious consideration of the legitimacy of his concerns.

Additionally, before the fruits of this conversation hold validity for traditional confessional

Lutherans, a discussion needs to be had on which sources will be authoritative among Lutherans.

Other than Scripture, of course, Lutherans will need to decide to what extent they accept Luther's

concept of union with Christ and its implications for justification, and read it in light of or against

later confessions such as the Augsburg Confession and the Formula of Concord, which maintain a

94 Kärkkäinen, “Deification,” 220.95 CCC, 1988; cf. 460.96 JD, 23.97 Kärkkäinen, “Deification,” 229-230.98 Kärkkäinen, “Holy Spirit,” 28-30; Kärkkäinen, “Deification,” 221.

clear distinction between justification and sanctification.99

Liberating Lutherans from Justification

The Joint Declaration notes that one issue requiring further clarification in Catholic-Lutheran

dialogue is “the relation between justification and social ethics.”100 A major 20th Century

development in Catholic theology was Liberation theology, which quickly became a unique

tradition in itself. Although justification is not a dominant theme in Liberation theology,101 its basic

concerns provide a helpful framework for assessing the soteriological value of justification. As well

as being critical of the Catholic milieu from which they arose, when approaching justification,

Liberationists have been especially concerned with Lutheran theology. In light of this, Juan Luis

Segundo can claim that Catholic theology of merit, affirming “the 'eternal' worth of human effort

and intention,” allowed for the discovery of the worth of historical salvation through liberation,

whereas a Protestant emphasis on the metahistorical, eschatological deliverance anticipated through

faith, means that “the historical factor is not of equal importance.”102 Whereas Lutherans have

maintained the traditional distinction between justification and justice, Liberationists have stressed

their interdependence.103 To what extent would have the rise of Liberation theology been different if

South America was predominantly Lutheran rather than Catholic?104 By separating God and

humanity, faith and works, Lutheran justification emphasises human passivity and has less to offer

Liberation theology.105 If liberation is completely in God's hands, “What group or thrust or ideology

is ushering the kingdom of God into historical reality?”106 Such passivity “can only produce despair

in the Latin American.”107 If justification does not lead to liberation then it can hardly be named the

99 FC Ep, 3.11.100 JD, 43.101 See the examples in Eddy, Beilby, and Eenderlein, 41-42.102 Juan Luis Segundo, S. J., The Liberation of Theology, trans. John Drury (Mary Knoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1976), 142.103 Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, "The Lutheran Doctrine of Justification in the Global Context," Currents in Theology and

Mission 38, no. 1 (February 1, 2011): 10.104 This, of course, is ultimately an unfair question, but indicates the relationship between Liberation theology and the

Catholic emphasis placed on the importance of sanctification and good works.105 Segundo, 143.106 Ibid., 147.107 Ibid., 148.

article on which the church stands or falls.

Additionally, Lutheran justification tends to focus on the personal at the expense of the socio-

economic and political levels.108 This individual focus can be seen in the Augsburg Confession's

statement: “Consciences used to be plagued by the doctrine of works when consolation from the

gospel was not heard.”109 Although these are legitimate psychological concerns, to soothe the

conscience despite external circumstances inadvertently undermines the value of the historically

realised, political liberation from these circumstances. This is not to say that Catholic soteriologies

are free from the same individualistic concerns, but only that their incorporation of regeneration

into the doctrine of justification, among other differences with Lutherans which affirm the external

with the internal, are further along the trajectory towards a Liberation theology.

There is no doubt some positive content in Lutheran justification which can encourage liberation,

setting believers free to do good works apart from the law and outlining the ultimate equality of all

people under God through faith.110 Additionally, the simul iustus et peccator tradition is a perennial

reminder of the fallibility of human efforts, even for liberation. It should be a reminder that

although the people of God rightly strive for and demand justice, that same potential for evil

remains in their hearts. So when the Israelites were liberated they were told, “The alien who resides

with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were

aliens in the land of Egypt” (Lev 19:34). What is more, all liberation, though realised through

human efforts, is sourced in the biblical tradition of God's liberation of Israel through history and

person of Jesus, such that all liberation rightly acknowledges and praises its divine source (Exod

14:13-14).

What, then, Shall We Say?

108 Kärkkäinen, “Global,” 11.109 AC, 20.19.110 Kärkkäinen, “Global,” 11.

Luther developed a theology of justification in which the individual was completely passive,

remaining a sinner but declared righteous by God. For Luther, good works were an expression, not a

cause of this salvation. The later confessions developed Luther's thought, presenting a completely

external, forensic concept of justification and distinguishing it from sanctification. Despite its

muddled origins, the Council of Trent produced what was to become standard for subsequent

Catholic approaches to justification and sanctification. Trent affirmed the necessity of sanctification

and, with that, good works, in the doctrine of justification. Additionally, fundamental Lutheran

concepts such as simul iustus et peccator were rejected. Catholic understanding of justification and

sanctification did not change much in subsequent years, the 1992 Catechism affirming Trent.

In the 20th Century, increasing Catholic-Lutheran dialogue allowed adherents from both traditions to

better understand the positions of the other side. The 1997 Joint Declaration identified various

differences as complementary, though its reception was not completely positive, especially by

Lutherans. Both sides maintained their respective concerns with the other's presentation of

justification as forensic or transformative. The Finnish school on Luther has identified

transformative and effective aspects of Luther's theology of justification through union with Christ.

This is helpful for bringing Catholics and Lutherans together where they have been historically

separated, though it may undermine the uniqueness of Luther's contribution to justification and

meet opposition among confessional Lutherans. Liberation theology is an important paradigm for

critiquing passivity in the Lutheran doctrine of justification, as well as individualism in justification

in general. Conversely, aspects of Lutheranism such as simul iustus et peccator may find legitimate

expression in the ongoing development of Liberation theology.

It is yet unclear where Lutheran and Catholic conversations on justification and sanctification will

end up, though I hope each will continue to listen and contend with each other, continually

returning to the testimony of Scripture and the countless faithful who have gone before them,

preaching a doctrine of justification and sanctification which is true to these and the ongoing task of

bringing the good news of the gospel.

Bibliography

Beilby, James K. and Paul Rhodes Eddy, eds. Justification: Five Views. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2011.

Catholic Church. Catechism of the Catholic Church. Translated by Libreria Editrice Vaticana. San Francisco, CA: Ignatius, 1994

Chia, Roland. “Salvation as Justification and Deification.” Scottish Journal of Theology 64, no. 2 (May 2011): 125-139.

Dorman, Ted M. "The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification: Retrospect and Prospects." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 44, no. 3 (September 1, 2001): 421-434.

Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti. "The Lutheran Doctrine of Justification in the Global Context." Currents in Theology and Mission 38, no. 1 (February 1, 2011): 4-16.

———. “The Holy Spirit and Justification: The Ecumenical Significance of Luther's Doctrine of Salvation.” PNEUMA The Journal of the Society for Pentecostal Studies 24, no. 1 (Spring 2002): 26-39.

Lane, Anthony N. S. Justification by Faith in Catholic-Protestant Dialogue: An Evangelical Assessment. New York, NY: T&T Clark International, 2002.

McGrath, Alistair. Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification (Kindle Edition). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Pelikan, Jaroslav and Valerie Hotchkiss, eds. Creeds and Confessions of the Faith in Christian Tradition. 3 vols. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2003.

Scaer, David P. "Sanctification in the Lutheran Confessions." Concordia Theological Quarterly 53, no. 3 (July 1, 1989): 165-181.

Segundo, Juan Luis, S. J. The Liberation of Theology. Translated by John Drury. Mary Knoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1976.

Spence, Alan J. Justification: A Guide for the Perplexed. New York, NY: T&T Clark International, 2012.