The article of justification is said to be the article of the standing or falling of the church.[1] “And upon this article all things depend which we teach and practice in opposition to the Pope, the devil, and the [whole] world. Therefore, we must be sure concerning this doctrine, and not doubt; for otherwise all is lost, and the Pope and devil and all things gain the victory and suit over us.”[2] It is no doubt that the doctrine of justification has been one of the most important issues in the history of the church, causing rifts and reformation throughout Christendom. It is this doctrine that is at the heart of the gospel message and I echo one theologian, “If we get justification wrong, we get the gospel wrong.”[3] The 16th century monk, Martin Luther, initiated the most significant reformation concerning the doctrine of justification because Rome did not submit itself to the authority and sufficiency of the scriptures alone. In 1999, the Roman Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation attempted to create a “common understanding of our justification by God’s grace through faith in Christ” as stated in the preamble of The Joint Declaration, which will be a focus of this article. Does this Joint Declaration satisfy the Catholic and Protestant teaching of justification, thereby allowing both to claim together a unified gospel message? To that I answer, no.
Assessment of The Joint Declaration
The Joint Declaration makes multiple insufficient claims about justification in the attempt to unify the Roman Catholic church and the protestant Lutheran church, ultimately attempting to nullify the condemnations given to Rome in the 16th century. It seems to neglect the history of both parties involved, particularly on the Roman side, in which statements made in the Joint Declaration would anathematize Rome according to its own dogmas given at the Council of Trent. One example of this is found in section three, part fifteen, “Together we confess (Rome and Luther): By 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…” One need only look to Canon XX in the Council of Trent which states, “If any one saith, that the man who is justified and how perfect soever, is not bound to observe the commandments of God and of the Church, but only to believe; as if indeed the Gospel were a bare and absolute promise of eternal life, without the condition of observing the commandments: let him be anathema.”[4] Lutherans can agree with this statement without reservation as is produced in their own Lutheran dogmas, “We believe, also, teach, and confess that Faith alone is the means and instrument whereby we lay hold on Christ the Saviour, and so in Christ lay hold on that righteousness which is able to stand before the judgment of God; for that faith, for Christ’s sake, is imputed to us for righteousness.”[5] It would be impossible for Rome to uphold this statement in the Joint Declaration and agree with the Lutherans in that we are accepted by God, not because of any meritorious work on our part, contrary to what their doctrine clearly states in “observing the commandments” as a condition for justification. Francis Turretin confirms this when he asks in his Institutes of Elenctic Theology, “Is the impulsive and meritorious cause (on account of which man is justified in the judgement of God) inherent righteousness infused into us or our good works?” His answer, “We deny against the Romists.”[6] Furthermore, consider John Owen’s exposition of Romans 1:17 when he says, “Righteousness of all things, should rather seem to be from works unto works, – from the work of grace in us to the works of obedience done by us, as the Papists affirm. ‘No,’ saith the apostle, it is ‘from faith to faith’” [7] If Rome is affirming in the Joint Declaration that we are justified not based upon any meritorious works on our part, according to Trent, they are anathematizing themselves. If Rome is denying that we are justified by faith alone and place a condition of works upon justification, according to the apostle Paul, they are adding to scripture and taking away from the work of Christ, to which the warnings of Revelation 22:18-19 should bring great fear.
Another inconsistency within the Joint Declaration would be the supposed consensus on the assurance of salvation. In the declaration it is stated that both parties, “confess together that the faithful can rely on the mercy and promises of God. In spite of their own weakness and the manifold threats to their faith, on the strength of Christ’s death and resurrection they can build on the effective promise of God’s grace in Word and Sacrament and so be sure of this grace.”[8] According to what is taught in the Council of Trent in Canon XVI, “If anyone saith, that he will for certain, of an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance unto the end, – unless he have learned this by special revelation : let him be anathema.”[9] It is most reasonable then to maintain that any surety of grace and perseverance unto the end is rejected by the Roman Catholic church; moreover it is anathematizing. The Lutheran Formula of Concord affirms this assurance of salvation when it states, “We believe, teach, and confess, moreover, that, although they that truly believe in Christ and are born again are even to the hour of death obnoxious to many infirmities and stains, yet they ought not to doubt either of the righteousness which is imputed to them through faith or concerning their eternal salvation, but rather are they firmly to be convinced that, for Christ’s sake, according to the promise and unshaken word of the gospel, they have God reconciled to them.”[10] It seems clear that while the Lutherans do affirm assurance of salvation, the Roman Catholics do not, in fact, cannot so as to not deny “the sacred and holy, ecumenical, and general Synod of Trent.”[11] .
A final consideration would be the claim that both the Roman Catholic and Lutheran churches came to these conclusions through a “common way of listening to scripture”[12]. To say that both churches have a common way of listening to the scriptures within the context of justification, in the most charitable sense, is reminiscent of a salesman selling snake oil to cure all ailments. It is guilelessly and undeniably false. This seems to be a rouse to distract from the core issue of the reformation, Sola Scriptura, whether scripture alone is, in fact, the sole and infallible rule of faith and practice for the life of the church. This is how Luther came to the conclusions he did on justification and Rome condemned him for it.[13] Rome’s famous words at Trent, “in libris scriptus et sine scripto traditionibus”, this is that the gospel of Christ was taught “in written books and unwritten tradition”.[14] Not through the scriptures alone. The Formula of Concord clearly states how Lutherans arrive at their dogmatic and theological conclusion, “We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone.”[15] By looking to each churches doctrinal stances, of which neither have been amended or recanted since, it becomes clear that the Roman Catholic church and the Lutheran church could in no way say that they share a common view of “listening to the scriptures” unless one side were to recant their conviction to then agree with the other. The key word here is listening and how each defines this. It is one thing to say that the scripture is indeed authoritative for faith and practice as no Roman Catholic would deny; however, while maintaining that unwritten tradition is equally authoritative is not and cannot be reconciled to the understanding of the Scriptures alone being authoritative, against even any oral tradition. Rome firmly grips Sola Ecclesia as its discipline for listening to the scriptures, whereas Luther clearly fought for and stood against Rome, and the Formula of Concord plainly confirms, that Lutherans hold exclusively to Sola Scriptura as the only discipline for listening to scripture.[16]
Biblical Justification According to Scripture Alone
With the Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Baptists, and the like, it is of utmost importance to look to the scriptures alone to derive a biblical understanding of the doctrine of justification. As James Buchanan rightly states, “Few things in the history of the Church are more remarkable than the entire unanimity of the Reformers on the subject of a sinner’s Justification before God.”[17] The unity of the Reformers among the differing denominations on the topic of justification should be a clear indicator of the grave error perpetuated by Rome. As Luther continued to preach and study the Word, his understanding of God’s righteousness was radically transformed. “Near the end of his life Luther remembered how as a monk the phrase “iustitia Dei” (justice of God) in Romans, 1:17 had struck terror in his soul.”[18] And it was the same words of Romans 1:17 that Luther found comfort for his own spiritual strivings. Romans 1:17 is one of several scriptures that give clarity to the doctrine of justification. To gain understanding of the sense in which the gospel reveals God’s righteousness, it’s necessary to recall facts about the perception of righteousness in the Old Testament. F.F. Bruce says in his commentary,
The ideas of right and wrong among the Hebrews are forensic ideas; that is, the Hebrew always thinks of the right and the wrong as if they were to be settled before a judge. Righteousness is to the Hebrew not so much a moral quality as a legal status. The word ‘righteous’ (ṣaddîq) means simply ‘in the right’, and the word ‘wicked’ (raša‘) means ‘in the wrong’. ‘I have sinned this time’, says Pharaoh, ‘Jehovah is in the right (A.V. righteous), and I and my people are in the wrong (A.V. wicked)’, Exod. 9:27. Jehovah is always in the right, for He is not only sovereign but self-consistent. He is the fountain of righteousness … the consistent will of Jehovah is the law of Israel.[19]
As you can see, justification is not a moral obligation or quality but a forensic legal status.[20] It is not something we are able to achieve in our own meritorious work. In Romans 5:12, Paul says, “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned.” He is making a case for the forensic status of humankind in Adam, that death spread to all men and all men stand condemned before God. The judge has ruled, and it is not in the favor of men. Praise God for “sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh” (Rom. 8:3) as this is the incarnate God-man, Jesus Christ, who fulfilled the “requirement of the Law” (Rom. 8:4) on our behalf. Romans chapter 8, a bulwark on justification, could be summarized into four sections, new life for those who are justified in Christ (Rom. 8:1-13), adoption and inheritance for those who are justified in Christ (Rom. 8:14-17), future glory for those who are justified in Christ (Rom. 8:18-30), and assurance of salvation for those who are justified in Christ (Rom. 8:31-39). The fully justified Christian through the Spirit is given the ability to put to death the deeds of the flesh.
To the Pastor
This understanding is necessary in spurring on the people of God toward holiness, as those who are not yet forensically justified are “not able” to follow the law (Rom. 8:7). As adopted sons and daughters of the king, the justified are given an inheritance “together with Christ” (συγκληρονόμοι).[21] This inheritance is both suffering and future glory, as made clear by the hina (ἵνα) clause in verse 17. Suffering occurs so that the justified sinner will attain future glory. To be reminded from the pulpit that suffering is “granted” (Phil. 1:29) to the people of God and that it should not come as a “surprise” (1 Pet. 4:12) to the justified believer but it should be a sure sign of their future glory that is to come. This future glory is not comparable to “the sufferings of this present time.” (Rom. 8:18) This future glory gives the justified believer full assurance of their legal status before the thrice Holy God. This future glory serves as the most prominent reminder to the justified sinner of the hope found only in Christ, who now gives the power to persevere to the end. It is this forensic and justifying work of Christ on behalf of all those who believe that we can rest completely certain knowing that, “death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor power, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 8:38-39). To summarize, there is no new life for those who rely upon the flesh as a means of absolution. There is, therefore, no adoption or inheritance for those who attribute any meritorious work of their own toward justification and the continuation of it. There is no future glory for those who toil to replicate and fashion some semblance of the righteousness of God in and of themselves. And finally, there is then no possibility of assurance of salvation in any way outside of the biblical and Protestant position on justification.
The doctrine of justification is one of the most important issues in the history of the church. “For Luther this was not simply one doctrine among others, but ‘the summary of all Christian doctrine,’ ‘the article by which the church stands or falls.’”[22] It is evident based upon the opposing understanding of justification that Roman Catholics and Protestants proclaim together a unified gospel message. By the grace of God, in our Lord Jesus Christ, through the Holy Spirit, may we all tremble before the infallible and inherent word of God in every area of faith and may we utterly submit to it in our disciplines, in our practice, and in our preaching of it. Soli Deo Gloria.
[1] Scott Clark, “What is the Article of the Standing or Falling of the Church?” The Heidelblog (blog), April 19, 2013, https://heidelblog.net/2013/04/what-is-the-article-of-the-standing-or-falling-of-the-church.
[2] The Book of Concord Online, “Smalcald Articles,” https://bookofconcord.org/smalcald-articles/ii/first-and-chief-article.
[3] Tabletalk Magazine, “Practical Applications of the Doctrine of Justification,” https://tabletalkmagazine.com/posts/practical-applications-of-the-doctrine-of-justification/.
[4] Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom – Volume II: The Greek and Latin Creeds, 6th ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), pp. 110-18.
[5] Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom – Volume III: The Evangelical Protestant Creeds, 6th ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), article III, pp. 114-21.
[6] Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Vol. 2, translated by George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T Dennison Jr. (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1992), 637.
[7] John Owen, The Doctrine of Justification by Faith, In vol. 5 of The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1965), 25.
[8] Joint Declaration section 4.6, part 34.
[9] Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom – Volume II: The Greek and Latin Creeds, 6th ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), pp. 110-18.
[10] Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom – Volume III: The Evangelical Protestant Creeds, 6th ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), article III, pp. 114-21.
[11] Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom – Volume II: The Greek and Latin Creeds, 6th ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), pp. 78.
[12] Joint Declaration section 1, part 8.
[13] “The most serious challenge to Luther came when the new Holy Roman emperor, Charles V, ordered him to answer charges at the Imperial Diet of Worms. When asked to recant his writings, “Unless I am convicted of error…by the Scriptures to which I have appealed, and my conscience is taken captive by God’s Word, I cannot and will not recant of anything, for to act against our conscience is neither safe for us, nor open to us. Here I stand. I can do no other. May God help me! Amen!”” James Eckman, Perspectives from Church History, (Evangelical Training Association, 2014), 46.
[14] Sylvester O’Brien, “Scripture and Tradition: A Problem of the Council.” The Furrow, vol. 14, no. 5, The Furrow, 1963, pp. 303–09, http://www.jstor.org/stable/27658532.
[15] “Comprehensive Summary, Rule and Norm.” BookOfConcord.org, https://bookofconcord.org/epitome/rule-and-norm/.
[16] “As Cardinal Ratzinger as much as admitted in his reaction to Geiselmann, there are major Roman doctrines that simply cannot be found in the Scriptures. In this sense, Scripture alone cannot be regarded as sufficient for the life of the church.” Sinclair Ferguson, “Scripture and Tradition,” in Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible, ed. Don Kistler (Reformation Trust Publishing, 2009), 108-109. To this end one must see that the way in which Roman Catholics and Lutherans listen to scripture are not common in the slightest.
[17] James Buchanan, The Doctrine of Justification: An Outline of Its History in the Church and of Its Exposition from Scripture (Banner of Truth Trust, 1986), 151-152.
[18] Timothy George, Theology of the Reformers (Nashville: B&H Academic, 1999).
[19] F. F. Bruce, Romans: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 6 of Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1985), 83–84.
[20] “It is verbum forense, a word borrowed from law-courts, wherein a person arraigned is pronounced righteous, and is openly absolved. God, in justifying the person, pronounces him to be righteous, and looks upon him as if he had not sinned.” Thomas Watson, A Body of Divinity, Banner of Truth Trust, 1965, 227.
[21] Kurt Aland et al., Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th Edition. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012), Ro 8:17.
[22] Timothy George, Theology of the Reformers (Nashville: B&H Academic, 1999).
