soteriological issues in the 1999 lutheran-catholic joint declaration on justification: an orthodox...

7/28/2019 Soteriological Issues in the 1999 Lutheran-Catholic Joint Declaration on Justification: An Orthodox Perspective

1/10

Journal of Ecumenical Studies, 38:1, Winter 2001

SOTERIOLOGICAL ISSUES IN THE1999 LUTHERAN-CATHOLIC JOINT DECLARATION ON

JUSTIFICATION: AN ORTHODOX PERSPECTIVE

Lucian Turcescu

Introduction

In this essay I have limited my reflections mostly to Lutheran-Orthodox is-

sues, because significant progress has been achieved in the dialogue between

these two denominations, particularly with regard to their two fundamental

soteriological images, justification and deification, respectively. I will also try

to see how the Joint Declaration1

can further help Lutherans and Orthodox to

advance toward a fuller communion.

Lutherans and Orthodox on Justification and Deification

In recent decades an issue widely debated between Lutherans and Orthodox has

been that of the meaning of justification and deification as the core soteriological

images in the two denominations. Justification, as the theme of the N.A.A.E. confer-

ence confirms it, has also been the main topic discussed between Lutherans and

Roman Catholics, almost since they resumed the dialogue. Regarding justification,

recent scholarship has stressed the widespread degree of doctrinal pluralism and

uncertainty relating to the doctrine on the eve of the Reformation; the general issues

that related to the doctrine of justification were the subject of continuing discussion

within late-medieval Catholicism.2

Nevertheless, as the Joint Declaration clarifies, a message of justification is al-

ready present in the Bible. After reference to texts relevant for the doctrine of justifi-

cation in the Hebrew Scriptures (8) and the Gospels (9), the Joint Declaration indi-

cates that the most important text is Paul's Letter to the Romans. Rom. 3:23-25 in

particular states that justification of sinful human beings is effected by God's gracethrough faith. This is also the text that came into prominence during the Reforma-

ti i d


2/10

Soteriological Issues in the 1999 Joint Declaration on Justification 65

used image to refer to the salvation in Christ, "justification" (dikaiosune),is drawnfrom Paul's Jewish background and denotes a societal or judicial relationship, eitherethical or forensic (that is, related to law courts; see Dt 25:1). Therighteousor up-right person (dikaios) came to refer usually to one who stood acquitted or vindicatedbefore a judge's tribunal (Ex. 23:7; 1 Kgs. 8:32). Jews also tried to achieve the statusof "righteousness" or "uprightness" in the sight of Yahweh the Judge by observingthe rules and regulations of the Mosaic law (see Ps. 7:9-12). When Paul says thatChrist has "justified" humans, he means that Christ has brought it about that theynow stand before God's tribunal acquitted or innocent. The characteristicallyPauline contribution to the notion of justification is his affirmation of the gratuitousand unmerited character of this justification of all humanity in Rom. 3:20-26.3

What I want to illustrate by using the latest biblical insights into the notion ofjustification is that this notion had a forensic character even for the ancient Hebrews.This holds true despite attempts by some Orthodox and even Lutheran theologiansto dismiss the forensic and extrinsic characters ofthis notion and to attribute themonly to medieval and Reformation developments.4 For example, in critiquing Lu-ther's view of justification, Orthodox theologian Georges Florovsky wrote: "For Lu-ther 'to justify' meant to declare onerighteousor just, not 'to make'righteousor

justit is an appeal to an extrinsic justice which in reality is a spiritual fiction."5

Lutheran theologian Paul Hinlicky has noted that "justification" has been "malignedas a 'law-court metaphor' that traps theological thought in legalism," but he empha-sizes that this "law-court metaphor comesfromIsrael's prophets" themselves.6

As it has been noted time and again in recent scholarship, Orthodox havetended to emphasize the notion of deification or divinization (theosis),as the choiceimage expressing salvation, at the expense of that of justification. Deification is adoctrine based on 2 Pet. 1:4: "Thus [Jesus] has given us . . . his precious and verygreat promises, so that through them you may escapefromthe corruption that is in

the world because of lust, and may become participants of the divine nature'

9

(em-phasis mine). Building on this text, Orthodox regard deification, thatis,human par-ticipation in the divine nature, as made possible by the incarnation of the seconddivine person and as the result of the Holy Spirit's activity in humans. Vladimir

3Joseph A. Fitzmyer, "Pauline Theology/' in Raymond E. Brown et al., eds.,The New Jerome BiblicalCommentary (London: G. Chapman, 1990), p. 1397. Biblical quotations throughout this essay are taken fromThe New Oxford Annotated Bible with Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books,New Revised Standard Version(New York: Oxford University Press,1989).

4Chrestos Androutsos (1869-1937),Symbohke ex epopseos Orthodoxem,2nd ed (Athens, 1930); I hadaccess to a Romanian translation titled Simbolica, tr. Iustin Moisescu (Craiova: Editura Centrului Mitropolitan


3/10

66 Journal of Ecumenical Studies

Lossky wrote: "The Son has become like us by the incarnation; we become like Himby deification,by partaking of the divinity in the Holy Spirit."7

Orthodox theologian and bishop, Mximos Aghiorgoussis, correctly explained

this difference in emphasis between Lutherans and Orthodox by stating that, whenPaul distinguished in Rom. 8:28-30 among predestination, calling, justification, andglorification, these are all stages in one process, that of salvation. "In other words,"he continued, "justification is not a separate act of God but the negative aspect ofsalvation in Christ, which is freedomfromsin, death, and the devil; whereas sancti-fication is the positive aspect of God's saving act, that of spiritual growth in new lifein Christ communicated by God's Holy Spirit."8 Although I would not use the quali-fications "negative" and "positive" that Bishop Aghiorgoussis used, I concur with

him that justification and sanctification are part of the same process of salvation.The concept of justification "is central to Pauline and Augustinian theology and

virtually dominates the Western theological tradition."9 The East and West devel-oped different perspectives on salvation due to their confrontation with different his-torical circumstances. 'The East experienced the rise of Byzantium, but the Westknew the trauma of the fidi of Rome in thefifthcentury,"10 when Augustine devel-oped his soteriologe The West had thus to ask the question about the justice of Godin histoiy more so than the East has had to do. Also, Alisier McGiath is probably

correct in his statement that Orthodox theology's lack of interest in "justification" isdue to the fact that the Eastern Church never developed the interest in Roman lawthat led to the Western commitment to justification as the fundamental soteriologicalmetaphor.11 Even if Patriarch Cyril Lucaris of Constantinople (1572-1638) used theconcept of justification in his works, that merely illustrates, according to McGrath,his unusual relationship with the Reformed church of his day, rather than any inher-ent trends within Orthodox theology itself.

Regardless ofthe explanation for the Orthodox overlooking of justification, by

the twenty-first century I think it is the Orthodox churches' turn and responsibility toask the question about God's justice in histoiy and to try to account for their behav-ior in the fece of persecution. The last centuiy was the century ofboth right-wingand left-wing totalitarianism, and the Eastern Orthodox churches were confrontedwith serious persecution and attempts at extermination by the communist regimes ofEastern Europe and the Soviet Union. Modern society is increasingly demanding anaccount ofall Christian denominations' behavior vis--vis totalitarianism, as Chris-tians claim to be beacons of morality. So, perhaps Orthodox churches will start to

7Vladimir Lossky In the Image and Likeness of God ed J H Erickson (Crestwood NY: St Vladimir's


4/10


reflect on what God9s justice in history has meant for them and how this can be ap-plied to individual justification.

In my view, justification and deification are complementary, and one cannot

fully understand the process of salvation in Christ by ignoring either of them. As onewho was declared and made righteous by God cannot remain righteous without per-sonal effort to grow in sanctification, I think that justification is not the end of theprocess of salvation but its beginning. The Joint Declaration is a step forward inclarifying the notion of justification in a sense satisfactory to both Lutherans andRoman Catholics. As such, it can be used by Orthodox as well, since the Orthodoxunderstanding of the relationship between faith and works in the process of salvationis similar in marry regards to the Catholic understanding as expressed in the Joint

Declaration, although the terminology is not always the same.As Hinlicky noted,the two images answer two different questions and are not to

be confiised with one another. The doctrine of deification does not answer "theWestern question: Where in history is the justice of God?" Instead, Hinlicky seesdeification as answering such questions as: "Why has God created li fe? . . . What isthe purpose or goal ofexistence? . . . Why has God entered into human existence?Why has Christ condescended to communion with us?"12 In my view, Hinlicky hasoverlooked the fact that Orthodox ignore Paul's insistence on justification by faith as

reconciliation with God and the first step toward salvation. In general, there is atendency among polite Lutherans to consider that Orthodox do have a solution tosalvation that is better than the Lutheran solution and to which not only Lutheransbut other denominations too would eventually have to arrive. In fact, Orthodox donot account properly for the process of reconciliation; instead, they jump ratherquickly to the second part ofthe process of salvation, deification.

The author of another recent article, "Justification and Sanctification: A Con-versation between Lutheranism and Orthodoxy,"13 former Lutheran Aden Ross,

decried the passivity of many Lutherans with regard to their spiritual Uves and pro-posed ways to overcome it. Ross thought he had found an explanation for passivityin the Lutheran division between justification and sanctification, and, along withGerhard O. Forde, attributed this division to the forensic meaning ofthe notion of

justification. The solution he proposed to overcome the division was for Lutherans toembrace the Eastern Orthodox principle of deification.

Meanwhile, the new "Finnish school" under the mentorship of Tuomo Man-nermaa has provided a radically new interpretation of Luther and of the relationship

between Lutheranism and Orthodoxy. Mannermaa insists that the idea of "theosifcan be found at the core of the theology of Martin Luther, although not in later Lu-


5/10


unlike modern Protestant thought, which has been dominated by Kantian categories,"classic Lutheranism [was not only] miliar with the notion of God's essential in-dwelling in the believer (inhabitatio Dei)? but it also clearly rejected "any notion

that God . . . does not 'dwell' in the Christian and that only [God's] 'gifts' are pre-sent in the believer."15 However, unlike Luther himself, the Formula of Concorddistinguishes between "justification by faith" and "indwelling" of the believer byGod in a way that makes justification sound forensic and indwelling a mere conse-quence of it

Mannermaa argued that Luther did not separate the person of Christ from hiswork: "Christ is, in this unity of person and work, really present in the faith of theChristian {in ipsa fide Christus adesf)."16 Mannermaa chose to translate literally

Luther's words,"in ipsa fide Christus adesf (in feith itself Christ is really present)and "played [this] off against [what he perceived as] a purely forensic concept of

justification, in which the Christus pro nobis (Christ for us) is separated from theChristus in nobis (Christ within us)."17 Mannermaa wrote about Luther's notion of

justification:

According to the Reformer, justifying faith does not merely signify a

reception of the forgiveness imputed to a human being for the sake of the

merit ofChrist,which is the aspect emphasized by the Formula of Concord.

Being a real sharing (participation) in Christ, "faith" stands also for partici-pation in the institution of "blessing, righteousness and life" that has taken

place in Christ. Christ himself is life, righteousness, and blessing, because

God is all of this "by nature and in substance" (naturaliter et substantial-

iter). Therefore, justifying faith means participation in God in Christ's per-

son.

Thus, Mannermaa concluded that, in fact, what Luther (though not later Lu-theranism) said about justification by faith implies a participation in God simi-lar to that expressed by the Orthodox notion of deification. This is a major stepforward in the direction of a rapprochement between Lutherans and Orthodoxand is the result of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland's dialogue withthe Russian Orthodox Church, as Mannermaa himself confessed at the begin-ning of his article just quoted.

Next, I propose to show that justification and deification are part ofa two-step

process ofsalvation,with justification covering thefirststep, while deification is thelast step.


6/10


A Two-Step Process ofSalvation

In the Gospel according to John, Jesus spoke of two steps toward the full resto-

ration of the broken relationship between humans and God. In their Men state, hu-mansfindthemselves in bondage to sin, and Jesus calls humans slaves or servants at

this point; then, humans become Jesus'friends;last, they are said to be adopted by

God the "Father" as children. There is thus a progression from a state of bondage,

ignorance, and fear that characterizes the master-slave relationship to the state of

discipleship that characterizes thefriendshipstate to that offilial knowledge and

love that characterizes the parent-child relationship. The passagefrombondage to

friendship occurs because of reconciliation, as an enemycannot become one's frien

unless the two have been reconciled. The passagefromfriendshipto adoption occursbydivine initiative and human cooperation.

These two steps in the salvation process are attested by some scriptural texts.

Before the resurrection, Christ addressed his disciples in this way: "I do not call you

servantsanylonger, because the servant does not know what the master is doing; but

I have called youfriends,because I have made known to you everything that I have

heard from my Father" (Ja 15:15; emphasis mine). Jesus thus referred to the bond-

age in which humans find themselves before becoming hisfriends.The adoption of

humans as children ofGod is present in a post-resurrection text in which Jesus toldMary Magdalene to "go to mybrothersand sayto them, am ascending to myFa-

therand your Father, to my God and your God'" (Jn. 20:17b; emphasis mine).

When humans have the same "Father" as Jesus, they have been adopted by God and

are Jesus' brothers and sisters.

Paul himself, in explaining the notion of justification, alluded to the steps just

mentioned: "For the lawof the Spirit oflife in Christ Jesus has setyoufreefromthe

law of sin and ofdeath For all who are led by the Spirit ofGod are children of

God. For you did not receive a spirit ofslaveryto fell tack into fear, but you havereceived a spirit ofadoption"(Rom. 8:2, 14-15; emphasis mine). Paul is therefore

aware of the two-step process of salvation that Jesus expressed, and he tried to corre-

late it with his own justification terminology. He perhaps wanted to hint that his

understanding of justification could befittedinto the process expressed byJesus.

The theology of the progression from bondage to adoption was also a favored

theme used to describe salvation in the patristic period, as recent scholarship has

demonstrated.19

Origen, for example, had a very elaborate theology of salvation ex-

pressed in the language of the two-step process. Yet, to exemplifythis patristic view,I would like to turn to Gregory ofNyssa. Speaking of our adoption as children of


7/10

70 Journal ofEcumenical Studies

phuseos); in other senses, it is "adventitious and artificial" (episkeuasten kaiepikte

ton) or the "result ofchoice" (ekproaireseos).20

For the first meaning he exempli-

fied with the phrases "sons of humans" and "sons of rams," and for the second

meaning he exemplified with "sons of power" and "children of God." We canchoose to change from children of darkness to children of light by "casting off the

works of darkness [and] by decent life."21

In other words, it is through moral effort

that we can attain a superior state. Nonetheless, since the status of"children ofGod"

is the supreme state that we can reach, it is not only through our own efforts that we

can achieve this. It is the Son of God proper who helps us in this byjoining us to

him by spiritual generation.22

Thus, it is Christ who bestows upon us the adoption

(huiothesia) as children ofGod.23

Elsewhere, Gregory called humans "disinherited sons," and, in exposing whatChrist has done for humans, he showed his awareness of the first step of the salva-

tion process as outlined above: "this is what the 'mediator' between the Father and

the disinherited sons means, he who has reconciled through himself the enemies

with God, through his true and unique divinity."24

Also, in commenting on Rom.

8:16, Gregory wrote that "it is the Spirit himself bearing witness with our spirit that

we are children of God." He said that the meaning of this verse is that the Holy

Spirit comes to be "in the mind of the faithful" (teidianoia ton piston\ because in

other passages the Apostle Paul used "spirit" (pneuma) for "mind" (nous). Nonetheless, an important statement follows, shedding greater light on the meaning ofadop-

tion: "when [the mind] receives the communion ofthe [Holy] Spirit the recipients

attain the dignityofadoption."25

The latter statement gives a more complete picture

of what Gregory meant by adoption: The Holy Spirit, too (not only the Son), con-

tributes to our adoption as children ofGod.

Adoption means being made a child ofGod, a brother or sister ofJesus, sharing

the same love of God that the Son has for his Father, possessing filial knowledge

and other such characteristics. As such, adoption can be seen as participation in thedivine nature; although created, humans become participants in the inner life ofGod

by God's grace (2 Pet 1:4). The Greek patristic tradition and Orthodox theology

have referred to human participation in the divine nature as deification (theosis),

and that has become the fundamental metaphor expressing salvation in the Ortho-

dox Church. The passagefrombondage to sin tofriendshipwith God necessitates a

reconciliation between humans and God. One cannot become afriendwith a former

enemyunless the two have been reconciled.

It is at this point that I see justification taking place, that is, the declaration byGod ofthe sinful human person as arighteousperson because of the faith a human


8/10


after justification occurs, a person has to grow in love and progress spiritually to-ward a fuller union with God, which will eventually lead to participation of the crea-ture in the uncreated nature. While Lutheranism and, to some degree, Catholicismhave emphasized justification as the articulis stantis etcadentis ecclesiae (the articleby which the church stands or Ms) , Orthodoxy has been preoccupied with the laststage of the process, deification.

In my view, justification and deification are complementary, and one cannotfully understand salvation in Christ without taking both into account It is time forOrthodox to examine justification in greater depth, and the major breakthrough inCatholic-Lutheran relations represented by the Joint Declaration should be such anopportunity for Orthodox.

The Joint Declaration and the Lutheran-Orthodox Ecumenical Dialogue

The idea of the believers' full involvement in their faith, expressed by para-graph 21, is very similar to the Orthodox notion of synergy. Nevertheless, because ofthe phrase that according to Lutherans "a person can only receive (mere passive)

justification;' paragraph 21 was found problematic by the Catholic partner whowrote:

on the Lutheran side, there is the affirmation, in No. 21, ofa full personalinvolvement in faith ("believers are fully involved personally in theirfaith") A clarification would, however, be necessary as to the compatibilityof this involvement with the reception mere passive of justification, in orderto determine more exactly the degree of consensus with the Catholic doc-trine.26

Unfortunately, the Annex to the Joint Declaration does not clarify this, but Itake it that, as long as one is fully involved in one's faith, the justification isreceived not only passively, but Lutherans are concerned also to assert and pre-serve the priority of God's initiative and grace in the process of salvation. Para-graph 21 should perhaps be corrected in a future edition to explain more satis-factorily the phrase "mere passive."

It is unfortunate that the Joint Declaration does not import more fully some ofthe achievements of the dialogue between the Evangelical Lutheran Church of

Finland and the Russian Orthodox Church and more specifically some of Manner-maa's interpretations of Luther Paragraph 21 came close to sounding like Manner-


9/10


point of view, faith is a victory precisely because it unites the believer with the per-

son of Christ, who is in himself the victory."27

Paragraphs 22-24 clarify quite well what Lutherans and Catholics mean by jus-

tification as forgiveness of sins and making righteous. They show that, despite dif-ferent emphases, Lutherans and Catholics are able to agree on the meaning of justi-

fication. The different emphases are reflected in the act that Lutherans are con-

cerned to show that justification is by faith and grace, not by human cooperation,

whereas Catholics are concerned with the result of justification: sanctification. Those

different emphases were the source of the mutual misunderstandings and condemna-

tions in the sixteenth century. Like the previous three articles, paragraphs 25-27, in

presenting the understanding of justification by faith and through grace, add expla-

nations that would really be welcomed by the Lutheran-Orthodox dialogue, becausethey seem to converge with the results of this dialogue.

While paragraph 25 again emphasizes that justification is by faith in the saving

action of God and through the grace of the Holy Spirit, it adds, "Such a faith is ac-

tive in love, and thus the Christian cannot and should not remain without works."

Paragraph 26 takes these clarifications one step further by saying, "In the doctrine of

"justification by faith alone,' a distinction but not a separation is made between justi-

fication itself and the renewal of one's way of life that necessarily follows from justi-

fication and without which faith does not exist. . . . Justification and renewal arejoined in Christ, who is present in faith." At this point, the new Finnish interpreta-

tion of Luther seems really to have come into play, by making clear that by faith thebelievers participate in the divine life and that in faith Christ is present in the believ-

ers.

Conclusions

In this essay, having presented a summary of the two core soteriological images

for Lutherans and Orthodox, I have suggested that it is time for Orthodox to take

justification more seriously, in the same way in which Lutherans have taken deifica-

tion seriously. Also, I introduced a two-step scheme of salvation that is present in

Jesus' and Paul's discourses, as well as in some church Fathers: the passage from

bondage to friendship with God to adoption of humans as God's children. I argued

that the passage from bondage to friendship can be made through reconciliation or,

to use Paul's terminology, through justification. This first step in the process of sal-

vation seems to be not only ignored but sometimes even disdained by contemporary

Orthodox theologians when they dismiss justification as a forensic notion In doing


10/10

^ s

Copyright and Use:

As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual useaccording to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and asotherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.

No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without thecopyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be aviolation of copyright law.

This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission

from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journaltypically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,

for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.

Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specificwork for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered

by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the

copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).

About ATLAS:

The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously

published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS

collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.

The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the AmericanTheological Library Association.

soteriological issues in the 1999 lutheran-catholic joint declaration on justification: an orthodox...

Documents