A discussion that is raging inside Lutheranism after the signing, on October 31, 1999, of the "Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification", by Lutheran and Roman Catholic authorities, is very illustrative and very important to be understood by us, SDA's, because there are in our midst people who desperately need to understand what is going on in that field. They are intimately Roman Catholics and don't realize. They don't understand what "relational perfection" means. We are already perfect, in Christ! (Heb. 10:14).

That situation is not only bad, but tragic and a confirmation of what EGW once said: that there isn't 01 in 100 who understand this subject of righteousness by faith in our ranks!

Below I post one of the documents issued by Lutherans who express their dismay for what some of their leaders did, one of them considering that event "a betrayal on the gospel". Theology teachers of several Lutheran seminaries also deplored it and expressed their refusal of the ecumenical document, adding: "We will resist!".

I suggest that many more SDA's do the same as I did: I sent a message of solidarity to those within Lutheranism who struggle to keep alive the principles by which Luther stood vigorously, SOLA FIDE, SOLA GRATIA, SOLO CHRISTO, SOLA SCRIPTURA.

4. Explicating the Common Understanding of Justification (#1)

Author: John L. Hoh, Jr.Published on: December 10, 1999
Related Subject(s): Justification , Gemeinsame Erklarung zur Rechtfertigungslehre. English

4.1 Human Powerlessness and Sin in Relation to Justification

19. We confess together that all persons depend completely on the saving grace of God for their salvation. The freedom they possess in relation to persons and the things of this world is no freedom in relation to salvation, for as sinners they stand under God's judgment and are incapable of turning by themselves to God to seek deliverance, of meriting their justification before God, or of attaining salvation by their own abilities. Justification takes place solely by God's grace. Because Catholics and Lutherans confess this together, it is true to say:
20. When Catholics say that persons "cooperate" in preparing for and accepting justification by consenting to God's justifying action, they see such personal consent as itself an effect of grace, not as an action arising from innate human abilities.
21. According to Lutheran teaching, human beings are incapable of cooperating in their salvation, because as sinners they actively oppose God and his saving action. Lutherans do not deny that a person can reject the working of grace. When they emphasize that a person can only receive (mere passive) justification, they mean thereby to exclude any possibility of contributing to one's own justification, but do not deny that believers are fully involved personally in their faith, which is effected by God's Word.

The whole debate isn't so much about justification as it is about sanctification. At what point is God finished with His work and at what point does a Christian take over? That is at the heart of the debate. Hence, that an agreement is made on "the doctrine of Justification" is easy to make. The thorny issue is sanctification.

To be sure, it is a debate that precedes 1517 and the posting of the 95 theses. St. Paul addresses this topic in his letters. He reminded his readers that they were saved by grace apart from deeds of the Law. Paul's letter structure also tell us about the dynamics of justification and sanctification. The first part of Paul's letters spell out clearly that we are saved by faith. The second part then talks about our response to God's saving faith—and this response is itself, according to Paul, effected by God as well (Philippians 2:13, Colossians 3:3-4). Paul had to address the teachings of the Judaizers who felt that once gentiles became Christian, they must also follow the Law (sanctification) in order to be saved, thereby placing the burden back on the person.

It was an attitude which Jesus addressed. The religious leaders of His day looked down upon "tax collectors and sinners." But Jesus said the tax collectors and sinners would be welcomed ahead of the religious leaders. Why? Because they understood their sinfulness and their need of a Savior!

The Old Testament prophets also addressed this attitude. Sure the Old Testament Israelites followed the "letter of the Law," but the prophets often had to point out gross social inequities that demonstrated a lack of following the "spirit of the Law." Meanwhile, God through His prophets kept returning to the saving Gospel message—the Promised Messiah who would be sent from heaven to live for awhile among us, who is still with us, working renewal in our lives each and every day. Sanctification is a fruit of faith, both gifts of God's grace. Thus, even our sanctification is a gift of God, and not a work of ourselves.

4. Explicating the Common Understanding of Justification (#2)

Author: John L. Hoh, Jr.
Published on: December 17, 1999
Related Subject(s): Gemeinsame Erklarung zur Rechtfertigungslehre. English , Justification

4.2 Justification as Forgiveness of Sins and Making Righteous

22. We confess together that God forgives sin by grace and at the same time frees human beings from sin's enslaving power and imparts the gift of new life in Christ. When persons come by faith to share in Christ, God no longer imputes to them their sin and through the Holy Spirit effects in them an active love. These two aspects of God's gracious action are not to be separated, for persons are by faith united with Christ, who in his person is our righteousness (1 Corinthians 1:30): both the forgiveness of sin and the saving presence of God himself. Because Catholics and Lutherans confess this together, it is true to say that:
23. When Lutherans emphasize that the righteousness of Christ is our righteousness, their intention is above all to insist that the sinner is granted righteousness before God in Christ through the declaration of forgiveness and that only in union with Christ is one's life renewed. When they stress that God's grace is forgiving love ("the favor of God"(12)), they do not thereby deny the renewal of the Christian's life. They intend rather to express that justification remains free from human cooperation and is not dependent on the life-renewing effects of grace in human beings.
24. When Catholics emphasize the renewal of the interior person through the reception of grace imparted as a gift to the believer,(13) they wish to insist that God's forgiving grace always brings with it a gift of new life, which in the Holy Spirit becomes effective in active love. They do not thereby deny that God's gift of grace in justification remains independent of human cooperation [cf. Sources, section 4.2].

The key word here is emphasis. What aspect of our salvation is emphasized? What emphasis do the followers take home with them and live and breathe?
Again, does justification bring forth sanctification through the power of God (Lutheran view)? Or is sanctification a completion of justification (Roman view)?
Put another way: How many times has someone told you, "That wasn't very Christian" or "Is that how a Christian acts?" These statements bear with it a burden on us—you cannot possibly call yourself a Christian if you aren't living a "Christian" life.
Needless to say, Christians reflect perfection poorly. How can we? We are sinners, after all. Martin Luther used to say simul iustus et peccator—at the same time saint and sinner. Paul speaks of the "good that I would do, that I do not; the evil that I would not, that I do" (Romans 7). The Old Testament prophets also expressed this concept. Read through the prophets and note how often the prophets interchange "Jacob" and "Israel." These two names are names for the same person. Jacob means "heel" and was given to Jacob because he seized his brother's heel coming out of the womb (Genesis 25:26). Jacob's life was one of taking matters into his own hands and, as a result, suffering much misfortune. "Israel" means "one who wrestles with God" and was given to Jacob after he wrestled with God all night at Peniel (Genesis 32:22-32). The Old Testament prophets used these names interchangeably to demonstrate to us that, while we are still sinners in our eyes and the eyes of the world, God sees us as saints, as righteous, as innocent, because of the blood of Christ.
What Christians model best, since we are lousy at modeling perfection, is modeling forgiveness. As we pray in the Lord's Prayer, "forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us." In fact, no where in the Lord's Prayer did Jesus ask us to ask for help in perfecting our lives! The Lord's Prayer recognizes that sin is all around us and we are all affected by sin, but it never says, "give me strength that I may improve my life."

P.S.: For those who want some more articles by Lutheran authorities and scholars discussing the matter, just sent me an e-mail and I will send the electronic files I've got.

In the discussion on this justification/sanctification question in another Forum, certain arguments were posted which seemed very similar to those of a certain scholar called Newman, who was an English Protestant leader of the mid-nineteen century. Let’s see if we can identify some of these analogies and their implications.

But, first, something of Newman’s biography: he earnestly tried to find a way of satisfying both the Protestant and Catholic camps. His attempted synthesis of the Protestant and Roman Catholic teaching on justification and his personal history prove one thing that we must never forget: Rome can accept the synthesis of the two positions and still be Rome, as evidenced in the recently issued “Joint Declaration on Justification by Faith”, in which Lutherans and Roman Catholics officially removed their basic differences in the understanding of this matter.

However, Protestantism cannot accept the synthesis and still be Protestant, as happily many Lutheran theologians and the president of the Lutheran Church of America, Missouri Synod, realized. They denounced said “Joint Declaration” and even stressed their intention of resisting to it, being it even called a “betrayal on the gospel”, as the president of the Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod, said in no unclear terms.

Now, for Newman’s arguments some have repeated in our midst thinking to be rendering a wonderful spiritual service to the SDA community:

Newman admitted that justify in the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament means “to declare righteous”. But Newman argued that God’s word is a potent word which creates what it declares. Newman used the analogy of the creation epic. God said: “‘Let there be light’, and there was light” (Gen. 1:3). So, concluded Newman, when God declares the sinner righteous, that mighty creative word makes him righteous.

Justification is therefore a declaring righteous which is also a making righteous (a clear fusion of justification and sanctification). Newman said that God makes righteous as a result of declaring righteous.

Newman’s synthesis (who some call “effective” justification) finds many advocates among Lutheran scholars nowadays, like Beck, Ehrlich, Gristch, Jenson and Rogness.
But, what was the end of this man? An amazing information regarding the once Protestant scholar J. H. Newman: he was converted into Roman Catholicism, became not only a Catholic scholar, but a cardinal!

Now, let’s analyze briefly Cardinal Newman’s argument in the light of historical faith: He used the analogy of creation to prove that God makes what He declares. By doing this, Newman made God’s creative act depend on justification. But God’s new creation took place in His redemptive act in the holy history of Christ. The faith which justifies does not bring the new creation into existence; it confesses its existence.

The conception, birth, sinless life and resurrection of Jesus from the dead were the recapitulation of Genesis 1 and the fulfillment of those Old Testament prophecies which spoke of God making all things new.

The justification of the sinner springs from this creative act of God and not the other way around, as Newman and the proponents of “effective” justification contend (including some of our perfectionist SDA friends). Furthermore, is it correct to take the analogy of creation [“‘Let there be light’, and there was light”] and apply it to the matter of justification?

Justification is an indicative verdict, not an imperative command, thus the creation analogy is inappropriate. A better analogy would be God’s verdict: “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased”. This declaration was not made in order to make Christ pleasing to God, but because He was pleasing to God.

So it is with the believer. He is declared righteous before God’s judgment seat because He has been made righteous in the holy history of Jesus Christ.

[This message has been edited by Azenilto (edited September 01, 2001).]