by Stephen Tong S.J.
A Rahnerian Appropriation To The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification
A. Introduction
In 1997, the Catholic Church and Lutheran Churches successfully articulated and issued the final version of a Joint Declaration on the doctrine of Justification (JD) after long years of preparation and discussion.1 Though admitting nuances in understanding the doctrine, the Churches achieved a consensus on its basic truth, which is presented in seven assertive statements. This achievement serves as a milestone in ecumenism.
The doctrine of Justification has become the divisive cause and the crux of all theological disputes since the Reformation. Any attempt towards reconciliation inevitably brings this Pauline doctrine to the forefront. There may be two ways of releasing the tension. First, by setting this doctrine within a greater and more integrated whole so that its divisive significance diminishes. According to contemporary theological understanding, Justification is only one among other Pauline doctrines, and it may not even be the most important one.2 Secondly, by viewing this doctrine from a higher viewpoint so that its problems and difficulties are not solved but dissolved. The following attempt to interpret the meaning of the seven assertions in the Joint Declaration adopts this latter approach. The higher viewpoint, I think Rahner would agree, is the theo-anthropological understanding of the human being. Theology is also anthropology. Many disputes and arguments can, it would appear, be attributed to our compartmentalized understanding of God and human beings. Here, Rahner will be our competent guide in discovering that anthropocentricism is not necessarily incongruent with theocentricism. From here, our journey begins.
The first part of this paper is dedicated to delineating Rahner's anthropology and his view on the development of dogma. The underlying contention is that misunderstandings often come from a lack of clarification of some basic terminology, which is taken for granted as some congealed form of ideas. In the issue of justification, the protagonist is the human being. So, to understand what it means to be human is crucial. The second part of the paper presents an interpretation of the Joint Declaration and an attempt to dialogue with the latest comments on it by the Catholic Church3 and the Lutheran circle.4 I hope that the Doctrine and the Joint Declaration will be understood more coherently and be given a wider perspective than the actual text provides.
1. The actual process is succinctly outlined in #3 of the Joint Declaration
2. Cf. FITZMYER, J.A. (1988). Pauline Theology. In: R.E. BROWN, J.A. FITZMYER and R.E. MURPHY (eds) The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. Englewood Cliffs N.J. Prentice Hall. #82. Fitzmyer lists ten effects of the Christ event in Paul, namely, justification, salvation, reconciliation, expiation, redemption, freedom, sanctification, transformation, new creation, glorification.
3. Response of The Catholic Church To The Joint Declaration of The Catholic Church And The Lutheran World Federation On The Doctrine of Justification" (RCC.).
B. The Rahnerian Horizon
1. The human being as person and subject
From ancient times, human beings have wondered about the fundamental question, "What am I?" or "Who am I?" One of the classical answers tells us that the human being is a rational animal. As sciences progress, modern science, anthropologies, whether physics, chemistry, biology, sociology, cultural anthropology, psychology, offer various approaches and standpoints from which to define their distinctive characteristics so that common features and patterns of behavior among human beings can be explained more accurately. Their basic attention and methodology focus on certain modes of cause and effect. However, the factors they consider are outside the human self, no matter how great their influence is on the person, for example, parents, social environment, cultural background. These, however, cannot tackle the fact that it is the human being as person and subject who is collecting all the data and considering various factors about the self, aiming towards understanding the self's totality and unity.
Therefore, being human means exactly to transcend all compartmentalized standpoints which seek to understand the self from external factors and elements. We may state this in a Kantian question, namely, what is the condition of possibility that renders human beings capable of making inquiry of any kind? Undoubtedly, what influences human beings can be understood quite well by experimental approaches in analyzing our world and history. These approaches, however, cannot illuminate the unity and totality of the self. Human beings can transcend all particulars and raise the question of questioning itself. Therefore the human being as person and subject is not some objective data awaiting analysis, but the center of existence which takes "self-possession as such in a conscious and free relationship to the totality of itself."5
2. The human being as transcendent being
The human being as person and subject aims to grasp the self in its totality, yet at the same time everyone experiences his or her own finitude and fragility in daily life. These two aspects make up the paradox that human beings intend transcendence, an infinite horizon which surpasses any complacency of finite achievement, whether in knowledge or action. Every answer is just the beginning of a new question, so the human being is always on the way to self-transcendence. In the dimension of acting, we experience the intentionality of higher values. Weak as we all are, surprisingly we have also heard the inner invitation towards higher values, though remaining with the lower ones is much more enticing to our spontaneous appetite. If we respond to this inner voice, it may imply struggle, sacrifice, misunderstanding, marginalization, suffering, persecution or even death. This kind of endurance for the higher reveals the human capacity for self-transcendence towards something or someone, named or unnamed, other than the self. Of course, one can choose to ignore or evade this intentionality, interpreting it as absurd or unanswerable, sticking to one's workaday life and let its current carry one along. This possibility relates to human freedom and will be elaborated later. However, our interest here is to raise the question, namely, what is the condition of possibility for this ongoing transcendence in human beings?
Rahner tells us that "the movement of transcendence is not the subject creating its own unlimiting space as though it had an absolute power over being, but is the infinite horizon of being making itself manifest."6 In other words, in our incessant questioning we experience ourselves as one who receives being, which is grace in our Christian sense, and which renders the person capable of transcending every complacency in order continually to discover the objective world and categorical truths. Serving as mystery, this infinite horizon of being remains hidden within the human being. One can only open up to its revelation in silence and reverence, where one becomes conscious of oneself as person and subject.
3. The human being as responsible and free
A person who is open to the undetermined possibilities of self-transcendence immediately experiences, thematically or unthematically, the freedom within and at the same time responsible for the self. That is, one takes one's destiny in one's own hands, not only in acquiring knowledge, but also in decision and action. We cannot deny that modern discoveries and research in human sciences render human freedom very controversial, since human behavior seems to be explained away by cause and effect in the world. All choices can be traced back to some original and relative factors. Therefore, what comes from the human free will seems almost a mere illusion. According to Rahner, our "responsibility and freedom are not a particular, empirical datum in human reality alongside other data."7 Therefore, there is no need to find their proof in empirical science. Rather, they emerge when the "I" experiences the self as the subject who is given over to oneself. But what does this mean?
First, freedom does not remain hidden in an interior disposition, but is always mediated by the concrete reality of time and space, by the subject's history in the world. Second, freedom is a fundamental characteristic of a personal existent, in contrast to being a neutral power that one has and possesses as something different from oneself, especially when the subject experiences that one has to give an account and is responsible for what one does. Here, the subject takes a stance towards oneself and the world, or even makes some movement towards the ultimate transcendence and mystery, whether in acceptance or in rejection. This stance is the expression of one's transcendental freedom, though Rahner reminds us that it is not without ambiguity in our reflection and objectification. So, even if one uses all the evidence of cause and effect to try to deny oneself as a free subject, one is actually affirming one's freedom as a subject who is given over to oneself in this stance. Therefore, freedom is understood not so much as power to do this or that but as the power to decide about oneself and to actualize oneself.
4. The human being is dependent as a creature
This is the other side of being free and responsible. In our transcendental experience and Christian faith, we human beings discover that we are free to open up towards an absolute being and mystery, which is the ground of every knowing and action. This infinite horizon and abyss, being silent and spiritual, is thus infinitely different from the knowing subject and finite known object. In this sense, God is absolutely different from the world and from us. In other words, we are a genuine reality different from God. This difference implies two points of understanding. First, human beings and this world are both God's creation. Our creatureliness is not just expressed in some remote origin and causality in time, but in the experience of both transcendence and historical conditionedness, which are experienced every moment. Second, human transcendentality is not established by one's own power, but is experienced as something established by and at the disposal of another as the abyss of mystery. We always find our subjectivity as a historical conditioned and we never completely realize our possibilities in the world and in history. What overcomes this finitude is not leaving it behind or being free from its constraint, since that is never possible. On the way towards the definite moment of death, however, every person draws from God the power as source and infinite horizon to pursue knowledge and action in freedom. In this sense, the human being is totally dependent on God.8
5. The human being as a being threatened radically by guilt
As we have already noted, the human being is free and responsible, not in the sense of being a neutral subject as if one could choose and act among some categorical possibilities while remaining uninfluenced oneself. Rather, being free and responsible is experienced as something final and definitive for the subject. In freedom, one does not do something, but does oneself. However, as a person, everyone is subject to openness to the infinite horizon and mystery that constitute oneself so that one's freedom should correspond to this movement. This holy mystery mediates itself in finite and created reality, in the spectrum of categorical and hierarchical values in the world. In this sense, the human being is supposed to open up to these categorical values, from lower to higher, in responding to a vocation as genuine person and subject. Yet, because of freedom, the human being in reality may say "yes" or "no" to this call. A person who says "no" experiences something which contradicts the human constitution as oriented towards the ultimate mystery, and this is guilt in the Christian perspective.
Of course, according to Rahner, in reflection no one can be fully transparent whether in one's categorical choices one is saying a definite "no" to this infinite horizon or mystery, which is God. Yet it always remains a possibility. So, "we never know with ultimate certainty whether we really are sinners, we do know with ultimate certainty that we really can be sinners."9 "Sinner" here does not mean just committing some moral wrong but is taken in a definite and final sense. As we progress towards death, our categorical options in values will finally make an eternal stance as "yes" or "no" to God.
6. The human being as the event of God's free and forgiving self-communication
What was discussed above gradually converges to this assertion. Rahner tells us that "God's self communication means that what is communicated in grace is really God in his own being, and in this way it is a communication for the sake of knowing and possessing God in immediate vision and love.".10 In this sense, there is no understanding of the human being in so-called "pure nature". Existentially, the human being cannot but enjoy the supernatural dimension of the human constitution, not simply as one characteristic alongside but permeating the whole human being. Therefore, the human being is a supernatural existential. That is, the human being fundamentally participates in the divine, in God-self.
Rahner clarifies the word of "God". This word
"says nothing about what it means, nor can it simply function like an index finger which points to something encountered immediately outside ... In any case, the present form of the word reflects what the word refers to: the 'ineffable one', the 'nameless one' who does not enter the world we can name as a part of it. It means the 'silent one' who is always there, and yet can always be overlooked, unheard, and, because it expresses the whole in its unity and totality, can be passed over as meaningless."11
The key words here are unity and totality. Rahner leads us to ponder what would happen if this word "God" or its equivalent ceased to be in our language. Then one would never again face the totality of the world and the unity of oneself. At most, one could indulge in wonder at all things around, but would be incapable of wondering at this wondering. One would then regress to the level of a clever animal. In short, we cannot imagine ourselves being human without this intentionality of God, where "God" does not mean some kind of transcendental being apart from us, but is the source and horizon in which we can aim towards the totality of the world and the unity of ourselves.
To follow this understanding, we can infer that if, as supernatural existential, the human being is fundamentally called to be divine, though in freedom one can say "no" to it and make an absolute contradiction of one's existence, then the acceptance of God's self-communication is still based upon God's offer itself. That is exactly what we understand theologically by the notion of grace. "The giver in his own being is the gift... the giver gives himself to creatures as their own fulfillment."12 When one responds with "yes" to this offer in a concrete situation, one becomes a justified person, a being justified by God. In congruence with traditional teaching, this grace is absolutely gratuitous as "unmerited", initiated by God's highest personal freedom, different from what we experience in tangible causes, which produce a necessary effect. This grace is originally implicit and unthematized in our daily life. Through our reflection in concrete experiences we discover certain incarnated effects of this grace, but not the grace as such. For Rahner, grace is the unthematized horizon of transcendence in which we try to thematize certain appropriations to understand and ponder this grace as such, but never in its totality. In our perspective, grace is as wide as God's presence.
The word "grace", on the other hand, makes our relationship with God thematic, namely, the total gratuity of God to us that we have no merit to deserve or earn. This giver as gift produces the emptiness in the human being that only the fullness of God can fill. It is also prior to human freedom. When human freedom mediates through actualizing categorical values, this self-communication appears at least as an offer in an unthematic way, inviting the person towards the absolute mystery in knowledge and love. Therefore, in transcendental experience and freedom, a potential sinner who has rejected the genuine freedom mediated in categorical values, though not in reflective clearness, can return to the invitation of this mystery immediately, an experience of conversion and forgiveness in love. This ability to come back is already due to the grace itself which grants the subject the "re"-cognition of his own infinite horizon towards the truth and love itself.
7. The development of dogma
Dogma is the formulation of faith in the Church and in her history. It represents Christians' understanding of the original revelation of Jesus Christ in their historicity, under the stamp and authority of the Church. Its existence already betrays the necessity of development in understanding God's revelation in Christ. This fact is not due to God as speaker acting freely in history, but is due to the fact that the human being as listener is a historical being. As long as human beings further their own history, there must be a history of dogma, even though revelation is complete. Accepting this fact, we face rather the challenge of finding new formulations of dogma congruent with the original doctrine in Scriptures and Church's authoritative teaching. This process can be compared to a young man who has fallen in love and tries to articulate the experience and understanding of his love in clearer and clearer terms and propositions, yet remaining faithful to the richness of the original and global experience. Theologians are doing a similar thing in articulating faith in and love of Christ in contemporary terms. The basic requirement is that the new formulation should not undo the past, but should explicate more what is still implicit in the old. Second, there is no surpassing of the revelation in Christ, which is closed in its plenitude. Finally, the development of dogma involves necessarily a unity of all elements constituting its development as revelation, such as spirit and grace, the Church, tradition.13
The Joint Declaration on the Dogma of Justification represents the development of the understanding of justification from St. Paul to the time of Luther and the Council of Trent, and down to the present moment. The seven points in the formulation, which represent the common effort and good will between the two Churches, have provided a greater space of dialogue in clarifying certain stances and terminology, and recognizing some different emphases between them. Yet, from a Rahnerian point of view, there are some areas which need to be clarified and re-interpreted in contemporary terms so that the doctrine itself can shed more light and meaning on our Christian faith.
5. RAHNER, K. (1976). Foundations of Christian Faith. NY: The Crossroad Publishing Company. p. 30.
6. Ibid. p. 34.
7. Ibid. p. 36.
8. Cf. ibid. p. 42-43.
9. Ibid. p. 104.
10. Ibid. p. 118.
11. Ibid. p. 46.
12. Ibid. p. 120.
13. Cf. ROBERTS, L. (1967). The Achievement of Karl Rahner. NY. Herder & Herder. p. 67.
C. A Rahnerian Hermeneutics on the Joint Declaration
1. Human Powerlessness and Sin in Relation to Justification (JD 4.1)
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.
Rahner would certainly agree that all persons as creatures are totally dependent on God. This creatureliness is specially experienced in every effort towards transcendence in knowledge and exigency in categorical values, though it is not necessarily conscious or thematic. This is a moment of grace, but this grace is not an external offer as seemingly implied in the statement above. It is the infinite horizon implied in every questioning and effort in life. The point of departure may be the notion of "pure nature". It might be conceptually convenient to describe the daily banality of the human situation in the world as pure nature, in contrast to the total gratuity of the order of grace from God. However, can a person be existentially conceived of as living in a natural order, while all the transcendent experiences are extrinsically delivered to him from the supernatural one?14 Hardly! As Gaudium et spes (#22) affirms, ".... the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with the paschal mystery." Rahner goes even further to believe that the human being is a supernatural existential, as we have already noted, who enjoys the self-communication of God in the very constitution of a human being. In other words, the human being potentially participates in the divine and supernatural realm in pre-freedom towards the infinite horizon and categorical values.
This statement also distinguishes two types of freedom, namely, freedom of choice, related to things and persons in daily life, and the transcendental freedom to decide one's stance towards God and to accept God, that is, one's salvation. If our reading above is correct, freedom of choice may simply be an illusion and explained away by modern science through cause and effect. Therefore, it is certainly right to say that it has nothing to do with human salvation. Moreover, the more one is wrongly and distortedly conditioned in the generic process of growth, the less one is capable of turning to God by oneself, and the easier one would understand God's unmerited grace in one's conversion. On the other hand, in one's unthematic effort towards categorical values and knowledge, in other words towards justification, one is already opening up to and enjoying God's self-communication. There is no such thing as pure human effort. Therefore, it is absolutely right to claim that justification takes place solely by God's grace.
It is noteworthy that such terms as "solely" or "only" always imply a solid mysterious dimension in Catholic tradition. That is, they involve the tension of paradox, the tension of motherhood and virginity in Mary, of the scandal and glorification of the cross, of bread and Christ's presence in the host. We might use the word "solely" to emphasis one dimension of any pair, but we can never ignore the mysterious other. This applies similarly to the dynamic between God's omnipotence and human cooperation. Therefore, "solely by God's grace" does not cancel out human effort in the history of salvation.
No doubt, this simple analogy cannot dispel the tension and disturbance felt by both Churches concerning their different attitudes towards the human role in cooperating with God in the work of salvation.15 It seems that, with our certain limitation in language or thinking, we are still under the spell of either of the two distinct levels of truth in Platonism, namely the shadow and the really real, or even worse, the Cartesian Cogito, Ergo Sum. Both of them share the same thrust to emphasize one side of reality as independent and self-subsisting. Even in the traditional proof of God's existence, the closing line is self-subsisting Being. The limitation of ratio of this kind, apart from possible loopholes which have left it open to attack since Modernism, has to be complemented by the dimension of revelation, whose fundamental truth is that God, apart from self-subsistence, is also relation. Accepting humbly the limitation of human discourse, we have to say that God is One but also Three, though we may easily fall prey to rigorous human logic. In this sense, a certain tension and paradox in our ratio cannot but be the point of departure in theology. Nowadays, saying that the Father creates, the Son redeems and the Holy Spirit sanctifies, cannot any longer hold ground in serious discourse, though it is still a convenient and practical way in which to bring out different emphases. God's every action is always Trinitarian, in other words, in relation. As St. Augustine has already said, "In God there is no accident, but only substance and relation."16 Therefore, any metaphysics of substance must be accompanied by a metaphysics of the I-Thou. From this entry point, in line with Rahner's transcendental anthropology, Gen 1:27 and the Incarnation propose a possibility of discourse on "cooperation" for humanity as such. Of course, a qualification must be made here that, while Jesus possessed this unity with God by nature, we do so by God's unmerited grace. Furthermore, the tricky point, as recognized by the LTS commentary, seems to be the weight of human sinful nature, but this reality, Rahner might argue, is not as basic as the human constitution seen as supernatural existential. At least the latter can never be entirely overpowered and consumed by the former. The human being still has the capacity to say yes' to God due to God's prior self-communication.
2. Justification as Forgiveness of Sins and Making Righteous (JD 4.2)
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 (1Cor 1:30): both the forgiveness of sin and the saving presence of God himself.
The main point of this statement is that the two aspects of God's gracious action, namely forgiveness of sin and the gift of new life, are not to be separated. This goes back to the controversy over the understanding of imputation justice at the Reformation. According to former Lutheran teaching, God declares the forgiveness of sins towards the sinner because of Christ's merit. That is, God no longer imputes sins to the sinner, and yet the sins actually remain. The action of forgiveness is thereby totally one-sided: it causes no change in the person. Now, a new insight seems to come from a better understanding of God's word and action. In contrast to human limitation and fragility, there is no discrepancy between what God speaks and acts. "God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light..." (Gen 1:3ff). If God declares a person to be just in Christ, that person is also made righteous in his or her actual being. Therefore, "the restoration of the relationship between humanity and God, and of restoration of human life often named sanctification" (LTS commentary, comments on 4.2) are two sides of the same coin, namely, justification by God. Nobody comes to faith in Christ in the abstract. In exercising personal transcendental freedom, a person responds to the call to be a supernatural existential by actualizing the exigency of categorical values in concrete situations. This achievement is what the Catholic Church understands by human virtue, being righteous before God, without ignoring the fact that this initiation to be virtuous comes from God's self-communication in the first place. Rahner would probably go further and say that this sharing in Christ by faith may not be thematic or reflective in one's life, even when one is open to the calling as supernatural existential. This has nothing to do with watering down the role and importance of Christ in salvation history, because God's self communication always involves the Trinitarian dimension. In human language, from eternity the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are communicating their selves to each other in their immanence. In other words, the Father always forgives through the Son in their common expression and revelation in the economy of salvation. This forgiveness is fully known and grasped by human beings through the Son, through his participation in human history.
3. Justification by Faith and through Grace (JD 4.3)
We confess together that sinners are justified by faith in the saving action of God in Christ. By the action of the Holy Spirit in Baptism, they are granted the gift of salvation, which lays the basis for the whole Christian life. They place their trust in God's gracious promise by justifying faith, which includes hope in God and love for him. Such a faith is active in love and thus the Christiancannot and should not remain without works. But whatever in the justified precedes or follows the free gift of faith is neither the basis of justification nor merits it.
This statement mainly discusses the dynamics between faith and work. In the Catholic tradition, in contrast to the Lutheran sola fide, there is little inclination to discuss faith, hope and love independently. These three supernatural virtues are always seen as an organic whole in constituting a justified person. A Rahnerian horizon seems to be conducive to dissolving the tension between faith and work.
The confusion comes from the preoccupation to decide the causative relationship between the two, whether justification by faith leads to good works or good works render a person justified. The temporal sequence is implicitly indicated here, too.
So, we raise the question, namely, what does having faith in God mean in the first place? To have faith is to entrust oneself totally to God,17 the ineffable or nameless one. This commitment is an act of one's transcendental freedom in deciding about oneself as who one definitively is, though it is not completely transparent in reflective consciousness. This ineffable one, we have already noted, is not some transcendental being totally apart from us, but is the source and horizon in which we can aim towards the totality of the world and the unity of the self. The person recognizes the presence of the possibility of this totality and unity as the heart and ultimate meaning of all categorical values in a trans-categorical intuition, though not necessarily in a thematic way. The actualization of these categorical values is what we mean by good works. In this sense, surrendering oneself to the ineffable one and performing good works are intimately united. They both come from God's self communication in the first place, and there is no temporal priority between the two.
Paul says that "we are justified from the faith of Christ" [Gal 2:16]. Contemporary exegetes tell us that this phrase, "the faith of Christ", is more probably a subjective rather than an objective genitive. That is, it means the faith or faithfulness of Jesus Christ rather than (our) faith in Christ.18 Therefore, believers are justified through and on the basis of Christ's faith. In this sense, Lutherans are certainly right to say that God alone effects faith (JD, #26) since Christ himself is the prototype of faith itself in his submission to the Father. Similarly, with reference to the human relationship with God, Catholics are also correct in seeing faith in God and good works going hand in hand, as demonstrated by the Rahnerian perspective set out in the previous paragraph.
Noteworthy also in the statement is the assertion "By the action of the Holy Spirit in Baptism, they are granted the gift of salvation." Rahner would argue that "membership in the Church is not only a means for the purpose of attaining salvation, but rather it receives its own meaning from baptism."19 Actually, the purpose of salvation is often achieved without the tangible intervention of the Church, though it is oriented towards her by God's command and will in history. Yet, in the concrete there is one thing that is not possible without the Church and sacraments, namely, "the grace of God in Christ ... present in the world as an event, as an ongoing event with historical tangibility and with incarnational corporeality."20 In other words, the meaning of baptism is better understood as making the baptized person a messenger of the word, a witness of the truth, and a representative of the grace of Christ in the world, which has already implicitly enjoyed God self-communication and love.
Moreover, the statement above is mainly confined to the Christian circle. If the logic of our foregoing discussion is acceptable, the unity of faith and work can also be applied to people not explicitly sharing our Christian expression of faith because God's self-communication is the constitution of every human being, who is always potentially capable of surrendering to the ineffable one in categorical values.
4. The Justified as Sinner (JD 4.4)
We confess together that in Baptism the Holy Spirit unites one with Christ, justifies, and truly renews the person. But the justified must all through life constantly look to God's unconditional justifying grace. They also are continuously exposed to the power of sin still pressing its attack (cf. Rom 6:12-14) and are not exempt from a life-long struggle against the contradiction to God within the selfish desires of the old Adam (cf. Gal 5:16; Rom 7:7-10). The justified also must ask God daily for forgiveness as in the Lord's Prayer (Mt 6:12; 1Jn 1:9), are ever again called to conversion and penance, and are ever again granted forgiveness.
As we have already noted, the human being is radically threatened by guilt, a constant possibility of saying "no" to God in one's attitude and action with reference to categorical values. The human being as person and subject is an evolving process, from the peripheral level to that deepest level which constitutes a person as such. In this process of life-long growth and struggle, one cannot, because of the influence of concupiscence,21 constantly respond absolutely to categorical values, which call upon one's personhood. In this sense, one remains a sinner though justified, but not in the definitive or final sense that only happens at the time of death. Since God's self-communication is the basic constitution of human being, so the Lutheran rightly emphasizes that, "despite sin, the Christian is no longer separated from God." (Joint Declaration, #29) When one turns to the ineffable one implied in one's actualizing of categorical values, one is forgiven, in the sense that one comes once again to harmony and congruence with one's fundamental constitution in transcendental freedom.
In the Catholic tradition, this call to conversion and penance is explicitly established in the sacrament of reconciliation, whose prototype and source is Jesus' unconditioned and irrevocable love and forgiveness towards us in the historic event of the cross. Now, this love and forgiveness are uttered through the Church and her representatives, an efficacious sign of God's tangible presence in history, and thus this utterance becomes an event again when an individual seeks this sacrament to be reconciled to the holy mystery, the human community and the world.
However, the latest statement by the Catholic Church (RCC #1, 2) openly expresses dissatisfaction over certain terminology used by the Lutheran churches and still appearing in the Joint Declaration; "The Justified as Sinner"(JD, 4.4), "Believers are totally righteous .... they remain also totally sinners"(JD, #29), "Opposition to God"(JD, #29).
The Catholic Church feels that these words seem to overlook or bypass the transformed and elevated reality experienced by the sinner in conversion, signified in the sacraments of Baptism and Reconciliation. On the other hand, the LTS commentary on JD, 4.4 expresses satisfaction that simul justus et peccator and its significance have been maintained.
Here we see clearly the two different emphases concerning justification and sin. While Catholics focus more on the objective effect of grace and sacraments, Lutherans focus more on subjective experience similar to that of St. Paul in Rom 7:17, 20. Thinking in terms of God's unity in word and action as explained above, and of the Father-children relationship resumed by grace, Catholics are more consistent in seeing human transformation through the Holy Spirit (Rom 8:14-17, Gal 4:4-7, RCC #7). Not denying this objective status and transformation by justification, however, the Lutheran tradition attains a very deep insight into the human and personal condition radically threatened by guilt, inherited by Luther from the experience of St. Paul, St. Augustine. This insight overcomes the somehow too one-sided and physical understanding of sin in the Catholic tradition as something from which to be cleansed, like dirt. It is still possible for any Christian to say a definite "no" to God, absolutely contradicting his own constitution, though this may not be transparent in his reflective consciousness and only disclosed at the time of death. Here, a common effort has to be made to clarify more the mutual understanding of the meaning of "concupiscence" and "ruled sin". Or, can the tension between "The Justified as Sinner" be resolved by the category of "already but not yet" as expounded by Vat. II in her self-understanding of the Church from the Catholic perspective?
5. Law and Gospel (JD 4.5)
We confess together that persons are justified by faith in the Gospel "apart from works prescribed by the law" (Rom 3:28). Christ has fulfilled the law and by his death and resurrection has overcome it as a way to salvation. We also confess that God's commandments retain their validity for the justified and that Christ has by his teaching and example expressed God's will which is a standard for the conduct of the justified also.
The conflict between Law and Gospel seems not to have been tackled or explained very clearly in the Scripture. On the one hand, the Law, signified in the Ten Commandments, comes from God. It is God's utterance and thus, is a presence of the Logos. That is why Jesus reiterated, "Do not imagine that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have come not to abolish but to complete them." (Mt 5:17) Here we do not see any antagonism between the two, Law and Gospel. The Gospel uttered by Jesus is nothing but the fulfillment of the Law. On the other hand, the conflict really does run through the ministry of Jesus, and later through that of Peter and of Paul, in their interaction with the Pharisees and Scribes, the advocates of the Law.
Therefore, the entry point for tackling this question is the interpretation of the Law. The Law is an expression of categorical values which govern human relationships with each other and with God. First, the Law is not the only such expression. Second, categorical values are not a self-enclosed system. If Rahner's reading is correct, the human arch-encounter with God has its Sitz im Leben in the encounter with categorical values."22 That is, values are within and thus discovered within an infinitive horizon, or within the ineffable one, who reveals himself to human beings in these values in concrete time and space. The philosophy of language helps us understand that, within different cultural horizons, words have different nuances in meaning and implication. This is no less true of statements of law. Therefore, law is not self-sufficient in itself. Rather, its meaning and application need to await the ever-greater horizon that comes forward in history. This is the horizon of love, signified and culminated in the historical person of Jesus, who is the Gospel itself.
This brings us to our next consideration. Law by its wording is nothing but a congealed form of categorical values revealed in definite time and space. What is congealed loses actual power and life. Then, the transcendental question arises, namely, what is the condition of possibility of recognizing and actualizing the relevant law in the concrete here and now? Without this condition of possibility, as St. Paul experienced, law merely serves as demand and accusation of my sins (Rom7:7-12). Therefore, as Rahner points out, the condition of this possibility is the self-communication of God. Only if one opens oneself to one's very constitution and mystery through a loving and personal relationship, whose prototype and destiny have already been revealed in Jesus Christ, can one can find life and power in fulfilling the law.23
6. Assurance of Salvation (JD 4.6)
We 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.
According to Rahner, a person can be sure of the grace of salvation because God's self-communication has already been granted to human beings as the constitution of their being. This assurance is even intensified and explicitly expressed in Jesus' Incarnation and Paschal mystery, cf. Jn 3:16. This historical event, as God's definite showing of forgiving love towards human beings, serves as an objective reference for our immediate but implicit knowledge of and love for God's self communication. Jesus' final resurrection and glorification by the Father makes him the finest exemplar of our destiny. In this sense, our individual salvation is sure.
However, Rahner reminds us that the human being is also inevitably threatened by guilt. A definitive "no" to God's self-communication and an absolute contradiction to one's own actual constitution as supernatural existential is still an open possibility for everyone. When the LTS commentary on JD 4.6 states that"Therefore every individual, not humanity in general, should look to God's salvation alone," the word"should" has already indicated that the person may not in fact turn to God for salvation even though objective assurance is granted. Of course, this saying "no" and the contradiction acted out in one's core freedom is never unambiguous during one's life. It is only fully disclosed at the time of one's death. Therefore, in Catholic realism, so far we can definitely say that God intends our salvation.
7. The Good Works of the Justified (JD 4.7)
We confess together that good works - a Christian life lived in faith, hope, and love - follow justification and are its fruits. When the justified live in Christ and act in the grace they receive, they bring forth, in biblical terms, good fruit.
Since Christians struggle against sin their entire lives, this consequence of justification is also for them an obligation they must fulfill. Thus both Jesus and the apostolic Scriptures admonish Christians to bring forth the works of love.
As long as one opens oneself up to God as supernatural existential, one is a justified person. As already noted, discovery of this 'given'24 opening to God occurs in pursuing greater knowledge or in actualizing the exigency of categorical values in the concrete world. In this sense, justification and doing good works happen together. The word follow' in the statement above seems not very accommodating because faith and good works do not appear in a temporal sequence,25 but occur simultaneously. On the other hand, if we take God's self-communication to be the very constitution of the human person as its formal cause, in this sense the wordfollow' is right to describe good works as an effect.
According to Rahner, the human being is a potentia obedientialis, in line with the scholastic description capax Dei. That is, the human being is potentially open to God and capable of reaching God. This is the constitution and destiny of the human being. However, the greatest potentiality cannot compare with the least actuality. If a person is not open to this potentiality, it does him or her no good. That is why St. James reiterates that faith without works is quite dead and useless. (Jms 2:14-26) From a Catholic point of view, the more one is conscientious in responding to the absolute demand of categorical value, the deeper one's core freedom develops, then the stronger yes' one is saying to God's self-communication, the more one's potentiality converts into actuality. In this sense, good works contribute to growth in grace."(JD, #38) This understanding is in line with the LTS commentary on JD, 4.7, which similarly recognized that "through good works one develops a constantly deeper relationship with God, much as the love of a husband and wife deepens throughout a marriage. Finally, the supernatural virtues, faith, hope and love, are inter-connected as a whole. (1Cor13:13)
14. This understanding reflects a certain affinity with Platonic idealism, where the human lives as a fettered slave in a cave, the natural order. Liberation then comes when the other world of Ideas, the really real symbolized as the sun, is 'seen' by the person.
15. The LTS commentary on JD, 4.1, clearly expresses a feeling of disturbance towards the Catholic use of"cooperation", while The Response of The Catholic Church (#3)obviously affirms it again.
16. Enarrationes in Psalmos. PL 36, 845.
17. Cf. Dei Verbum #5.
18. MATERA, F.J. (1992). Galatians. (Daniel J. Harrington, S.J. (ED) Sacra Pagina, vol. 9). Collegeville, Minnesota. The Liturgical Press: A Michael Glazier Book. pP. 100-102. Six points are illustrated to prove this thesis.
19. RAHNER (1976). p. 416.
20. Ibid.
21. This understanding is linked to the Church's doctrine on Original Sin. As Rahner interprets it, we are people who must inevitably exercise our freedom subjectively in a situation which is co-determined by objectification of guilt, and indeed in such a way that this co-determination belongs to our situation permanently and inescapably. Taking the advantage of buying bananas at a low price may already involve one in the injustice and exploitation imposed on the banana pickers. Cf. Ibid. p. 110.
22. GLASER, J.W. (1969). Man's Existence: Supernatural Partnership. Theological Studies, Vol.30 (3). p. 482.
23. This thinking is in line with the LTS commentary on JD, 4.5, which states that "The Law reveals our need for the Gospel...Without the continuous demand of the Law we do not realize how necessary the Gospel is."
24. The use of the word 'given' is to emphasize that one's opening up is itself a grace of God in the first place.
25. A qualification is needed here that, if justification is by the faith of Christ, with subjective genitive as discussed above (p.17), a temporal sequence certainly makes sense because all of our justification comes from him.
D. Conclusion
In the foregoing lines, a dialectic is at work, trying to strike a delicate balance between God and human beings. Rahner's understanding of supernatural existential as his starting point for the theology of grace grants us a secure approach and foundation upon which to resolve the tension between the two. Not only is this understanding congruent with the traditional teaching of the Church; it also successfully infuses a spiritual and religious dimension into modern anthropology.
The doctrine of justification is the Pauline insight into the dialectic between Christology and Anthropology. First, salvation is not a second thought after the Fall. As St. Paul exhorts us, "Before the world was made, he chose us, chose us in Christ."(Eph 1:4). God created us for full communion with him through the Incarnated Logos. This understanding gives the biblical ground for Rahner's doctrine on God's self-communication as the capacitas Dei of the human being, who is now like God as person and subject. This capacity for transcendence, as the basic human constitution, leads to the other side of the coin, namely, freedom and responsibility in human destiny. However, freedom involves the possibility of saying "no", the absolute contradiction of one's own being. The actually sinful situation of the world forms the stage for the preparation, expression and final fulfillment of the Incarnated Logos in the whole salvation history.
Therefore, since the Christ event is the axis and pivot of history, the human being has nothing to boast about with reference to salvation because all the achievement, in openness towards the infinite horizon either of knowledge or of categorical values, comes from God, the uncreated grace itself. In response by faith to this call of grace mediated through categorical values, one becomes forgiven, righteous, and justified in God's sight, whether or not one has previously said "no". Yet, Rahner reminds us that we are not fully transparent in the reflexive process, concerning our definite response to this call of God. It is only revealed at the time of our death when we will take our final stance. So, in this sense, salvation is truly intended, but not fully assured as such. If this is so, this life must have something important and significant to contribute to our final stance towards God. Consequently, there comes the understanding of the potential sinner and good works, now in the context of Gospel rather than of Law. Work, expressed in response to the categorical and hierarchical values, renders one thematic in saying "yes" in the inner core of one's constitution as person and subject, where one's final stance is taken. The demand of works, however, should not come from the enforcement of Law which has no life or power, but from the recognition of the Gospel, namely, the love and invitation of Jesus Christ fully expressed in his life and Paschal Mystery.
In relating to the latest response on the JD from the Catholic Church and Lutheran circle, the effort of reaching the fusion of horizons for both sides is affirmed again, while recognizing honestly the want of full communion due to some substantial differences in understanding the doctrine of justification. If communion is the sign of deepest relationship, is that also a sign for us to reflect deeper on categories of relation in our ongoing theological discourse? The doctrine of justification is not the only doctrine of the Christian faith. Its significance should be illuminated by and related to other dogmas, especially the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Contemporary re-focus on the dynamics between the immanent and economic Trinity contributes no little insight to ecclesiology, missiology and spirituality. Our God is a God-in-Relation, and so any doctrine of God should also be doctrine-in-relation. Therefore, the criterion and significance of the regula fidei (RCC. #2) need to be explored more deeply by both sides. Furthermore, the notion of sin should be viewed more from a relational perspective between God and human beings than as something "physical" or "material" as if some kind of dirt needed to be or could be wiped out. Forgiveness of sin is actually, not superficially, the wounded relation restored, where human beings become the genuine children of God again. Finally, in this context, the notion of imputation cannot but appear inadequate to describe the whole picture of justification, which grants human transformation and sanctification by God's grace.
As a model, Rahner's transcendental anthropology tries to find suitable categories to describe the relation between God and human beings for better insight and integration into our faith. As a whole, a thorough and well-grounded understanding of the doctrine of justification depends on a sound anthropology, in order to avoid any too one-sided bias, either on the powerlessness or on the merit of work by human beings in attaining salvation. I think the recent Joint Declaration has achieved a delicate balance, while a Rahnerian interpretation may even expand the vision. All this effort and achievement towards a better understanding of the doctrine of justification, and reconciliation between the two Churches can, once again, only be attributed to the grace of God.