Twenty-five Years After the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification

This year marks the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (JDDJ). The declaration, first signed on October 31, 1999 by representatives of the Catholic Church¹ and the Lutheran World Federation, claims a resolution to the centuries-old dispute over the doctrine of justification. The doctrine of justification was of central importance to the cause of the Protestant Reformation. Some contend that the doctrine is the “chief article” of all Christian faith and thus the “rule and judge” by which all other teachings are assessed (cf. JDDJ, 1). The signing of the JDDJ thus reflects one of the greatest achievements of the ecumenical movement in the twentieth century.

Justification involves the way by which a human person is made righteous in the sight of God. Given its relevance to all Christian faith and practice, it is worth reflecting on the JDDJ anew now that some time has passed since its signing. This article aims to take stock of the declaration’s ecumenical achievement as well as consider its present value in Catholic catechetical and pastoral contexts. An outline of the content of the JDDJ’s statement will be presented, followed by a discussion of the document’s value within the Catholic doctrinal framework. The method of “differentiating consensus” used by the signatories will also be considered as a model for further dialogue and collaboration among Christians.

The Consensus on Basic Truths

The JDDJ asserts a consensus on the basic truths underlying the doctrine of justification (JDDJ, 1). The substance of this consensus is presented as being consistent with both the canonical decrees of the Council of Trent and the principles delineated in the historical Lutheran Confessions (JDDJ, 1). The respect for the validity of each signatory’s theological approaches — which might first strike some as a weakness — arguably demonstrates the document’s strength. Neither partner was asked to overlook or diminish its own tradition in reaching a consensus. A superficial unity would have quickly disintegrated. Instead, differing doctrinal commitments are integrated by each partner in a way that presents them as compatible. The condemnations of history — while remaining substantively valid as expressions of essential doctrinal points — are treated as inapplicable to each signatory in light of the declaration’s shared expression of doctrine (cf. JDDJ, 5).

The doctrinal consensus begins with a presentation of Jesus’s words in the third chapter of John: “God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life” (JDDJ, 8). This good news is described as responding to “human sinfulness and human disobedience as well as God’s ‘righteousness’ and ‘judgment.’ ” (JDDJ, 8; internal citations omitted) The document defines salvation as being inclusive of: freedom in Christ, reconciliation with God, restoration of peace, being made a new creation, becoming alive in God, and sanctification (JDDJ, 9). Among the gifts of salvation is “justification of sinful human beings by God’s grace through faith” (JDDJ, 9). Justification is defined as “forgiveness of sins, liberation from the dominating power of sin and death and from the curse of the law” as well as “acceptance into communion with God” (JDDJ, 11; internal citations omitted). Justification is received “through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God — not the result of works” (JDDJ, 10, quoting Eph. 2:8f). These affirmations directly correspond to Reformation-era critiques of each partner’s confessional tradition and seek to resolve them.

Having emphasized these common shared principles, the JDDJ provides the following synthesis of doctrine joined by both the Catholic and Lutheran signatories:

Justification thus means that Christ himself is our righteousness, in which we share through the Holy Spirit in accord with the will of the Father. Together we confess: 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, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works. (JDDJ, 15.)

In addition to an affirmation of justification by grace alone (sola gratia), the JDDJ also expresses that “[t]hrough Christ alone [i.e., solus Christus] are we justified, when we receive this salvation in faith.” (JDDJ, 16.) In doing so, the document expressly affirms two “solas” which emerged during the Reformation period that had once been cast as critiques of Catholic doctrine. Certainly, Roman Catholic theology already expressed the substance of these phrases even if at times it did so in other ways.² Nevertheless, by explicitly affirming the use of these phrases, the Catholic signatories were joining their Lutheran counterparts on points that had been once suggested — perhaps wrongly — as historical areas of difference.

The Lutheran phrase “faith alone” — sola fide — is not included in the consensus language. The Lutheran signatories include the expression as a distinctive emphasis within their tradition. All signatories agree to an underlying principle of sola fide that justification is accomplished by faith apart from works. The consensus language explains that “sinners are justified by faith in the saving action of God in Christ” (JDDJ, 25). Justification is “by faith in the gospel ‘apart from works prescribed by the law’ (Rm. 3:28)” (JDDJ, 31). As a gesture toward a Catholic point of emphasis, the text affirms that justifying faith “includes hope in God and love for him” (JDDJ, 25). As a gesture toward the Lutheran emphasis on sola fide, all signatories affirm that “whatever in the justified precedes or follows the free gift of faith is neither the basis of justification nor merits it” (JDDJ, 25). Where Catholics emphasize a “meritorious” component to good works, they explain that they do so to uphold the Biblical presentation of “a reward in heaven . . . promised to these works” that “remains the unmerited gift of grace” (JDDJ, 38). Where Lutherans emphasize that the grace of justification is “always complete,” they also affirm a “concept of a preservation of grace and a growth in grace and faith” (cf. JDDJ, 39).

The JDDJ also affirms the shared Lutheran and Catholic belief in baptismal regeneration, stating that “in baptism the Holy Spirit unites one with Christ, justifies, and truly renews the person” (JDDJ, 28). Where the concept of an assurance of salvation was once thought to be a point of departure, the declaration seems to integrate various emphases in stating that “believers should not look to themselves but look solely to Christ and trust only in him” (JDDJ, 35). The text regards assurance to be founded upon the trustworthiness of God’s promises, stating that “the faithful can rely on the mercy and promises of God” (JDDJ, 34).

The remaining differences on relevant points of doctrine — while “‘salutary warnings’ to which we must attend in our teaching and practice” (JDDJ, 42) — are considered to be “open to one another” vis-à-vis the common expression of faith. They therefore “do not destroy the consensus regarding the basic truths” of the doctrine (JDDJ, 40). As a result, the signatories conclude the “teaching of the Lutheran churches presented in this Declaration does not fall under the condemnations of the Council of Trent,” and the “condemnations of the Lutheran Confessions do not apply to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church” presented in the text (JDDJ, 41). The church-dividing nature of the dispute is said to be over.

Although the durability of the claimed resolution might have been uncertain at its signing, the test of time has rendered a verdict. The JDDJ’s reception over the subsequent twenty-five years has exhibited a doctrinal resilience. In 2006, the World Methodist Council declared that the JDDJ corresponds to Methodist doctrine.³ It did so while emphasizing that the Methodist Movement understands itself to be indebted to Luther, the Wesleys, and also “elements of the doctrine of justification which belong to the Catholic tradition of the early church both East and West.”⁴ In 2016, the Anglican Consultative Council announced that it “welcomes and affirms the substance of the [JDDJ]” and concludes that Anglicans and Roman Catholics “are agreed on the essential aspects of the doctrine of salvation and on the Church’s role within it.”⁵ In 2017, the World Communion of Reformed Churches also joined the JDDJ, stating that “[w]e rejoice together that the historical doctrinal differences on the doctrine of justification no longer divide us.”⁶ Their statement added that John Calvin had welcomed a similarly conceived doctrinal consensus in his own lifetime.⁷ In the twenty-five years since its signing, the declaration’s claims of a substantive consensus have been largely vindicated, uniting multiple churches across the doctrinal continuum.

The lingering controversy over “faith alone”: a Catholic catechetical approach

With a basic consensus established, some immediate questions emerge. For instance, the declaration’s embrace of sola gratia and solus Christus might require further elaboration in a Catholic terminological context. Most notably, the declaration does not explicitly affirm or reject the doctrine of justification by faith alone (sola fide) in the consensus portion of the document. The text rather refers to sola fide as a Lutheran distinctive that is not an obstacle to the Catholic affirmations. That lends itself to the question: Would it be correct for Catholics to use the expression?

The answer to this question has pastoral implications. Ecumenical intermingling has become a norm in the United States, particularly where faithful attend youth groups, Bible studies, retreats, weddings, and even Sunday services across confessional lines. Much of this association and collaboration should be considered to reflect positive ecumenical progress. Nevertheless, Catholics are often questioned in these settings about their understanding of the doctrine of justification by faith alone. In some contexts, sola fide is presented as so fundamental to the Gospel that a failure to expressly affirm it is a basis for continued condemnation. A false dichotomy is often proposed between justification by “faith alone” and justification by “faith and works,” even suggesting that a Catholic reluctance to affirm “faith alone” requires the conclusion that Catholics believe in a system of works-based justification. Some Catholic apologetic responses to these accusations are not immune to a similar impulse for caricature. In light of its consensus language, the JDDJ offers an opportunity to teach the good news about justification in a way that helps mitigate polemical approaches to the question.

Accordingly, if Catholics do not adhere to justification by faith alone, then what is the Catholic teaching? This question, in part, is asked rhetorically. It is simply untrue to say that the Roman Catholic tradition absolutely excludes sola fide in every possible sense. The Council of Trent taught that the expression sola fide is to be rejected when it is used to assert “that it is in no way necessary that [the person] be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will.”⁸ This canon affirms the necessity of repentance, or the voluntary movement of the will away from sin. Repentance “entails the desire and resolution to change one’s life, with hope in God’s mercy and trust in the help of his grace” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1431; hereinafter CCC). The sinner, incapable of this movement without grace, is freed by grace to assent to the gift of justification through faith. This process involves the “movement of a ‘contrite heart,’ drawn and moved by grace to respond to the merciful love of God who loved us first” (CCC 1428). This treatment of the doctrine of justification would certainly exclude some expressions of sola fide, but not all of them.

Far from requiring a works-based alternative, Trent’s decree on justification also excludes any notion “that man can be justified before God by his own works.”⁹ The notion that Catholics adhere to a works-based system by which some combination of “faith plus works” must be added up to earn the grace of justification is not a Catholic doctrine at all, but rather a confused caricature of it. Trent affirms that “none of those things which precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace itself of justification; for, ‘if it is a grace, it is not now by reason of works.’ ”¹⁰ The JDDJ’s affirmation of justification by grace alone, moreover, can be affirmed by Catholics without qualification.

In Catholic teaching, justifying faith is never absolutely “alone” because living faith is formed in charity. Charity — caritas in Latin — is a term of art in Catholic theology. It is defined as the theological virtue by which “we love God above all things for his own sake, and our neighbor as ourselves for the love of God” (see CCC 1822). Simply stated, charity is the gift of God’s love that gives form to the faith that justifies the sinner. Augustine writes that “he who does not love believes in vain, even if what he believes is true” because “the true faith of Christ [is that] which the apostle commends: faith that works through love.”¹¹ Thomas Aquinas likewise describes charity as the form of justifying faith, distinguishing living faith and dead faith precisely on account of whether it is quickened by charity.¹² The Catholic Catechism teaches that justification is “the acceptance of God’s righteousness through faith” whereby “faith, hope, and charity are poured into our hearts, and obedience to the divine will is granted us” (CCC 1991). The repentant movement of the will, then, is not so much a work of the law but the “cooperation between God’s grace and man’s freedom.” This dynamic interplay involves “the assent of faith to the Word of God, which invites [the sinner] to conversion, and . . . the cooperation of charity with the prompting of the Holy Spirit who precedes and preserves his assent” (CCC 1993). Trent’s emphasis on the cooperation of the will maintains both the gratuity of grace and the freedom essential to authentic love.

The basis of this teaching is found in the scriptural testimony which associates justifying faith with love. God’s very essence is love (cf. 1 Jn. 4:8), and the person reborn in Christ is commanded to “believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another” (1 Jn. 3:23). If to love God and one’s neighbor (charity) fulfills the whole of the law (cf. Mt. 22:36–39), then additional legal observances are unnecessary where love abides through faith. Paul concludes that a sinner is “justified by faith apart from works of the law” (cf. Rm. 3:28) — and “neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail” (cf. Gal. 5:6) — because the faith that justifies is a “faith working through love” (cf. Gal. 5:6). A Catholic reading of James thus distinguishes between a dead “faith alone” in an absolute sense (cf. Jas. 2:24) and a living faith found among the “heirs of the kingdom which he has promised to those who love him” (cf. Jas. 2:5). Paul so eloquently concludes that “if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing” (1 Cor. 13:2); and “faith, hope, love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love” (1 Cor. 13:13). By way of example, Peter’s conversion after having denied the Lord three times involves a triple affirmation of his love for Christ followed by Christ’s exhortation that Peter feed his sheep (cf. Jn. 21:15­–19). Peter’s response thus models a repentance effected through faith and charity.

The JDDJ found consensus specifically on this point, declaring that 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” (JDDJ 22). The signatories agreed that “justifying faith . . . includes hope in God and love for him” (JDDJ 25). The declaration’s consensus language echoes a similar agreement reached during the Reformation period itself. The Diet of Regensburg of 1541 included Lutheran, Calvinist, and Catholic signatories and garnered the approval of John Calvin. Regensburg stated that justification “happens to no one unless also at the same time love is infused which heals the will so that the healed may begin to fulfill the law.”¹³ What is so striking about Regensburg is that its text anticipates the JDDJ centuries in advance and perhaps suggests the consensus forged was not something novel but rather a realization of a substantive reality that had existed all along.

With these same categories in mind, Pope Benedict XVI embraced a qualified expression of sola fide. The pope’s teaching on justification deserves repeating here:

Being just simply means being with Christ and in Christ. And this suffices. Further observances are no longer necessary. For this reason, Luther’s phrase “faith alone” is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love. Faith is looking at Christ, entrusting oneself to Christ, being united to Christ, conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence to believe is to conform to Christ and to enter into his love. . . . Thus in communion with Christ, in a faith that creates charity, the entire Law is fulfilled. We become just by entering into communion with Christ who is Love.¹⁴

Benedict’s embrace of sola fide is not surprising in light of the JDDJ’s consensus language. Although Pope Francis did not explicitly restate the phrase, in a 2021 audience he taught an underlying principle in saying that

Paul insists on the fact that justification comes through faith in Christ. “But, Father, I am just because I keep to all the Commandments!” Yes, but justification does not come from that. It comes before that. Someone justified you, someone made you just before God. “Yes, but I am a sinner!” Yes, you are justified, but a sinner. But fundamentally, you are just. Who justified you? Jesus Christ. . . . You cannot pay for this. Someone paid for all of us: Christ. And from Christ, who died for us, comes that grace that the Father gives to everyone: Justification comes through grace. . . . [T]he response of faith demands that we be active in our love for God and in our love of neighbor. Why “active in that love”? Because that love saved all of us, it freely justified us, gratis!¹⁵

Francis also juxtaposes faith active in love against James’s admonition that justification is “not by faith alone” (Jas. 2:24), situating James’s epistle as a complement to Paul’s teaching.¹⁶

In answering the question raised at the top of this section, Catholics may affirm justification by faith alone provided that it is a faith active in love. While the teaching is perhaps more precisely expressed as justification only by grace through faith, this Catholic emphasis remains open to the Lutheran phrase and its underlying principles. Going forward, it would be doctrinally incorrect to caricature the phrase sola fide as patently erroneous in Catholic theology even if it would also be imprudent to make recourse to it without explanation. Acknowledging the JDDJ’s doctrinal consensus can be a means to shepherd the faithful on a path to a greater Christian unity in accordance with the Lord’s will (cf. Jn. 17:21).

Pastoral Opportunities

For some readers of this article, the conclusions of the JDDJ — or even its existence — might be received as a surprise. Disagreements over the doctrine of justification are often still considered a basis of division. In some church settings drawing high numbers of attendees, the subject is treated as if the fiery debates of the sixteenth century are newly blazing. Social media has only aggravated this situation, offering a venue for treatment of the subject in overly simplistic soundbites and tweets. These presentations fail to appreciate the truly substantive consensus recognized by the JDDJ. As one Lutheran minister recently said to me, he considers the continued use of historical caricatures to be a result of a “theological laziness.” It is perhaps easy to explain why “we” are not “them” in a homily or sermon, he said, but that method often involves inaccuracy or prejudice. We owe the faithful better than simple caricatures.

The text’s substantive consensus and accompanying doctrinal statements are its greatest assets. From a Catholic perspective, the text presents the doctrine of justification in a way that is fully compatible with historical Catholic doctrinal definitions and subsequent theological developments. It is therefore useful as a primary catechetical text to teach the faithful the good news that one is justified by grace through faith. Using the JDDJ to teach on this subject can assist the faithful in coming to know this essential truth while learning how to speak about historical differences. In short, it is pastorally helpful to use the text to explain what we believe without confusion about what they believe. This is increasingly essential where polemical treatments of the subject continue to divide Christians unnecessarily. By teaching on these points in this proper order, the text provides a valuable catechetical roadmap that avoids caricature and promotes ecumenical sensitivity.

In addition to its substance, the declaration’s method of forging consensus may also be considered a model for ecumenical efforts. In March 2019, representatives of the Anglican, Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist, and Reformed churches met at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana. They jointly renewed the substantive statements of the JDDJ while praising what they described as the JDDJ’s method of “differentiating consensus.”¹⁷ This method involves the identification of a common doctrinal substance that is compatible with different emphases or expressions in each respective tradition. Differences are communicated as helpful distinctives in relation to core truths. This path of “differentiating consensus” thus identifies a shared area of agreement without minimizing real differences of expression. The declaration’s resilience as a method in a once-intractable dispute lends itself to further trial elsewhere.

Certainly, there will be theological topics where differences are simply impossible to overcome with this method. Issues of sacramental theology and ecclesiology, for instance, involve decisions not only about what to believe but how to behave in the church community. This means that some differences — like how to govern a church or when to administer a sacrament — will simply remain differences as long as we remain separated. Nevertheless, the success of this method in helping to resolve what had once appeared to be the chief doctrinal dispute in Western Christianity renders it to be a proven approach. Perhaps in areas of social doctrine — where differences over sexual ethics have been dividing Christian communities in ways not fully foreseen twenty-five years ago — the JDDJ’s method offers a way to understand increased healthy collaboration. Areas of agreement on social teaching, particularly in service to the community and the needy, provide Christians a continued opportunity for theological consensus and joint action despite differences in other areas.

Conclusion

This year marks the twenty-fifth anniversary of the declaration that Catholics and Protestants agree on the core substance of the doctrine of justification. The consensus described by the JDDJ represents a seminal moment in a long and necessary process of ecclesial healing. What had once been thought to be the primary doctrinal basis of division in the Christian West has become, paradoxically, the occasion of one of the most important ecumenical texts in history. Aware of its historical significance, the JDDJ’s signatories ask that the text be allowed to “prove itself” (JDDJ, 43). Since then, the declaration has experienced cross-confessional affirmation among Lutheran, Catholic, Methodist, Reformed, and Anglican confessional bodies. This theological resilience has also been demonstrated in the public teaching of recent popes. Pope Benedict XVI’s catechetical embrace of a qualified expression of sola fide in 2008 was followed by Pope Francis’s statement in 2016 that “today Lutherans and Catholics, Protestants, all of us agree on the doctrine of justification. On this point, which is very important, [Luther] did not err.”¹⁸ That the JDDJ has demonstrated formal theological resilience in both Protestant and Catholic spheres is a vindication of the boldness of the declaration’s claimed achievement. This sustained support for the substantive content of the text shows that a true consensus on basic truths was in fact articulated.

Although the declaration is now twenty-five years old, there is no sell-by date to the opportunities offered by its achievement. Its pastoral advantages include its value as a catechetical text that explains core doctrines while retaining ecumenical sensitivity. Just as important, the method of “differentiating consensus” offers a path toward further unity in other areas where common ground is possible. The JDDJ’s signatories hope the declaration will “influence the life and teachings of our churches” (JDDJ, 43). This is particularly important as Christians find that doctrinal differences need not impede collaboration in areas of social action. The JDDJ’s method can therefore be seen as a model for how Christians might collaborate in charitable works while acknowledging true differences, uniting us in the faith that works through love.