CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1.1. Doctrina stantis et cadentis ecclesiae In the evangelical theology, there’s no consensus on the speciality and meaning concerning the doctrine of justifi cation. There is no single evan- gelical doctrine of justifi cation, much less one single Lutheran doctrine of justifi cation. There are at least a dozen of them.1 These words of Wolfhart Pannenberg naturally shock the churches, which have treasured the doctrine of justifi cation as their most pre- cious jewel. Pannenberg uttered this after the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justifi cation ( JDDJ, 1999), which established agreement between the Lutheran World Federation and the Roman Catholic Church on central Soteriological themes. According to Pannenberg, the convoluted history of Lutheranism has produced a number of different interpretations of justifi cation.2 Generally, the doctrine of justifi cation has been the core of all Lutheran theology. Martin Luther (1483–1546) teaches in his Schmal- kaldic Articles (SA) that: “On this article stands all that we teach and practice against the pope, the devil, and the world. Therefore we must be quite certain and have no doubt about it. Otherwise everything is lost, and the pope and the devil and whatever opposes us will gain vic- tory and be proved right.”3 In the Apology of the Augsburg Confession (Apologia Confessionis Augustanae, AC) Philip Melanchthon (1497–1560) calls the doctrine of justifi cation “the most important topic of Christian teaching.”4 The same emphasis is apparent in the texts of the other 1 Wolfhart Pannenberg, Hintergründe des Streites um die Rechtfertigungslehre in der evan- gelischen Theologie (München: Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 2000), p. 3. 2 Moreover, the disagreement between Lutheran theologians goes back to the approaches, which have been burdened by powerful philosophical assumptions. See Risto Saarinen, Gottes Wirken auf uns. Die transzendentale Deutung des Gegenwart-Christi-Motivs in der Lutherforschung (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag Wiesbaden GmbH. 1988). 3 BSELK SA II, 5. 4 BSELK AC IV, 2. VAINIO_f2_1-17.indd 1 11/22/2007 4:00:12 PM 2 chapter one prominent Reformation theologians as well. For example, Martin Chem- nitz (1522–1586), the major contributor to the Formula of Concord (Formula Concordiae, FC), claimed that “Indeed, this locus is the pinnacle and chief bulwark of all teaching and of the Christian religion itself; if this is obscured, adultered, or subverted, it is impossible to retain purity of doctrine in the other loci.”5 The self-understanding of the Reformers evidently was that the doctrine of justifi cation was the one by which the Church stands or falls (doctrina stantis et cadentis ecclesiae);6 in other words, the Lutheran Church is not genuine Church if it does not have genuine teaching on justifi cation.7 Given these prestigious statements it may seem inconceivable that there has never been such a thing as a singular Lutheran doctrine of justifi cation. Researchers, however, have long claimed that since the fi rst half of the 16th century there have been different interpretations of justifi cation. The best-known claim is probably that Luther and Melanchthon differed on the matter. Without a clear picture of it his- tory, Lutheran theology lacks the integrity needed for both ecumenical practices and spirituality. Present-day Lutheranism has to identify and articulate its doctrine of justifi cation with greater clarity. 5 Chemnitz, Loci II, 200–201 (443). The emphasis on justifi cation does not mean downplaying other doctrines. Trinitarian doctrines and christology, for example, are intimately connected with the doctrine of justifi cation. On the notion of doctrina in Luther, see Eeva Martikainen, Doctrina: Studien zu Luthers Begriff der Lehre (Helsinki: Luther-Agricola-Gesellschaft 1992). On the connection between christology and justifi cation, see August Kimme, Rechtfertigung und Heiligung in christologischer sicht, Eine dogmatische Untersuchung (Erlangen: Martin-Luther-Verlag 1989), p. 10. On ecclesiology and justifi cation, see Jürgen Lutz, Unio und communio. Zum Verhältnis von Rechtfertigungslehre und Kirchenverständnis bei Martin Luther. Eine Untersuchung zu ekklesiologischen relevanten Texten der Jahre 1519–1528 (Paderborn: Bonifatius 1990). Christian dogma is not a collection of separate ideas, but a coherent system where every doctrine is either prerequisite for or consequence of the doctrine of justifi cation. See, for example, Luther’s statement in WA 40 II, 46, 18–47, 19. On justifi cation as a criterion, see Thomas Kaufman, Die “Kriteriologische funktion” der Rechtfertigungslehre in den lutherischen Bekenntnisschriften, ZThK Beiheft 10 (1998), pp. 47–64; Risto Saarinen, “Die Rechtfertigungslehre als Kriterium,” Kerygma und Dogma 44 (1998/2). 6 The adage, however, appears fi rst at the beginning of the 17th century. See The- odor Mahlmann, “Zur Geschichte der Formel ‘Articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae,’” Lutherische Theologie und Kirche 17 (1993), pp. 187–194; Alister McGrath, Iustitia Dei. A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justifi cation, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1998), p. 188. 7 On similar ideas on other theologians, see, e.g., Andreae, Ein christliche Predig, Eiii2; Bugenhagen, Von dem Christlichen Glauben, Gviii; Chytraeus, Catechesis, B2; Heerbrand, Disputationes, 57–88. VAINIO_f2_1-17.indd 2 11/22/2007 4:00:12 PM.