Matters of Interpretation

Abstract

With explicit roots in the Pauline letters, and an initial propositional formulation that traces back to Augustine of Hippo, the doctrine of justification is among the most ancient ways that the church has taught about the salvation offered to humankind through Jesus Christ. To say the very least, though, the doctrine, both its content and its place in the treasury of the church’s teachings, has not been without conflict. In fact, in the sixteenth century, disagreements over justification contributed to a major division in the church, one that remained trenchant until some measure of healing was brought to it when representatives of the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church signed the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (JDDJ) in 1999. This dissertation argues that, among the factors contributing to the sixteenth century discord over justification, were the different biblical hermeneutics adopted by Martin Luther and the Council of Trent. It argues as well that the ecumenical achievement that the JDDJ represents owes in part to the shared way of interpreting Scripture that Lutherans and Catholics embraced in the twentieth century. Ultimately, this dissertation uses the justification debates of the sixteenth and twentieth centuries as a test case to propose a framework for using Scripture more effectively in ecumenical dialogue, especially when that dialogue concerns a disputed church doctrine.