From the previous section it has become obvious that both the ‘catholic’ and Lutheran contributors to this Joint Declaration are beating about the bush. Both parties have been hedging. Neither group has dared to state unequivocally how justification takes place for that would have been an immediate ‘give away’ of the fact that the split dividing both confessions is still as deep-seated as it was at the time of the Council of Trent. It is a safe bet that because justification was not clearly put before us in the first section, where it ought to have been done, it will prove impossible to ‘explicate’ in this section what was never put to us in the first place.

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:

“Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, and Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness”; and he was called the friend of God. You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.” [James 2:21-26].

          We now go to 20 to see, if, when 19 is accepted, “it is true to say”:-

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.

          What is expressed here in 20 is not the Lutheran faith on Justification, (see 21). Which of course means that the two faiths are still poles apart, that the much-vaunted ‘consensus’ on this vital topic is not present in this Joint Declaration, but if it is claimed to be present, that then the faith of the ‘catholic theologians’ has shifted ...

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. [cf. Sources for 4.1].

          Here the confusion between ‘salvation’ and ‘justification’ has been driven to its upper limit. According to this ‘doctrine’ human nature is and remains so essentially sinful that it actively opposes God and his saving action. Because they cannot ‘dress’ themselves, (be justified), human beings cannot even work towards their own salvation which here again is being taken as synonymous with justification. They are constantly in need of being ‘dressed up’ without any grafting at all. Lutherans may not deny that a person can reject the workings of grace, but do they accept that a person can accept the workings of grace? Not according to the testimony of the above text, where it is emphasised that human beings can only receive mere passive justification. In the absence of anything else, this can then only be conceived as a continuous, ongoing justification (=salvation) with which human beings cannot cooperate. This utter confusion between ‘justification’ and ‘salvation’, between faith and works, is totally alien to Pauline, St. James’ and other New Testament teaching. What sort of a “Joint Declaration” is this?

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 (I Cor 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:

          This can only be seen and understood in the ‘light’(?) of what was put forward in 21 above. There it was clearly stated that everything was done by God since human beings cannot cooperate with grace and are merely passive recipients: passive forgiveness, passive freeing from sin, passive this, passive that ... And now for the $64,000 question: Why should God give these totally impersonal and passive graces to some and not to all? What criterion is being used here by God for this differentiation between one human being and the next one? The Lutheran answer, which one will never find in these kind of JDs, is pure arbitrariness: the Reformed doctrine on Predestination. The doctrine that “God has predestined from all eternity who shall go to heaven dressed up in the merits of Christ, and who will go to hell”. Remember: everything is passive in the work of justification and its equivalent: salvation! 21 clearly states that a plank in the Lutheran faith is that “human beings are incapable of cooperating in their salvation because as sinners they actively oppose God and his saving action”. And this is said of all. It could not be expressed more clearly, especially when this is underscored in the next sentence by “mere passive”.

          We have already seen what the Catholic doctrine on Predestination is: that God from all eternity prepared for the Just the good works for them to walk into without forcing them to do so. Here we have a basis for reward and punishment which is absent in the Lutheran persuasion. One of those “good works” is to cooperate with God’s grace to enter into the good work of their own Justification as adults, and to present their children for Baptism and for gratuitous justification (grafting) in Christ.

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.

          This, as we saw, is contrary to the teaching of St. James with which St Paul’s teaching can never be in contradiction. In this JD we saw that St. Paul’s teaching is being presented by Lutherans and Catholics alike as being in contrast to St. Paul’s and St. James’ teaching combined. This is not only unacceptable: it is untenable!

When Catholics emphasise 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 for section 4.2].

          Catholics maintain with St. Paul and St. James that, even if the grace of Justification cannot be merited, a human being, in order to avoid imputing to God arbitrariness, must fully cooperate with that undeserved grace, like Abraham did, in order to receive it. Cooperation with this first grace neither denies nor nullifies that it cannot be merited. ‘Gift of new life’ and ‘essential sinfulness under covering’ is a contradiction.

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 Christian cannot 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.

          So far we have seen that this JD contains two diametrically opposed concepts of Justification: one that is arbitrarily given and passively received, the other accepted without this Lutheran arbitrariness and total passivity. But neither the “grafting in Our Lord Jesus Christ” nor the “good works” and the “walking into them” have found their way into this JD. So Catholic doctrine has been suppressed to make room for a totally alien and unworkable Lutheran ideology. Why should it now suddenly come out of the woodwork? Meaning that the above can only be explained in a Lutheran ‘light’.

According to Lutheran understanding, God justifies sinners in faith alone (sola fide). In faith they place their trust wholly in their Creator and Redeemer and thus live in communion with him. God himself effects faith as he brings forth such trust by his creative word. Because God's act is a new creation it affects all dimensions of the person and leads to a life in hope and love. In the doctrine of 'justification by faith alone', a distinction but not a separation is made between justification itself and the renewal of one's way of life that necessarily follows from justification and without which faith does not exist. Thereby the basis is indicated from which the renewal of life proceeds, for it comes forth from the love of God imparted to the person in justification. Justification and renewal are joined in Christ, who is present in faith.

          “In faith they place their trust wholly in their Creator” ...

          This, according to words used here, is a good work, of which, according to Lutheran doctrine expressed earlier, human beings are incapable. 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 ... a person can only receive (mere passive) justification” and mere passive ‘salvation’: arbitrariness on the part of God ...

          In a number of places in the JD the talk is about “new creation”. This is essentially a Catholic concept. If according to the text from 21 quoted above, “human beings are incapable of cooperating (even) in their salvation”, which is a life-time job after justification, their essential sinfulness must remain after the covering with Christ’s merits in justification. (23 “the righteousness of Christ is our righteousness”) must then mean our ‘covering’ since, according to 21 “they actively oppose God and his saving action”, the essential sinfulness remaining underneath the ‘covering’. It is absolutely impossible to have any ‘joint declaration’ on this with Catholics, only with modernist ‘catholic theologians’: the preparation for the One-World ‘Church’.

The Catholic understanding also sees faith as fundamental in justification. For without faith, no justification can take place. Persons are justified through baptism as hearers of the word and believers in it. The justification of sinners is forgiveness of sins and being made righteous by justifying grace, which makes us children of God. In justification the righteous receive from Christ faith, hope, and love and are thereby taken into communion with him (14). This new personal relation to God is grounded totally on God's graciousness and remains constantly dependent on the salvific and creative working of this gracious God, who remains true to himself, so that one can rely upon him. Thus justifying grace never becomes a human possession to which one could appeal over against God. While Catholic teaching emphasises the renewal of life by justifying grace, this renewal in faith, hope, and love is always dependent on God's unfathomable grace and contributes nothing to justification about which one could boast before God (Rom 3:27). [See Sources for section 4.3].

“Nevertheless, our separated brethren, whether considered individually or as communities and churches, are not blessed with that unity which Jesus Christ wished to bestow on all those to whom He has given new birth into one body, and whom He has quickened to newness of life - that unity, which the Holy Scriptures and the Ancient Tradition of the Church proclaim. For it is through Christ’s Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help towards salvation that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the Apostolic College alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the One Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God.” [Decree On Ecumenism #3. Emphasis added].

          Clear language, still proclaimed as late as in the second half of 20th century, even in documents dealing with new topics such as Ecumenism and Religious Liberty.

“However, in forming their consciences the faithful must pay careful attention to the sacred and certain teaching of the Church. For the Catholic Church is by the Will of God the teacher of Truth. It is Her duty to proclaim and teach with authority the Truth which is Christ, and at the same time, to declare and confirm by Her authority the principles of the moral order which springs from human nature itself.” [Decree on Religious Liberty, #14].

“The one mediator, Christ, established and ever sustains here on earth his holy Church, the community of faith, hope and charity as a visible organization through which he communicates truth and grace to all men... This is the sole Church of Christ which in the Creed we profess to be One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic, which our Saviour after his resurrection entrusted to Peter’s pastoral care, commissioning him and the other Apostles to extend and rule it, and which he raised up for all ages as “the pillar and mainstay of the truth” [1 Tim. 3:15]. This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with that successor. Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its visible confines. Since these are gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, they are forces impelling towards Catholic unity.” [Lumen Gentium, #8].

          For 1900 years the Church has taught authoritatively (including through Vatican II) and the faithful have always believed that the Catholic Church is absolutely necessary for salvation. And so we came to expect that this Council would have stated “... that the Church Christ founded EXISTS in the Catholic Church ...” However, the Council, in dealing with this very question, used the word SUBSISTS:

“This Church, constituted and organised in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in union with that successor.” [Lumen Gentium, #8].

          This is a fortuitous choice of words. If the Council had chosen the word “exists”, it would then be natural to assume that the Council was teaching that the Catholic Church extends as far as it exists: in the visible society of Catholics here on earth. And once again the burning question of to whom do the elements of grace and truth and holiness belong found outside Her? would still not have been resolved. But ‘subsists’ means more than ‘exists’ and by using the word “subsists” the Council can now claim what in fact She did claim, that:

“... the many elements of sanctification and of Truth ... found outside Her visible structure, as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, possess an inner dynamism to Catholic unity.”

          If now we look back on paragraph 27 above and on all the paragraphs before it in the light of this infallible teaching, we can see in them “elements of truth and salvation outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church”. But they remain ‘isolated’ elements, in many places contradictory to each other, mixed with untruths, and so not part of a sustained body of truths and their structured exposition. The ‘convergence’ goes in the direction of the Lutheran persuasion and has lost its impelling force to Catholic unity, which would have been the case if the ‘convergence’ had been the other way round.

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 attacks (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; I Jn 1:9), are ever again called to conversion and penance, and are ever again granted forgiveness.

          Here we must note how glib the talk of a modernistic ‘catholicism’ has become when it is combined with Lutheran Protestantism. According to 21 and in other places of this JD, human beings are not ‘truly renewed’ because, after justification by ‘faith alone’, they remain actively opposed to God and his saving action. To look constantly for God’s justifying grace after having been justified (the talk here is about ‘the justified’), means ‘salvation’ and ‘justification’ are considered here to be identical. If the justified must ask God daily for forgiveness, and are ever called to conversion and penance, then it is because of these good works that they are “ever again granted forgiveness”, which ‘meriting’ is held up as impossible in many places in this JD.

Lutherans understand this condition of the Christian as a being "at the same time righteous and sinner". Believers are totally righteous, in that God forgives their sins through Word and Sacrament and grants the righteousness of Christ which they appropriate in faith. In Christ, they are made just before God. Looking at themselves through the law, however, they recognise that they remain also totally sinners. Sin still lives in them (I Jn 1:8; Rom 7:17, 20), for they repeatedly turn to false gods and do not love God with that undivided love which God requires as their Creator (Deut 6:5; Mt 22:36-40 pr.). This contradiction to God is as such truly sin. Nevertheless, the enslaving power of sin is broken on the basis of the merit of Christ. It no longer is a sin that "rules" the Christian for it is itself "ruled" by Christ with whom the justified are bound in faith. In this life then, Christians can in part lead a just life. Despite sin, the Christian is no longer separated from God, because in the daily return to baptism, the person who has been born anew by baptism and the Holy Spirit has this sin forgiven. Thus this sin no longer brings damnation and eternal death (15). Thus, when Lutherans say that justified persons are also sinners and that their opposition to God is truly sin, they do not deny that, despite this sin, they are not separated from God and that this sin is a "ruled" sin. In these affirmations, they are in agreement with Roman Catholics, despite the difference in understanding sin in the justified.

• “Believers are totally righteous in that God forgives their sins ...” Sins are not forgiven by the arbitrariness of God (mere passively, 21), but after sorrow and compunction and the firm resolution to cooperate with grace not to sin again.

• “... and grants the righteousness of Christ ...” Again, not arbitrarily, because faith without the good works is dead (St. James).

• “Believers are totally righteous and ... totally sinners ...” A contradiction if ever there was one!

• “... it is a sin ‘ruled by Christ’ ...” How? Forgiven? Unforgiven?

• “This contradiction to God is as such truly a sin ...” Only if seen under the ‘cover’ of Christ’s righteousness. The true identity of sin and forgiveness is totally lost here.

• “Thus when Lutherans say that justified persons are also (totally) sinners, and that their opposition to God is truly a sin, they do not deny that despite this sin, they are not separated from God ...” Etc. etc.

          Thus all this is 21 all over again in spite of attempts being made here at explaining it away. I vehemently deny that the architects of this JD “are in agreement with Roman Catholics”. Enough has been said in all the foregoing to show this shambles up as being totally incompatible with Catholic doctrine. Lutheran thinking has not progressed one iota from Martin Luther’s days. The ‘convergence’, as said before, is a one-way street towards Lutheranism taken by modernist ‘catholic theologians’.

Catholics hold that the grace of Jesus Christ imparted in baptism takes away all that is sin "in the proper sense" and (all) that is "worthy of damnation" (Rom 8:1)(16). There does, however, remain in the person an inclination (concupiscence) which comes from sin and presses toward sin. Since, according to Catholic conviction, human sins always involve a personal element and since this element is lacking in this inclination, Catholics do not see this inclination as sin in an authentic sense. They do not thereby deny that this inclination does not correspond to God's original design for humanity and that it is objectively in contradiction to God and remains one's enemy in lifelong struggle. Grateful for deliverance by Christ, they underscore that this inclination in contradiction to God does not merit the punishment of eternal death (17) and does not separate the justified person from God. But when individuals voluntarily separate themselves from God, it is not enough to return to observing the commandments, for they must receive pardon and peace in the Sacrament of Reconciliation through the word of forgiveness imparted to them in virtue of God's reconciling work in Christ. [See Sources for section 4.4].

          If this can be so clearly expressed by the Catholic contributers to this JD, how is it then possible that they could ever agree with all that contradicts this position in what has been written up so far? They surely must have seen that the Lutheran position: “totally righteous” and “totally sinners” is a contradiction which is incompatible with both reality and Catholicism? Nevertheless, the ‘catholic theologians’ were reluctant to state categorically that in the Sacrament of Confession the forgiveness of sins is brought about by the words of the Priest: “And I absolve you from your sins in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”, a framing of words with which the Lutherans are in total disagreement. This must surely make us wonder how much other Catholic doctrine has been suppressed in this JD in order to come to a kind of artificial consensus!

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.

          Here again, it is far from clear how the two parties to this agreement see this “justification by faith in the gospel” is brought about. How can they “confess together” on something which has caused so much divergence, even contradiction, in this JD? What is being stated here is pure equivocation if applied to the Lutheran and the Catholic position: same words, different meanings.

Lutherans state that the distinction and right ordering of law and gospel is essential for the understanding of justification. In its theological use, the law is demand and accusation. Throughout their lives, all persons, Christians also, in that they are sinners, stand under this accusation which uncovers their sin so that, in faith in the gospel, they will turn unreservedly to the mercy of God in Christ, which alone justifies them.

          The first line in the above is a flat contradiction of “sola fide”, “by faith alone”, which has been the foundation of their confession in this JD. For neither ‘gospel’ nor ‘law’ is there room in being dressed up in Christ’s righteousness: their understanding of justification. The rest of the above is mere embellishment to show why others should accept their claim of being ‘Christians’.

Because the law as a way to salvation has been fulfilled and overcome through the gospel, Catholics can say that Christ is not a lawgiver in the manner of Moses. When Catholics emphasize that the righteous are bound to observe God's commandments, they do not thereby deny that through Jesus Christ God has mercifully promised to his children the grace of eternal life (18). [See Sources for section 4.5].

          “The promise of eternal life” is not something hanging loose somewhere ‘in vacuo’ and is most certainly not in contradistinction to good works. Christ has unequivocally bound “eternal life” to “keeping My commandments”, i.e. entering into the good works prepared by the Father from all eternity for the just to walk into. Here, in driving a wedge between ‘observing God’s commandments’ and this ‘not denying of the merciful promise of eternal life’, a strong expectation is being aroused that ‘eternal life’ is inevitable. This is a Lutheran article of faith because of their strong belief that ‘good works’ can merit nothing.

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.

          Here again, no matter how careful the wording, the meaning and the necessity of ‘good works’ remain totally hollowed out. In this transcript of the consensus, everything in the moral life depends solely on “God’s effective promise”.

This was emphasized in a particular way by the Reformers: in the midst of temptation, believers should not look to themselves but look solely to Christ and trust only him. In trust in God's promise they are assured of their salvation, but are never secure looking at themselves.

          Yes, the Reformers certainly emphasised to expect God to do everything as this JD amply shows in numerous places. Here as elsewhere, “looking at themselves” and “doing the good works which faith in God demands” are made synonymous. ‘Assurance of salvation’ is a very ambiguous way of speech here as has been stressed elsewhere in this commentary.

Catholics can share the concern of the Reformers to ground faith in the objective reality of Christ's promise, to look away from one's own experience, and to trust in Christ's forgiving word alone (cf. Mt16:19; 18:18). With the Second Vatican Council, Catholics state: to have faith is to entrust oneself totally to God (19), who liberates us from the darkness of sin and death and awakens us to eternal life (20) In this sense, one cannot believe in God and at the same time consider the divine promise untrustworthy. No one may doubt God's mercy and Christ's merit. Every person, however, may be concerned about his salvation when he looks upon his own weaknesses and shortcomings. Recognizing his own failures, however, the believer may yet be certain that God intends his salvation. [See Sources for section 4.6].

          This is a tilt at Catholics who do not share the Reformed obsession with “sola fide”, “faith alone”. The word “alone” is prominently bracketed here with Christ’s forgiving promise as the sole means of salvation. It is libellous to say that, because real Catholics, and not the anaemic type that drew up this JD, believe with all Scripture that Faith depends on good works in order to be alive, that such Catholics “consider the divine promise untrustworthy!” The last twist in this terrible “faith alone” monopoly in this JD: “intends his salvation”, is lightyears removed from being “assured of one’s salvation” as contained in 35.

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.

          This hybrid expressed here is not reformed doctrine, unless we see why, in conformity with what is expressed in 21 above, “good works” are made synonymous with “fruits”. In 21 above, everything is passive, and just as the “fruits” grow passively from the fruit trees, so “good works”, in Reformed thinking, grow passively and inevitably from “being clothed in Christ’s merit”. In this type of thinking, the ‘justified’ are predestined for heaven, the as yet unjustified are predestined to hell. In good old Calvinistic parlance, the ‘unjustified’ are predestined to remain unjustified (because of God’s arbitrary predestination), and so will never be justified ...

According to Catholic understanding, good works, made possible by grace and the working of the Holy Spirit, contribute to growth in grace, so that the righteousness that comes from God is preserved and communion with heaven is promised to these works. Their intention is to emphasise the responsibility of persons for their actions, not to contest the character of those works as gifts, or far less to deny that justification always remains the unmerited gift of grace.

          This second hybrid expressed in the second half of the above is not Catholic teaching. According to the New Testament (St. Paul, as quoted in Comment 15, St. James, as quoted in Comment 19), there is a world of difference between justification as the unmerited gift from God, and the possession of justification, not arbitrarily given by God to some and not to others by “faith alone”, but granted in cooperation with Faith. It is obvious from the above that here the ‘catholic theologians’ are talking about the possession of grace. If the possession of justification was obtained without the works, then God would be arbitrary in giving it to some and not to others. St. Paul and St. James safeguard Catholics from this blasphemy so glibly admitted here.

The concept of a preservation of grace and a growth in grace and faith is also held by Lutherans. They do emphasise that righteousness as acceptance by God and sharing in the righteousness of Christ is always complete. At the same time, they state that there can be growth in its effects in Christian living. When they view the good works of Christians as the fruits and signs of justification and not as one's own "merits" they nevertheless also understand eternal life in accord with the New Testament as unmerited "reward" in the sense of the fulfillment of God's promise to the believer. [See Sources for section 4.7].

          In 38 we read that the ‘catholic’ position is to see “the character of the works as gifts”, which in Lutheran parlance means “unmerited (that is passive) gifts”. If eternal life, as is so clearly expressed here, must be understood as “unmerited reward”, than eternal damnation must be understood as “unmerited punishment”. Here in 39 these unmerited, passive gifts are again called “fruits”, given by God, and “growing” passively from faith. They will not admit to growth in justification because that is understood by them as being “always complete”.