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.