Hermeneutics and the Differentiated Consensus of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justificaton
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (JD), signed on October 31, 1999, introduced what appeared to be a novel form of agreement. While it makes statements to which both the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) and Lutherans can agree, it also states their differences and the diverse ways in which each party understands and expresses the consensus. After the JD was drawn up, the Roman Catholic Church went on to produce a list of issues needing further clarification and study. This led many to wonder how the document could even be called an agreement. Adopting the language used in paragraph 14 of the JD, this form of agreement, which contains differences, is called a differentiated consensus. I will examine this particular form of agreement through the hermeneutical approach first developed by Heidegger and Gadamer so as to provide an account of "differentiated consensus." This approach, I will argue, not only allows us to understand both the nature and the possibility of such an agreement; its implications also show us the tasks and promises the document holds for both ecumenism and our understanding of justification.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.027 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.063 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".