can be debated. In some sense, (iv) mutuality is assumed, as Schleiermacher
earlier speaks about how humans perform the‘painful recognition’
of sin.^154 As people are also supposed to recognize their feeling of
absolute dependence, one can claim that the recognition is mutual.
In addition, Schleiermacher says in his explanation of justification
that God does not regard individuals as persons in thefirst place, but
they only become persons because of the creative divine act taking
place in this relationship.^155
Schleiermacher’s long explanation of the statement on justification
reveals his close acquaintance with the complex doctrinal tradition.
The basic relationship between conversion, discussed in the previous
paragraph, and justification is similar to Protestant orthodoxy
(König, see section 3.1) as well as to the longer Latin tradition of
Recognitions(section 2.1). Like König, Schleiermacher emphasizes
the role of faith as the instrumental cause of salvation.^156 The most
innovative move in Schleiermacher’s explanation concerns the rela-
tionship between recognition and the doctrine of adoption. He
remarks that while the idea of becoming a child of God is current
in dogmatic tradition, it is seldom explained thematically.^157 This is a
simple but nevertheless fascinating connection, since it brings the
filium agnoscereidea of Roman law into a close terminological con-
tact with the effective dimension of justification.
Justification for Schleiermacher encompasses both the forgiveness
of sins and the new being as a child of God. An adoption without
forgiveness would only bring about servitude; the‘right of childhood’
is a positive companionship in which the person is educated as a
member of the house.^158 Both forgiveness and adoption are divine
acts brought about by Christ.^159 Schleiermacher states that the act of
adoption can also be called a‘declaration of childhood’, meaning that
not only the forensic act of forgiveness, but also the transformative act
of adoption, distinguishes Protestant theology. He stresses that theo-
logians should not separate the declarative and the effective in the act
of justification.^160
(^154) Der christliche Glaube, §108, 172. (^155) Der christliche Glaube, §109, 201.
(^156) Der christliche Glaube, §109, 201–2.
(^157) Der christliche Glaube, §109, 193. (^158) Der christliche Glaube, §109, 195.
(^159) Der christliche Glaube, §109, 196–7.
(^160) Der christliche Glaube, §109, 200.
146 Recognition and Religion