A question on indulgences?

[Vinny213]

One issue that protestants always have with Roman Catholicism is that it is hypocritical for them to reject the doctrine of imputation, because they believe the merits of the saints are applied to the sinners to avoid purgatory. RC Sproul makes the following observation in his book What Divides Us?

Sproul made several excellent points in this chapter. On pg. 44, he noted the irony of Rome’s rejection of the Reformed view of imputation; their own doctrine of the atonement holds that our sins were imputed to Jesus on the cross. Not only is the principle of imputation already in place here, Rome’s indulgence system also centers around imputation (i.e., merit is transferred from the treasury of merit to the individual). Thus Rome’s rejection of the Reformation doctrine of double imputation on the grounds that it constitutes a “legal fiction” is self defeating.

 

[Cathoholic]

Vinny123. There are two objections that you raise here. One is against vicarious sacrifice. The other is (implicitly) against the infused righteousness of Christ.

I’m not convinced from reading your question you understand WHY Catholics object to the Protestant view of imputed righteousness (or maybe I don’t quite understand your question). Also R. C. Sproul seems to be putting forth an incomplete perspective on Catholicism (I am not saying he did this on purpose).

I’ll just deal with the imputed righteousness issue (for now).

The problem with the Protestant view of imputation isn’t concerning what Protestantism affirms (the covering of us with the grace of Christ).

The problem with the Protestant view of grace concerns what Protestantism denies (infused grace which not merely covers us, but transforms us).

The problem with the Protestant view of imputation concerning Protestants is in denying the infused grace and life of Jesus Christ in us and through us.

Protestantism only asserts a “covering” effect of Christ’s grace. Catholics don’t deny that we are covered by Christ, but Catholics insist upon going further (as the Bible does) and affirm the transformative effects of Grace too.

The other thing about . . .

(Catholics) believe the merits of the saints are applied to the sinners to avoid purgatory.

. . . Christ is a necessary part of that equation. The “Treasury of Merit” is not MERELY “the merits of the Saints” but is UNITED to Christ and His merit. R. C. Sproul unfortunately does not seem to bring this point out (from your quote at least).

Hope this helps.

God bless.

Cathoholic

PS One other issue (and Jimmy Akin has talked about this before). “Merit” concerning us mere men, means “reward”, not something “earned”.

Merit = "Reward"
Merit does NOT = “Earned”

 

[ChurchSoldier]

Vinny123. There are two objections that you raise here. One is against vicarious sacrifice. The other is (implicitly) against the infused righteousness of Christ.

I’m not convinced from reading your question you understand WHY Catholics object to the Protestant view of imputed righteousness (or maybe I don’t quite understand your question). Also R. C. Sproul seems to be putting forth an incomplete perspective on Catholicism (I am not saying he did this on purpose).

I’ll just deal with the imputed righteousness issue (for now).

The problem with the Protestant view of imputation isn’t concerning what Protestantism affirms (the covering of us with the grace of Christ).

The problem with the Protestant view of grace concerns what Protestantism denies (infused grace which not merely covers us, but transforms us).

The problem with the Protestant view of imputation concerning Protestants is in denying the infused grace and life of Jesus Christ in us and through us.

Protestantism only asserts a “covering” effect of Christ’s grace. Catholics don’t deny that we are covered by Christ, but Catholics insist upon going further (as the Bible does) and affirm the transformative effects of Grace too.

The other thing about . . .

. . . Christ is a necessary part of that equation. The “Treasury of Merit” is not MERELY “the merits of the Saints” but is UNITED to Christ and His merit. R. C. Sproul unfortunately does not seem to bring this point out (from your quote at least).

Hope this helps.

God bless.

Cathoholic

PS One other issue (and Jimmy Akin has talked about this before). “Merit” concerning us mere men, means “reward”, not something “earned”.

Merit = "Reward"
Merit does NOT = “Earned”

Thanks for this.

 

[Vinny213]

So are the merits or satisfactions of the saints imputed to us as if we made those satisfactions ourselves? It sounds similar to a legal fiction to me.

 

[Cathoholic]

Vinny123.

Your question has erroneous built-in pre-suppositions that I already have addressed.

Possibly that is WHY this sounds like “a legal fiction” to you. Because this mischaracterization of Catholicism IS “a legal-fiction” . . . . but it is NOT Catholicism.

 

[dmar198]

One issue that protestants always have with Roman Catholicism is that it is hypocritical for them to reject the doctrine of imputation, because they believe the merits of the saints are applied to the sinners to avoid purgatory. RC Sproul makes the following observation in his book What Divides Us?

Sproul made several excellent points in this chapter. On pg. 44, he noted the irony of Rome’s rejection of the Reformed view of imputation; their own doctrine of the atonement holds that our sins were imputed to Jesus on the cross. Not only is the principle of imputation already in place here, Rome’s indulgence system also centers around imputation (i.e., merit is transferred from the treasury of merit to the individual). Thus Rome’s rejection of the Reformation doctrine of double imputation on the grounds that it constitutes a “legal fiction” is self defeating.

You might like this article:

The Doctrine of Indulgences in the Early Church
historyandapologetics.com/2015/02/the-doctrine-of-indulgences-in-early.html

Please let me know what you think of it.

 

[Vinny213]

Can Jimmy Akin help me with this question? Do you know where I can contact him? Does he have an email?

 

[asia53]

Can Jimmy Akin help me with this question? Do you know where I can contact him? Does he have an email?

Jimmy Akin Blog

Contact

I always welcome e-mail. Feel free to e-mail me at: jimmyakinblog@gmail.com

I read all the personal e-mails I receive, and I respond to as many as I can. I can’t promise an answer, but I do what I am able with the time I have.

If you absolutely need an answer, call Catholic Answers Live when I am on the air (typically on Thursdays; check the calendar to find out precisely when). If you get on the air, I guarantee an answer! (Hopefully a correct one!) BTW, if you call right before I come on the air there are likely to be open lines.

Be assured that when people e-mail me with questions, I always anonymize them before answering them on the blog. I want people to feel safe in asking delicate or personal questions, and I treat their privacy with the same respect I want my own treated with. (It’s that whole Golden Rule thing.)

 

[Vinny213]

My experience tells me that Akin never answers emails.