Abraham 'made righteous; Church document

[Cruxis117]

A Protestant has asked me to find him a Church document which says that Abraham was ‘made’ righteous, basically referring to infused righteousness. He has stated that he wants to show that there are inconsistencies when I say that Abraham was made righteous (he was infused with grace) versus the Reformed view of justification. I know that this is basically baiting, but I am wondering where I can find such a document. And if it is pointless or silly to do so, then I’m wondering how I respond to his challenge.

 

[Pax]

A Protestant has asked me to find him a Church document which says that Abraham was ‘made’ righteous, basically referring to infused righteousness. He has stated that he wants to show that there are inconsistencies when I say that Abraham was made righteous (he was infused with grace) versus the Reformed view of justification. I know that this is basically baiting, but I am wondering where I can find such a document. And if it is pointless or silly to do so, then I’m wondering how I respond to his challenge.

You don’t need a church document, and I don’t know of one off the top of my head. Simply go to scripture. The following is very helpful:

Romans 5:4
For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous.

The word “made” in Greek is “katestathesan” which refers to a real, actual, ontological change in the person’s soul. NOT a merely legal declaration.

The phrase “made righteous” is clearly ontological just as the fall is ontological.

Mike Leades used to post regularly on this forum and he pointed out the following additional proof. He quoted Galatians as follows:

Galatians 3:21

21Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For ifa law had been givenwhichwas able to impart life, thenrighteousness would indeed have been based on law.

He then said:

The Greek word translated here as “impart life” iszoopoeio, which means tocauseto live ormake*alive. Note that in Galatians 3:21, Paul states that if a law could give life, then righteousness would truly have been by law. So here Paul is equating the giving of life with righteousness. That means that RIGHTEOUSNESS OR JUSTIFICATION IS THE GIVING OF SPIRITUAL LIFE, which is essentially the Catholic view. The following passage reinforces this:

Romans 8:10

10If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet thespirit is alive because of righteousness.

Note that Paul clearly says that while the body is subject to death because of sin, the spirit is alivebecauseofrighteousness. In other words, just as original sin has effected the mortality of the body,righteousnesshas effected a spiritual vivification or quickening of the soul. This contradicts the Protestant understanding of justification because righteousness isoutsideof us and hence purely extrinsic. Spiritual vivification of the soul, according to Protestant soteriology, is effected byregeneration*(i.e. being born again) which they insist isnotthe same thing as justification. But in this passage, Paul clearly connects the giving of spiritual life withrighteousness, not regeneration or sanctification.

Since Paul clearly connects spiritual life with righteousness, he cannot be talking about a merely imputed or extrinsic righteousness, for such a righteouness cannot effect a change in the soul. Therefore, the righteousness he’s referring to must be a righteousness that isintrinsicand thus can effect aninternalchange. If we combine Romans 8:10 with Galatians 3:21, it becomes clear that Paul understands justification to be the conferral of spiritual life to the soul through the infusion of righteousness.*

Now in Romans 8:10, Paul makes reference to the indwelling of Christ and connects it to spiritual life and righteosness. We see this again in Galatians 2:19-21:

19"For through the Law I died to the Law, so that Imight live to God.
20"I have been crucified with Christ; andit is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faithin the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me.*
21"I do not nullify the grace of God, for ifrighteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly."

It is clear from the context of this passage that Paul is talking about justification and once again we see that he relates justification to spiritual life and the indwelling of Christ. He also describes the infusion of spiritual life as a “death” and a “crucifixion.” Paul uses the same imagery in the following passage:

Romans 6:6-7

6knowing this,that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin;
7forhe who has diedis*freed from sin.

What is so important about this passage is that the word translated “freed” is “dikaioo”, which means*justified. So it should read:

…for he who has died isjustified*from sin.

“Death” and the crucifixion of the “old self” refers to anontologicalandinternalchange of the person. This “death” or “crucifixion”, as we have established earlier, is effected by the infusion of spritual life, a spiritual renovation. And this ontological change is connected with justification in verse 7. This serves to reinforces the fact that justification is the infusion of righteousness which effects the “death” of the “old self” and the spiritual vivification of the soul.

Perhaps your non-Catholic friend will appreciate what scripture says even more than what a church document might say. I would also point out that the above is not the only evidence from scripture. There is more, but this should be enough.

God bless.

 

[Cruxis117]

Thank you very much, Pax! I’ve come to the conclusion that Reformed Theology is correct and I’m converting!



Okay, now to be serious, my protestant friend is basically asking “how can I know that your interpretation of Genesis 15:6 is correct?” That’s why I asked the question, to see if there were any Church documents that had a specific exegesis on that verse. However, I’ve realized that the Church hasn’t actually made that many ‘interpretations’ of certain verses that must be held by the faithful. However, I’ve noted to my friend that in Catholic commentaries and study guides (like the Ignatius Study Bible: NT), that there is a Nihil Obstat and Imprimateur in it. Which means that it’s clear of doctrinal error and is approved of by the Church (though it doesn’t mean that the Church agrees with that particular interpretation, it’s approved of, it can be accepted).

Do you think that using the Nihil Obstat and Imprimateur basically shows that we know that this or that interpretation of Scripture is ‘correct’ (devoid of Doctrinal error)?

 

[Pax]

Thank you very much, Pax! I’ve come to the conclusion that Reformed Theology is correct and I’m converting!



Okay, now to be serious, my protestant friend is basically asking “how can I know that your interpretation of Genesis 15:6 is correct?” That’s why I asked the question, to see if there were any Church documents that had a specific exegesis on that verse. However, I’ve realized that the Church hasn’t actually made that many ‘interpretations’ of certain verses that must be held by the faithful. However, I’ve noted to my friend that in Catholic commentaries and study guides (like the Ignatius Study Bible: NT), that there is a Nihil Obstat and Imprimateur in it. Which means that it’s clear of doctrinal error and is approved of by the Church (though it doesn’t mean that the Church agrees with that particular interpretation, it’s approved of, it can be accepted).

Do you think that using the Nihil Obstat and Imprimateur basically shows that we know that this or that interpretation of Scripture is ‘correct’ (devoid of Doctrinal error)?

As far as the Nihil Obstat and Imprimateur are concerned, I would say that there is no guarantee that the interpretation given in a book is correct/without possible error.

You might find the catechism to be helpful by reading what it says about justification and infused righteousness.

I would also point out that Genesis 15:6 is largely understood by Protestants as the “only” time that Abraham was justified. There are, however, two other occasions when Abraham was justified. On one of those occasions, cited in James 2 concerning Isaac, it is also clear that Abraham was justified by works. You can also point out that Phineas in Psalm 106:30-31 was also justified by works.

Beyond that I can give you more info on the three instances that Abraham was justified. I did a careful study on that one and can provide you with a file via email. Simply PM me with your email address and I’ll send the file. Likewise, I have a file that was developed by another participant on this forum that addresses the issue of “imputation” versus “infused” righteousness from another angle using scripture. It is very informative and non-Catholics would benefit greatly from reading it. Just PM me if you think it would help.

God bless.

 

[Cat_Herder]

A Protestant has asked me to find him a Church document which says that Abraham was ‘made’ righteous, basically referring to infused righteousness. He has stated that he wants to show that there are inconsistencies when I say that Abraham was made righteous (he was infused with grace) versus the Reformed view of justification. I know that this is basically baiting, but I am wondering where I can find such a document. And if it is pointless or silly to do so, then I’m wondering how I respond to his challenge.

I say… Cut to the chase.

If the Reformed Protestant believes in double predestination (that God wills some people to heaven and some not) then have him or her read 1 Timothy 2:3-4.
[BIBLEDRB]1 Timothy 2:3-4[/BIBLEDRB]
Otherwise, siince the Protestant in question believes that righteousness is “imputed” in a one-time justification, ask him or her if babies are saved. If they are saved then why is it that they have to say the Sinner’s prayer or do an altar call OR ELSE once they hit the “age of reason?”* Either the person was automatically “imputed” righteousness as a baby or else righteousness is not “imputed” at all but is subject to free will, in other words, infused into the soul. That explains the warning issued by Paul:
[BIBLEDRB]Hebrews 10:26-29[/BIBLEDRB]
This would make no sense if righteousness was imputed, or if people had no free will. (Notice verse 29, he is not addressing the Jews who rejected Christ here.)

• By the way, the concept of an age of reason is not found anywhere in the Bible.

 

[fred_conty]

@ PAX

The Bible but especially St. Paul, uses those long words in place of our commonly
accepted “Sanctifying Grace”. Here is what you put down:

RIGHTEOUSNESS OR JUSTIFICATION IS THE GIVING OF SPIRITUAL LIFE,

Would you please explain the above in which order they come, and just how
exactly they are related to one another (if you can, in one word or less).
I think I know, but I’ve always wanted to ask someone with the insight to do it (to be sure
that I am right, of course).

Thank you. The thank you is so that you cannot not do it.

 

[Cat_Herder]

P.S. Here is a helpful article from Catholic Answers on the topic of grace and infused vs. imputed righteousness.

 

[Pax]

@ PAX

The Bible but especially St. Paul, uses those long words in place of our commonly
accepted “Sanctifying Grace”. Here is what you put down:

RIGHTEOUSNESS OR JUSTIFICATION IS THE GIVING OF SPIRITUAL LIFE,
Would you please explain the above in which order they come, and just how
exactly they are related to one another (if you can, in one word or less).
I think I know, but I’ve always wanted to ask someone with the insight to do it (to be sure
that I am right, of course).

Thank you. The thank you is so that you cannot not do it.

fred,

How can this be done in one word or less? Less than one word would be no words!

I think two words might be required…try “new creation.”

God bless.

 

[fred_conty]

@ Cat Herder

I liked the article, thinks

 

[Pax]

fred,

I do have a one word answer…“Regeneration!”