Christ's righteousness

[Alterum]

I have an evangelical friend who likes to tell me that Christ stood in my place and was punished in my place (and everyone else’s) when He was sacrificed on the cross. He says that Christ bore all of the Father’s anger for me, in my place. He also says that when the Father looks at me, He transfer’s Christ’s righteousness to my person. (He believes in *sola fide, *but according to him, one’s works are a demonstration of one’s faith to the point that if one has faith, then one will necessarily do good work.)

What is the proper Catholic response to this?

 

[John_Henry]

I have an evangelical friend who likes to tell me that Christ stood in my place and was punished in my place (and everyone else’s) when He was sacrificed on the cross. He says that Christ bore all of the Father’s anger for me, in my place. He also says that when the Father looks at me, He transfer’s Christ’s righteousness to my person. (He believes in *sola fide, *but according to him, one’s works are a demonstration of one’s faith to the point that if one has faith, then one will necessarily do good work.)

What is the proper Catholic response to this?

The fact that our works are a result of the grace we have received through faith, properly understood (i.e., including baptism), is something that a Catholic should agree with. As for this particular theory about how Christ’s sacrifice is operative for the Christian, it is quite common within Protestantism. I am not too sure about whether this particular view is within the legitimate diversity of opinions that the Church allows on this. Certainly though, there are other theories about how Christ’s sacrifice is operative for us.

And that is what I would like to emphasize. Namely, that a Catholic would certainly agree that our redemption was won purely and only by Christ. However, the internal logic of how that sacrifice was effective for us is a different story. And one need not embrace his favorite theory. In this case, as in many others, the Catholic Church is distinctly less dogmatic than our separated brethren. My favorite theory is that, being both human and divine, he was able to offer to the Father a human act of infinite merit, counterbalancing the demerit of Adam’s sin.

And I do find his theory somewhat crude, namely that the Father was pissed off and needed someone to lash out on, and that person happened to be the only innocent person around. So, the Father, having beat up on the only innocent person around, now can forgive us. Certainly, they can pull some verses to back up their view, but that does not mean those verses cannot be interpreted otherwise. I think especially of the passage in the Gospel where Christ quotes the Psalm,“Father, Father, why have you forsaken me”, and the one in Isaiah where it says that “by his tripes we were healed.”

 

[scriabin]

My deserved punishment for sins is eternal damnation.

If Jesus took on my punishment, He would have to have been eternally damned, as I deserve.

Since Jesus was not eternally damned (as He is now in heaven) I can’t logically agree with your Protestant friend’s description of Jesus legalistically bearing my punishment.

What Jesus did do, however, was to be punished *because *of my sins, to bear God’s anger *for *my sins, to offer His sacrifice as a propitiatory offering to the Father *instead of *the Father punishing us.

If I stole a car from you I might try to legalistically pay you back with another car of the same value. But wouldn’t you take a one-of-a-kind precious diamond of incalcuable worth as a replacement for the car?

In a similar way the punishment we deserve from God doesn’t begin to compare with the infinite worth of Jesus’ sacrifice.

 

[Nordar]

Apart from understanding Scripture or not i always thought it was quite arrogant to think That Jesus the Son of God ( That God would send his son to die for Our sins) would die such a horrible death. He would suffer so terribly and all we mere Humans would have to do is just sit back and accept that we are saved by that. How self righteously arrogant can you get?

Always amazed me that Protestants thought like that, why would you think that you could just get into Heaven without having to do anything for your Salvation? Why would God send his son to suffer such a horrible death if that were the case what would be the sense?

 

[Chesster]

Punishing the innocent in place of the guilty is the most fundamental injustice imaginable. Your friend’s doctrine makes God the very abomination He condemns in proverbs 17:15 “He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the LORD.”

 

[allischalmers]

Apart from understanding Scripture or not i always thought it was quite arrogant to think That Jesus the Son of God ( That God would send his son to die for Our sins) would die such a horrible death. He would suffer so terribly and all we mere Humans would have to do is just sit back and accept that we are saved by that. How self righteously arrogant can you get?

Always amazed me that Protestants thought like that, why would you think that you could just get into Heaven without having to do anything for your Salvation? Why would God send his son to suffer such a horrible death if that were the case what would be the sense?

On the other hand why do you think that after God send his Son to die such a horrible death to pay the penilty for your sins that there is any thing that you could do to repay God and earn his favor or your salvation. How self righteously arrogant can you Get?

Proudly forever Baptist
allischalmers

 

[MariaG]

Apart from understanding Scripture or not i always thought it was quite arrogant to think That Jesus the Son of God ( That God would send his son to die for Our sins) would die such a horrible death. He would suffer so terribly and all we mere Humans would have to do is just sit back and accept that we are saved by that. How self righteously arrogant can you get?

Always amazed me that Protestants thought like that, why would you think that you could just get into Heaven without having to do anything for your Salvation? Why would God send his son to suffer such a horrible death if that were the case what would be the sense?

Punishing the innocent in place of the guilty is the most fundamental injustice imaginable. Your friend’s doctrine makes God the very abomination He condemns in proverbs 17:15 “He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the LORD.”

Christ did come and die for our sins and this is the teaching of the Catholic Church. Although it is worded in a different way, I do not see how the friends statement is so completely wrong.

Christ was sacrificed for my sins and the sins of the whole world. And He was an innocent sacrifice.

606 The Son of God, who came down “from heaven, not to do [his] own will, but the will of him who sent [him]”,413 said on coming into the world, “Lo, I have come to do your will, O God.” "And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."414 From the first moment of his Incarnation the Son embraces the Father’s plan of divine salvation in his redemptive mission: "My food is to do the will of him who sent me, and to accomplish his work."415 The sacrifice of Jesus "for the sins of the whole world"416 expresses his loving communion with the Father. “The Father loves me, because I lay down my life”, said the Lord, "[for] I do as the Father has commanded me, so that the world may know that I love the Father."417

 

[MariaG]

Apart from understanding Scripture or not i always thought it was quite arrogant to think That Jesus the Son of God ( That God would send his son to die for Our sins) would die such a horrible death. He would suffer so terribly and all we mere Humans would have to do is just sit back and accept that we are saved by that. How self righteously arrogant can you get?

Always amazed me that Protestants thought like that, why would you think that you could just get into Heaven without having to do anything for your Salvation? Why would God send his son to suffer such a horrible death if that were the case what would be the sense?

On the other hand why do you think that after God send his Son to die such a horrible death to pay the penilty for your sins that there is any thing that you could do to repay God and earn his favor or your salvation. How self righteously arrogant can you Get?

Proudly forever Baptist
allischalmers

I have to agree with the Baptist:tiphat: here.

If you meant that we need to earn our way to heaven or can in anyway repay the gift of salvation, you are completely wrong and this is not the teaching of the Catholic Church.

We certainly must obey Him, but obeying Him is, in no way, repaying or earning our gift of salvation.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[Chesster]

Christ did come and die for our sins and this is the teaching of the Catholic Church. Although it is worded in a different way, I do not see how the friends statement is so completely wrong.

Christ was sacrificed for my sins and the sins of the whole world. And He was an innocent sacrifice.

606 The Son of God, who came down “from heaven, not to do [his] own will, but the will of him who sent [him]”,413 said on coming into the world, “Lo, I have come to do your will, O God.” "And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all."414 From the first moment of his Incarnation the Son embraces the Father’s plan of divine salvation in his redemptive mission: "My food is to do the will of him who sent me, and to accomplish his work."415 The sacrifice of Jesus "for the sins of the whole world"416 expresses his loving communion with the Father. “The Father loves me, because I lay down my life”, said the Lord, "[for] I do as the Father has commanded me, so that the world may know that I love the Father."417

It’s completely wrong because of this: Jesus was not justly punished by the Father He was unjustly punished by wicked men.

Also, it was not God’s will to punish Jesus it was God’s will that Jesus be a sin offering and sin offerings were not punished by God.

 

[Alterum]

Thank you for the insightful comments.

What do you think about the notion of my being made “righteous” by Christ, that is, Christ’s righteousness being transferred over to me and the Father viewing me as righteous in turn?

That doesn’t sound quite right to me; after all, doesn’t the Father still see all my sins and judge me accordingly?

 

[scriabin]

Protestants believe that we justified sinners “put on the righteousness of Christ” so that we are viewed by God *as if *we were righteous even though we are not actually righteous ourselves. This is often termed “forensic righteousness.”

The Catholic Church teaches that we justified sinners are actually, really righteous before God, by the merits of His son.

 

[Alterum]

Protestants believe that we justified sinners “put on the righteousness of Christ” so that we are viewed by God *as if *we were righteous even though we are not actually righteous ourselves. This is often termed “forensic righteousness.”

That is the language he used, that we “put on the righteousness of Christ.”

The Catholic Church teaches that we justified sinners are actually, really righteous before God, by the merits of His son.

What’s the difference? WE are not really righteous, are we? Are you saying that Christ makes us righteous by His merits? How is that different, aside from the language used, from “putting on” the righteousness of Christ?

Thanks for your time!

 

[scriabin]

Matthew 1:19 – Joseph is a “righteous” man.

Mark 6:20 – John the Baptist is a “righteous and holy man.”

Luke 2:22 – Simeon is “righteous and devout.”

Conclusion: by Scriptures own standards, God looks with grace upon us and *actually considers *some “righteous.”

By God’s grace, through faith in Jesus, we are justified and viewed by God as “righteous.” We are adopted sons of God. Radical isn’t it?

Revelation 21:27-- Nothing impure will ever enter into heaven.
If we, as the Protestant view teaches, are still impure in the inside of our souls; we can never enter into heaven.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I have an evangelical friend who likes to tell me that Christ stood in my place

He did​

and was punished in my place (and everyone else’s) when He was sacrificed on the cross.

He was​

He says that Christ bore all of the Father’s anger for me, in my place.

He did​

He also says that when the Father looks at me, He transfer’s Christ’s righteousness to my person.

He has​

(He believes in *sola fide, *but according to him, one’s works are a demonstration of one’s faith to the point that if one has faith, then one will necessarily do good work.)

What is the proper Catholic response to this?

If I were in your position, I would agree - those things are true, after all; And then, make the point that the all-sufficency of Christ, rather than meaning that we need do nothing ourselves, is exactly what makes us able to do anything in Christ.​

For instance: if he says that the Mass is needless because the death of Jesus is all-sufficient, well, it is all-sufficient: he is absolutely right to say that. The difference lies in the conclusions drawn.

What Catholics cannot & must not do, is deny the all-sufficiency of Christ: He is all-sufficient in every respect, and it would be a capital error to to deny that. His righteousness, His sacrifice, His death, His obedience, His sufferings, His expiation, His grace - all these & a million more things about Him - are more than enough to save and sanctify a trillion universes crammed full of sinners. It is impossible to add anything whatever to what He has done; God Himself cannot do so; because the Blood of Christ is nothing less than the Blood of God (Acts 20.28).

What we can do, is apply the infinite righteousness of Jesus to the world He has created for His Glory. For instance: the Mass is not an addition to His perfect self-offering - each one is an application of that perfect offering to those for whom it is offered. If the Mass is to be infinite in power to sanctify, the Lord Who died on the Cross, Whose death it constantly presents anew, must Himself have infinite power to sanctify. To put it another way - if we deny the infinite character of the work of Jesus on the Cross, we are undermining our own faith; quite apart from the not-so-minor detail that we would be denying the teaching of the Bible.

ISTM that Catholics tend to have a better understanding of the liturgical presentation of the Sacrifice of the Cross than of the significance it has for the NT writers - while Evangelicals tend to have a solid appreciation of the NT, but less appreciation of the liturgical showing-forth of the deeds of God as told of and inyterpreed in the Bible. To be fully Catholic, we need both the Liturgy, & the Evangelical insight - not the one or the other. IMO ##

 

[scriabin]

From the catechism: paragraph 1989 – “Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man.”

paragraph 1992 – Baptism “conforms us to the righteousness of God, who **makes us inwardly just **by the power of His mercy.”

 

[scriabin]

Alterum – You must read the catechism yourself and not rely on the well-meaning Protestant posters on this forum.

Their view is easy, simplistic, and a subtle mixture of truth and error.

The catechism often presents information but does not present it apologetically as a defense of a heretical Protestant view.

Please refer to Catholic Answers Home page for excellent explanations of the differences between the Catholic faith and our Protestant brethrens’ rendition of it.

 

[MariaG]

It’s completely wrong because of this: Jesus was not justly punished by the Father He was unjustly punished by wicked men.

Also, it was not God’s will to punish Jesus it was God’s will that Jesus be a sin offering and sin offerings were not punished by God.

As a revert, I find things like this to be very interesting. For when I read the friends statement, I realized that I take the words very differently than many Catholics as well possibly as many non-Catholics.

I searched around to try to help me express my thoughts better.

I found this article from EWTN by James Akin

Regarding substitutionary atonement, this may be conceived in more than one way. In the broadest sense, Christ atoned for us and, in some capacity, substituted for us due to our inability to make our own atonement. The question is: In what sense did he substitute for us?

A theory that is common in some parts of Protestantism is known as penal substitution. According to this theory–which only appeared in Church history with the rise of Protestantism–God poured out his wrath on Jesus Christ instead of on us.
The doctrine is not taught in the Bible and is manifestly contrary to the nature of God, who is all goodness and who cannot punish the innocent, all-holy Son of God. This understanding of substitutionary atonement is not compatible with the Catholic faith. One can only say that Christ “took our punishment” in a poetic rather than in a literal sense.
An understanding of substitutionary atonement that is compatible with the Catholic faith is known as vicarious satisfaction. According to this view, Christ allowed himself to be killed by men (not by God) and by allowing himself to be killed he offered his life to God as a sacrifice of love. Because of the infinite merit of the sacrifice (due to his divinity), the Father accepted the sacrifice as making satisfaction for the sins of the world. Christ thus made satisfaction for us vicariously but was not “punished by God,” who due to his omniscience cannot regard an infinitely holy Son as anything other than infinitely holy.

While thinking of this, I realize that I must use the word “punish” in a poetic sense (probably due to my protestant roots) and was not as sensitive to this word as others.

But I also imagine that if one were to get into specifics with a protestant, they may, or may not, have a “traditional” penal substitution or may in fact be closer to the Catholic view.

This discussion will help me to make sure I clarify what my view of “punish” actually means.

Thanks.

Maria

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

From the Akin article quoted above:

A theory that is common in some parts of Protestantism is known as penal substitution. According to this theory–which only appeared in Church history with the rise of Protestantism–God poured out his wrath on Jesus Christ instead of on us.

1. The argument from lateness proves too much - if something is in the deposit of faith (such as the Immaculate Conception, which was hotly disputed among Catholics), then it is no objection that it did not surface in the Church’s consciousness until late. Catholics can’t by use the objection from lateness against Protestants while not applying to their own faith - that would be to play fast & loose.Reasoning which is valid against Geneva, is equally valid against Rome. Conversely, if it’s not valid against Rome, it’s not valid against Geneva. So Rome can have the IC - and allow Geneva penal substitution. That, or Rome needs to change its anti-Genevan arguments so that they don’t boomerang & undercut Rome along with Geneva.​

1. The two doctrines look late to us - from the vantage point of Christians in the year 20,000 they will seem very early Judging lateness is largely a matter of where the judge stands - it doesnot change the facts of the thing judged, but only how it is perceived
2. What is to stop the Father having poured out the full fury of His Righteous Wrath upon the Son Whom He Loves ? ISTM that this is exactly what He did. This is a shocking, even blasphemous, idea - but no more blasphemous than the notion that God should take a true human nature. Christianity is full of such shocking ideas - that in no way means they are false. A Crucified Messiah was a disgusting idea to the Jews - & it was what Paul preached; it is a paradox, and a true one. Substitutionary atonement looks like another such paradox; it is very shocking that the hatred of God for sin should be poured out on His dearly beloved Son in Whom is all His delight - but there was no other sacrificial victim available. Only Jesus was a fit person to expiate our guilt and to win us the salvation we so desperately need but cannot gain of ourselves: only He can be our Mediator, High Priest, & Kinsman-Redeemer. As the OT suggests in many ways - its prophetic types are utterly fulfilled in Him, alone

As C. S. Lewis points out, only a penitent who has no sins or guilt of which to repent could be the Perfect Penitent; the “unfairness” of this is part of the reality of the Atonement. Of course it’s unfair - the atonement is not measured by what is fair, but by grace. We have no right to forgiveness, but only to endless punishment; so God unfairly forgives us, for the sake of His dear Son. Christian faith is not based on justice, on deserts; but on grace - it goes beyond ethics, so in that special sense it is profoundly unethical God is grossly unfair to us, because if He were fair, He would never forgive us. Sin does not deserve forgiveness. ##

The doctrine is not taught in the Bible and is manifestly contrary to the nature of God, who is all goodness and who cannot punish the innocent, all-holy Son of God. This understanding of substitutionary atonement is not compatible with the Catholic faith. One can only say that Christ “took our punishment” in a poetic rather than in a literal sense.
An understanding of substitutionary atonement that is compatible with the Catholic faith is known as vicarious satisfaction.

 

[MariaG]

From the Akin article quoted above:

A theory that is common in some parts of Protestantism is known as penal substitution. According to this theory–which only appeared in Church history with the rise of Protestantism–God poured out his wrath on Jesus Christ instead of on us.

1. The argument from lateness proves too much - if something is in the deposit of faith (such as the Immaculate Conception, which was hotly disputed among Catholics), then it is no objection that it did not surface in the Church’s consciousness until late…​

1. The two doctrines look late to us - from the vantage point of Christians in the year 20,000 they will seem very early Judging lateness is largely a matter of where the judge stands - it doesnot change the facts of the thing judged, but only how it is perceived
2. What is to stop the Father having poured out the full fury of His Righteous Wrath upon the Son Whom He Loves ? ISTM that this is exactly what He did. This is a shocking, even blasphemous, idea…

Sorry I cut off much of your reply but with the new handy feature of the quote system, it is easy to go back and look at your complete text, and I was too wordy in my reply

1. As for the “lateness” of the Immaculate conception, there *is *implicit scripture on it.

I am not adverse to hearing why substitionary atonement with God’s wrath poured out on Christ, Christ being punished for my sins, I would need to see the scripture that implicitly talks of it.

1. And yet this very same argument of “lateness” is constantly used by protestants against Catholics and thier “man-made” doctrines. Again Catholics do claim to have implicit scripture. There are also early writings that refer to Christ as the new Adam and Mary as the New Eve.

So we can see, even if you disagree with the theology, that there IS implicit Scripture as well as we can see the early Christians talking about Mary as the New Eve. The words “Immaculate Conception” did not come until much later, but the concept has been there quite early.

So I would also need to see early Church writings that speak of the concept of substitutionary atonement, recognizing that those words themselves may not be used.

From How can Mary be the New Eve? By Kenneth J. Howell
The phrase “New Eve” or similar expressions occur in the early Church Fathers. Take, for example, Justin Martyr, who wrote within a couple of generations of the apostles. In his *Dialogue with Trypho the Jew *(ca. A.D. 150),

In Against Heresies, Irenaeus expounds the doctrine of recapitulation. He teaches that Christ embodied Adam and all his posterity in order to redeem mankind from sin. Basing his teaching on Paul’s inspired doctrine of Christ as the Last Adam (cf. 1 Cor. 15:45), Irenaeus viewed Jesus as reversing the effects of Adam’s sin by bringing the life and righteousness that Adam lost (cf. Rom. 5:17, 18). Irenaeus saw the obvious implication. As Eve cooperated with Adam, the covenant head of humanity, so Mary cooperated with Jesus Christ, the covenant head of the new humanity. Thus Irenaeus says that Eve “by disobeying became the cause of death for herself and the whole human race, so also Mary . . . was obedient and became the cause of salvation for herself and the whole human race” (*Against Heresies *3.22.4). Later he says of these two virgins, “Just as the human race was subject to death by a virgin, it was freed by a virgin, with the virginal disobedience balanced by virginal obedience” (ibid., 5.19.1).

from Mary, Full of Grace CA This Rock

The key to understanding all these graces is Mary’s role as the New Eve, which the** Fathers proclaimed so forcefully**. Because she is the New Eve, she, like the New Adam (Christ), was created immaculate, as were the first Adam and Eve. Because she is the New Eve, Mary is mother of the new humanity (Christians), just as the first Eve was the mother of humanity. And, because she is the New Eve, Mary shares the fate of the New Adam. Whereas the first Adam and Eve died and were reduced to dust, the New Adam and Eve were lifted up physically into heaven.

1. I do not have a problem with believing something that seems on the surface so shocking. Catholics believe in the Real Presence of Christ, something so shocking that even today people still walk away from.

But once again, there is scripture as well as early Church Fathers who speak of this.

I would need to see the scripture as well as the Early writings on this subject before I would be convinced that this was not a doctrine that has “come along” twisting scripture to meet it’s own theological bent.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[Alterum]

Thank you, everyone, for the discussion; and Maria, thank you for the excellent article; it’s exactly the sort of thing I was looking for.