W
WCH
Guest
How have you come to that conclusion?
- Status
I’m honored that you would say this. You made my day, well, second to hearing the word and receiving the sacrament.=po18guy;7922137]Jon, you could probably do a better job of it anyway.
Remember that this righteousness of Christ is imputed to us when we are justified, and that justification is accessed by grace through faith. So, yes, one would need to be Christian in order for us to be declared righteous before God for Christ’s sake.
Jon
C
Carlan
Guest
Catholics believe through justification(an ongoing process) the righteousness of God,
through Christ,is infused by the Holy Spirit in us or through justification we are made righteous,Ro 5:19
Because of this infusion by the Holy Spirit justification is an ongoing process, it includes Sanctification, remission of sin, and renewal of the inner man.
Some Protestants believe through justification(a one time only event) the righteousness of Christ is imputed on them , or through justification they are declared righteous, Ro 4:3,5
They also believe they are made righteous or regenerated through sanctification only after their one time event of justification.They do not believe their justification is also a part of their sanctification.
Peace, Carlan
through Christ,is infused by the Holy Spirit in us or through justification we are made righteous,Ro 5:19
Because of this infusion by the Holy Spirit justification is an ongoing process, it includes Sanctification, remission of sin, and renewal of the inner man.
Some Protestants believe through justification(a one time only event) the righteousness of Christ is imputed on them , or through justification they are declared righteous, Ro 4:3,5
They also believe they are made righteous or regenerated through sanctification only after their one time event of justification.They do not believe their justification is also a part of their sanctification.
Peace, Carlan
W
WCH
Guest
Actually, Protestants not only believe that justification is imputed to them (Rom 4:3-5) but they also believe they will be made righteous (Rom 5:19 cf 2 Cor 3:18) the same verse you cite earlier so what you say isn’t really true as I understand you.Catholics believe through justification(an ongoing process) the righteousness of God,
through Christ,is infused by the Holy Spirit in us or through justification we are made righteous,Ro 5:19
Because of this infusion by the Holy Spirit justification is an ongoing process, it includes Sanctification, remission of sin, and renewal of the inner man.
Some Protestants believe through justification(a one time only event) the righteousness of Christ is imputed on them , or through justification they are declared righteous, Ro 4:3,5
They also believe they are made righteous or regenerated through sanctification only after their one time event of justification.They do not believe their justification is also a part of their sanctification.
Peace, Carlan
But I’m curious, if the righteousness of Christ, which is a perfect righteousness, is infused into you, how come you still sin? I mean, that doesn’t sound like the righteousness of Christ has been infused into you. Does it?
C
Carlan
Guest
WCH, we Catholics believe Baptism is when justification,forgiveness of original sin, sanctifying grace is conferred upon us by the Holy Spirit. Even so our sinful nature is still there and it is possible for us to fall from grace, the Church calls this week condition concupiscence. In other words our human nature does still have a propensity to ward sin.
Peace, Carlan
W
WCH
Guest
My question was concerning the “infusion” of Christ’s righteousness. If the righteousness of Christ, which is a perfect righteousness, is infused into you, why aren’t you perfectly righteous? You should be.
W
WesleyF
Guest
Read this - ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/RIGHTEOU.HTM
I am more than halfway through it and still reading it. It will help answer your question. I will give you my thoughts later.
C
Carlan
Guest
We are perfectly righteous as long as we continue in God’s grace, without commiting deadly sin.Through-out our on going process of Justification God is always standing by to save us.
His actual grace will convict us to believe in Christ as our Saviour and He moves us to be obiedient and follow his commandments no matter what they are.
We use our freedom to cooperate with his grace…meaning that it is still possible to resist His grace.
We go to heaven upon dying if we end our life without unrepented mortal (deadly) sin.
If you die with unrepented sin you will go to hell. No matter how great your faith or the amount of goodness you have done it will not save you.
Unless you repent of mortal sins commited. Sin affects our salvation, even after we become followers of Christ.Hebrews 10:26-27
Have you not heard someone say, 'There, but for the grace of God, go I". Peace, Carlan
W
WCH
Guest
Akin loves to redefine things such that when he’s finished writing, the words mean nothing.Read this - ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/RIGHTEOU.HTM
I am more than halfway through it and still reading it. It will help answer your question. I will give you my thoughts later.
“Righteousness” in Scripture has a specific meaning, so too, “the Righteousness of Christ” in Scripture has a specific meaning. If you’re infused with “the Righteousness of Christ,” then according to what Scripture says about “the Righteousness of Christ” certain expectations arise. One of those expectations is, being “infused” with Christ’s righteousness should make you really righteous, but according to Akin that’s not the case.
I’ll stick with the Biblical doctrine of the “imputed righteousness of Christ.”
It’s both biblically, and experientially believable, while the “infused” righteousness notion is neither.
W
WCH
Guest
I read Akin’s piece pretty quickly; nevertheless, but I don’t think he says that.
C
Carlan
Guest
I have not read the suggested Akin’s piece.
I would just like to say, WCH, that I hope you continue to visit here at Catholic Answers.
You will learn the all the truth we believe, you may not accept it but in the end you will know what was handed on to us from Christ through his Apostles. Two thousand years of Christian history. There are many wonderful Apostolic Church Apologists contributing here at Catholic Answers. God bless, and peace to you, Carlan
G
guanophore
Guest
This is a good point, and a correct one, WCH. This has always been the faith of the Church, who has consistently taught that those who have the grace of baptism are completely pure before God. That is why they are given white clothing - symbolic of them having washed them in the blood of Christ.
The problem only comes after baptism, when people fall from the grace by which they were cleansed. Mortal sin drives out the infusion of grace.
Some ecclesial communities seem to think that the nature of sin has changed, but this is not the case. Sin still separates mankind from God. Baptism washes away all sin, but we can still fall into it again. When that happens, we are cleased by confession.
1 John 1:8-10
9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
G
guanophore
Guest
Akin adheres to the Apostolic definitions, which were altered by the Reformers. Many basic elements of Christianity needed to be redefined in order to jettison Catholicism.
Yes. And that meaning is lost when the reader is separated from the Apostolic faith that produced it. Redefining the terms, separate from the One Faith, causes confusion and error. This is why Catholics read scripture in the light of Apostolic Teaching. When Calvin separated himself from that Teaching, his ideas of the meanings of the words changed.
Clearly you have misunderstood Akin. Infused righteousness does not mean that people never fall into sin.
I am glad that you have experienced the grace of your baptism, and being in right relationship with God.
I think, though, if you will look into the use of the word “imputed”, you will find that “crediting” an account with a positive balance means that the “credit” is actually present. It is not just a case of doctoring the books, or God duping Himself into believing credit exists when it does not. The difference in the Catholic understanding of imputation is that Catholics adhere to what the Apostles believed and taught -a that grace is really and actually “deposited”. Calvanists, and all those ecclesial communities influenced by his heresies, believe there is no actual “credit”.
W
WCH
Guest
I know that, and it’s not what I asked.
W
WCH
Guest
The Reformers haven’t altered any definitions. The words still mean what they’ve always meant.
That’s not the Reformers’ position. Their position was that many elements of Catholicism had to be jettisoned in order to get back to a Biblical Christianity.
The meaning of “the Righteousness of Christ” has not changed.
Scripture is Apostolic Teaching.
No they didn’t. Calvin was a very intelligent, efficient Greek exegete. His theology is reasoned from the Scripture.
Clearly you have misunderstood what I said; otherwise, you wouldn’t have said what you’ve said.
Please provide proof that God has “doctored the books,” and that “the credit isn’t actually present.”
As far as I know, so do Calvinists believe that:
Romans 5:1-2
**Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith INTO THIS GRACE in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God.
**
W
WCH
Guest
The answer you gave is they were “pure,” and that mortal sin drives out the “infusion of grace.”
My question was directed not to you, but to another fellow who was talking about an infusion of righteousness of God.
Please give him an opportunity to answer the question.
G
guanophore
Guest
So, your contention is that Jesus was too weak or disinterested in His Church to correct them fro 1500 years? They misunderstood what they themselves has written in the NT, and taught their disciples wrongly, but Jesus was not interested in correcting them? What happened to the powerful Jesus who dictated the letters of Revelation? What made Him give up on reaching His flock?
Yes, of course. Except that Christianity was never “bible based” until the Reformation. When they jettisoned the One Faith, all they had left was the Bible, so they extracted from it their doctrines (instead of recieving them from those to whom they were given in custody).
I will certainly concede that there were many Catholics in Europe at the time who had strayed from the Apostolic faith, were leading corrupt lives, and teaching/practicing errors. Where the Reformers erred was thinking that having wolves among the sheep made the Shepherd wrong. Instead of jettisoning the wolves, they departed from the TEachings of Jesus. This is what happened when they redefined the meanings of the words.
I agree, but people’s perceptions of it have. In fact they have multiplied exponentially. Since the advent of the practice of Sola Scriptura, they have the potential to be as numerous as belly buttons.
Suffice to say that Calvin’s understanding of the phrase was not consistent with what the Apostles believed and taught. It is sufficiently departed so as to constitute a “different gospel”.
Yes, of course. But when one reads it when separated from the Apostolic Faith, the interpretations are not necessarily consistent with the Apostolic Teaching that produced it.
No they didn’t. Calvin was a very intelligent, efficient Greek exegete. His theology is reasoned from the Scripture.
Indeed, he was very intelligent (although a lawyer, which would leave him suspect) and good with his Greek. I agree, his theology is reasoned from the Scripture, just as is all those of other Reformers who disagreed with his conclusions, such as Zwingli and Luther. All of them were intelligent, learned men who reasoned from the Scriptures. All of them disagreed with one another. This is why Jesus appointed a Teaching Authority over His Church, to resolve disputes. Jesus knew the minds of men, and that we can easily “reason” our way astray.
WCH;7925128:
Ok. Perhaps you will be kind enough to correct me?
LOL. That is a great strawman!
You are asking me to “prove” the Calvanist position? no thanks. Like you said, he was a learned scholar, and reasoned his position from the Scriptures. In another thread you directed an inquirer to read the CCC to find the answer to your question. I think that advice well applies here. Read Calvin, and it will become clear that he believes in an “alien” righteousness" (that comes from outside the person). He does not believe that human beings are substantially changed in baptism. In fact, his ideas about baptism repudiate the Aposotlic faith on many points, the actual credit of righteousness being only one.
Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom also we have obtained our introduction by faith INTO THIS GRACE in which we stand; and we exult in hope of the glory of God.
They do, but they don’t believe it the same way the Apostles did. They don’t believe that the grace is actually infused or implanted by God.
They believe that a cucumber, placed in a brine, will still remain a cucumber, I guess. Whereas, the Apostles taught that all cucumbers become pickles, and can never go back to being a cumcumber.
W
WCH
Guest
It’s not a straw man.
I’m asking you to prove your assertion. Will you prove it, or not?
C
Carlan
Guest
And we will thank our God forever more for permeating every fiber of our being with His love and infused grace,. Peace to you all, CarlanQuote:
They do, but they don’t believe it the same way the Apostles did. They don’t believe that the grace is actually infused or implanted by God.
Originally Posted by WCH
As far as I know, so do Calvinists believe that:
They believe that a cucumber, placed in a brine, will still remain a cucumber, I guess. Whereas, the Apostles taught that all cucumbers become pickles, and can never go back to being a cumcumber.
- Status