Do Catholics believe in imputed righteousness?

[guanophore]

It’s not a straw man.

I’m asking you to prove your assertion. Will you prove it, or not?

It is not my assertion, it is Calvin’s. I think he did his level best constructing and supporting it. I am sure he represents it much better than a person who does not believe in it.

 

[WCH]

It is not my assertion, it is Calvin’s. I think he did his level best constructing and supporting it. I am sure he represents it much better than a person who does not believe in it.

Ahem, guanophore…Calvin has never asserted, regarding imputation, that “God doctored the books,” or that "the credit isn’t actually present.” In fact, those are straw men.

They’re also your assertions, and those assertions rolled off your tongue quite easily, in fact, much more easily than has your proof, which is, thus far, non-existent.

Now, if you will please, either offer proof for your assertions, or admit that you are wrong, and retract them, but please stop denying that they’re your assertions.

Which one will it be?

 

[Vico]

No imputed righteousness in Catholicism, rather teaching is interior sanctification effected by grace.

 

[WCH]

No imputed righteousness in Catholicism, rather teaching is interior sanctification effected by grace.

That’s a Scriptural teaching, and therefore, a Protestant position.

 

[Vico]

That’s a Scriptural teaching, and therefore, a Protestant position.

Catholic Encyclopedia explains that man is justified and made holy by his or her own personal justice and holiness (causa formalis) and this is a different teaching than Protestant teaching.

“Unica formalis causa [justificationis] est justitia Dei, non qua ipse justus est, sed qua nos justos facit, qua videlicet ab eo donati, renovamur spiritu mentis nostrae: et non modo reputamur, sed vere justi nominamur et sumus, justitiam in nobis recipientes unusquisque suam”). – Trent.

 

[Algo1]

Here is an early example of the “Great Exchange” long before Luther embraced it.

Mathetes to Diognetus: As long then as the former time endured, He permitted us to be borne along by unruly impulses, being drawn away by the desire of pleasure and various lusts. This was not that He at all delighted in our sins, but that He simply endured them; nor that He approved the time of working iniquity which then was, but that He sought to form a mind conscious of righteousness, so that being convinced in that time of our unworthiness of attaining life through our own works, it should now, through the kindness of God, be vouchsafed to us; and having made it manifest that in ourselves we were unable to enter into the kingdom of God, we might through the power of God be made able. But when our wickedness had reached its height, and it had been clearly shown that its reward, punishment and death, was impending over us; and when the time had come which God had before appointed for manifesting His own kindness and power, how the one love of God, through exceeding regard for men, did not regard us with hatred, nor thrust us away, nor remember our iniquity against us, but showed great long-suffering, and bore with us, He Himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities, He gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous, the incorruptible One for the corruptible, the immortal One for them that are mortal. For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than His righteousness? By what other one was it possible that we, the wicked and ungodly, could be justified, than by the only Son of God? O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation! that the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors! Having therefore convinced us in the former time that our nature was unable to attain to life, and having now revealed the Savior who is able to save even those things which it was [formerly] impossible to save, by both these facts He desired to lead us to trust in His kindness, to esteem Him our Nourisher, Father, Teacher, Counselor, Healer, our Wisdom, Light, Honor, Glory, Power, and Life, so that we should not be anxious concerning clothing and food. Ante-Nicene Fathers: Volume I, Mathetes to Diognetus, Chapter 9.

 

[guanophore]

Ahem, guanophore...Calvin has never asserted, regarding imputation, that "God doctored the books," or that "the credit isn't actually present.” In fact, those are straw men.

Forgive me, I have used my own words to describe Calvin’s position. He is rejecting infused righteousness. We are not actually MADE righteous, only DECLARED as such. Grace is not imparted or infused to us (credit actually in the account). The credit all belongs to Christ, and it is accounted to us, but not really ours. That is what I mean by doctoring the books.

They’re also your assertions, and those assertions rolled off your tongue quite easily, in fact, much more easily than has your proof, which is, thus far, non-existent.

I have no need to prove Calvin’s position. As I said, he has done so quite adequately. He worked very hard to rationalize his rejection of the Catholic faith.

Now, if you will please, either offer proof for your assertions, or admit that you are wrong, and retract them, but please stop denying that they’re your assertions.

Which one will it be?

LOL. You seem to like this phrase, don’t you.

I shall do neither, since they are not my assertions. If you wish to indulge yourself in the heresies of Calvanism, I suggest a Reformed website.

 

[guanophore]

No imputed righteousness in Catholicism, rather teaching is interior sanctification effected by grace.

This is a very dangerous position to take, since Scripture states:

Rom 4:21-5:1
. 22 That is why his faith was “reckoned to him as righteousness.” 23 But the words, “it was reckoned to him,” were written not for his sake alone, 24 but for ours also. It will be reckoned to us who believe in him that raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, 25 who was put to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification.

Imputation, or “reckoning” or “crediting” is entirely Scriptural.

What is different is our understanding of the imputation. The Apostles taught that Christ’s righteousness is “reckoned” to all who have faith in Him.

Rom 4:11-12
11 He (Abraham) received circumcision as a sign or seal of the righteousness which he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised and who thus have righteousness reckoned to them, 12 and likewise the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but also follow the example of the faith which our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

So Catholics (having written and preserved these passages) clearly DO believe in imputed righteousness. But the Apostles taught that what is deposited in the account is actual, rather than “declared” only.

 

[guanophore]

That’s a Scriptural teaching, and therefore, a Protestant position.

The New Testament was written by, for, and about Catholics, WCH. There is nothing in it that is not Catholic.

Many of our separated brethren have retained the Catholic Teachings, sanctification by grace, through faith, being one of them.

Your bitter tone indicates that you may not have been taught to read the Scriptures as a Catholic.

 

[WCH]

Forgive me, I have used my own words to describe Calvin’s position. He is rejecting infused righteousness. We are not actually MADE righteous, only DECLARED as such. Grace is not imparted or infused to us (credit actually in the account). The credit all belongs to Christ, and it is accounted to us, but not really ours. That is what I mean by doctoring the books.

The Scriptural position, with which Calvinists agree, is that with sanctification comes real righteous.

Therefore, your assertion is false.

I have no need to prove Calvin’s position. As I said, he has done so quite adequately. He worked very hard to rationalize his rejection of the Catholic faith.

Stop with your nonsense. I’ve already made it clear to you that I’m not asking you to prove Calvin’s postion, but to provide support for your straw man assertions. You can’t support your assertions, isn’t that right?

LOL. You seem to like this phrase, don’t you.

I shall do neither, since they are not my assertions. If you wish to indulge yourself in the heresies of Calvanism, I suggest a Reformed website.

(Edited)

 

[guanophore]

The Scriptural position, with which Calvinists agree, is that with sanctification comes real righteous.

Scripture does not have a “position”, since it is not a person. However ,I do agree that Calvinists also espouse infused righteousness with sanctification. They do not, however, believe that grace is infused at justification, or that justification happens at baptism, as the Apsotles taught.

Therefore, your assertion is false.

I am sorry you feel that way. Calvin was quite specific.

Stop with your nonsense. I’ve already made it clear to you that I’m not asking you to prove Calvin’s postion, but to provide support for your straw man assertions. You can’t support your assertions, isn’t that right?

(Edited)

 

[WesleyF]

Akin loves to redefine things such that when he’s finished writing, the words mean nothing.

That’s what happens when you read him “pretty quickly”, as you did. I have read several of Akin’s writings and found them to be very cogent and informative indeed. He is, in my opinion, one of the finest writers in the Catholic world today. Of course, his words would mean nothing to the one who is not interested in understanding them (as is probably the case with you), but to me, his articles, especially this one, are full with wonderful insights and clear thinking.

according to what Scripture says about “the Righteousness of Christ” certain expectations arise.

And what does the scripture say? What verses are you referring to?

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.

You really didn’t read what Akin said -

Catholic thought in connection with the terms “justification” and “sanctification” is not dominated by the ideas of legal and behavioral righteousness. Instead, it focuses on a third kind of righteousness which may be called ontological or real righteousness.

Scripture speaks of our sins being “crimson like scarlet” (Isaiah 1:18), and the Psalmist says “wash me with hyssop and I shall be whiter than snow.” (Psalm 51:7). It is also the kind of righteousness Scripture has in mind when it talks about our sins making us “unclean” or “filthy” and our forgiveness making us “pure” and “clean” before God. In these passages, guilt and innocence are conceived of as objectively** real properties that cling to us** just like colors and cleanliness. So when God declares us righteous, we actually become righteous: we have our guilt taken away and our purity before God restored.

You are making the same mistake that Akin pointed out - that of mistaking the Catholic idea of righteousness with what Protestants would call “behavioral righteousness”, which is actually sanctification. The Catholic understanding is that when we are made righteous (or justified) we are made clean, or pure, having no sin. Our soul, at that moment, is spotless and blameless, just like Christ’s. That does not mean that we have also been completely sanctified. Sanctification, which is behavioral righteousness, occurs throughout the life of the believer. In it, the sinful tendencies of the believer are continually purified.

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.

Mere unproven claims. Nothing different from the Muslim claiming that “Islam is the most beautiful religion in the world and Mohammad is God’s true prophet.”

Back up your claims with proof, then they shall have weight.

 

[WCH]

Well, WCH, I am not sure what brings you here to CAF, but if you wish to continue posting here, you may wish to consider reading the forum rules. Disrespectful behavior is not conducive to productive dialogue and discussion. Maybe you already have what you came for, and are ready to leave, or maybe you need a little sanctificaition by the Holy Spirit so that you do not find a need to be so rude?

 

[WCH]

Scripture does not have a “position”, since it is not a person.

But the people who wrote it are persons, and they have positions.

However ,I do agree that Calvinists also espouse infused righteousness with sanctification.

Well good, at least I’ve been able to bring you around to some truth.

They do not, however, believe that grace is infused at justification, or that justification happens at baptism, as the Apsotles taught.

Prove either one of those assertions from Scripture, and you’ll have made your point.

I am sorry you feel that way. Calvin was quite specific.

This isn’t about my feelings, it’s about your inability to backup your straw man assertions.

You’re probably unable to do that more often than not.

 

[WCH]

And what does the scripture say? What verses are you referring to?

That the righteousness of Christ is perfect and flawless.

Do you disagree with that assessment?

You really didn’t read what Akin said –

No, I really did.

You are making the same mistake that Akin pointed out - that of mistaking the Catholic idea of righteousness with what Protestants would call “behavioral righteousness”, which is actually sanctification.

I’m not making any mistake. I’m referring to the infusion of the righteousness of Christ, Akin is not. Follow along, please.

Mere unproven claims.

The apostle’s language in the book of Romans concerning justification clearly states that faith is credited as righteousness.

 

[po18guy]

How did you come to this conclusion?

How have you come to that conclusion?

It is not a conclusion. It was an impression.

 

[po18guy]

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.

At that point, for a brief moment for most of us, we are.

 

[po18guy]

Akin loves to redefine things such that when he’s finished writing, the words mean nothing.

“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.

I know not which of the varieties of ‘protestant’ you are. However, I’ll bet that you do not have the Sacrament of Reconciliation in your faith community. Thus, righteousness, of necessity, has morphed into a “once for all time” proposition. While this is a comforting position to hold, I must point out that there is a mountain of scriptural evidence counter to it.

 

[po18guy]

The Reformers haven’t altered any definitions. The words still mean what they’ve always meant.

This conversation stands as evidence that they have, indeed.

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.

But, “biblical Christianity” is a development - it is not original. Apostolic Christianity is original. Christ sent Apostles, not bibles.

Scripture is Apostolic Teaching.

A fair chunk of it, yes. Far from all of it.

Calvin was a very intelligent, efficient Greek exegete. His theology is reasoned from the Scripture.

Through the error of private interpretation, and by authority obtained from himself, rather than from the Church. Intelligence? I would rather have an authoritative Church (a biblical concept) that is lead by the guarantee of the Holy Spirit.

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.

All well and good - as far as it goes. So, why did Paul preach a ministry of reconciliation to those already converted? (2 Corinthians 5:16-21) Was he wrong? Just filling the page with random thoughts? A heretic? One thing appears certain: he was not a Calvinist.

 

[JRKH]

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.

I Love this…

Peace
James