Do Catholics believe in imputed righteousness?

[Vico]

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.

From Father John Hardon, on Imputed Justice:

A Reformation theory that God ceases to impute to a sinner the guilt of one’s sins because the merits of Christ are imputed to one in justification. The theory was condemned by the Council of Trent, which declared that, through justification, the sinner is not merely no longer considered sinful (because of Christ’s imputed merits) but becomes a child of God, possessed of sanctifying grace and having a right to heaven.

 

[WCH]

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.

If by “sacrament of reconciliation” you mean confession of sins, all believers have the ability to confess their sins directly to God.

 

[WCH]

This conversation stands as evidence that they have, indeed.

Look in a lexicon, you’ll see they haven’t.

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

”Development of Doctrine” doesn’t occur in Catholicism? Are you sure?

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

Yes, Scripture is Apostolic teaching.

Through the error of private interpretation…

”Be diligent to…accurately handle the word of truth…” private interpretation isn’t an error it’s encouraged.

…and by authority obtained from himself, rather than from the Church.

Authority comes from God.

Intelligence? I would rather have an authoritative Church (a biblical concept) that is lead by the guarantee of the Holy Spirit.

I have that already.

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.

”The world” was already converted v19?

 

[WCH]

From Father John Hardon, on Imputed Justice:

A Reformation theory that God ceases to impute to a sinner the guilt of one’s sins because the merits of Christ are imputed to one in justification.

"Blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sin (Rom 3:24-4:5; 4:8; cf Ps 32:1, 2).

"God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them… (2 Cor 5:19).

 

[Vico]

"Blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sin (Rom 3:24-4:5; 4:8; cf Ps 32:1, 2).

"God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them… (2 Cor 5:19).

These are not in conflict with the Catholic teaching. Explained at Trent we are initially justified by “the justice of Christ” and “grace,” but we are not justified by a “sole imputation” that excludes further necessary cooperation, or “outworking” of the same faith.

• CANON IX. If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.
• CANON X. If any one saith, that men are just without the justice of Christ, whereby He merited for us to be justified; or that it is by that justice itself that they are formally just; let him be anathema.
• CANON XI. If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema.

 

[po18guy]

If by “sacrament of reconciliation” you mean confession of sins, all believers have the ability to confess their sins directly to God.

But why confess, if one has imputed righteousness? Does that righteousness somehow fail?

 

[po18guy]

”Development of Doctrine” doesn’t occur in Catholicism? Are you sure?

Of course it does, as man’s understanding of revealed truth increased. If you are a Calvinist, why do you believe in Calvin and not Luther, Zwingli, or one of the others? Personal preference?

Yes, Scripture is Apostolic teaching.

Well, the NT, anyway.

private interpretation isn’t an error it’s encouraged.

You say so.

Authority comes from God.

So said Jim Jones and David Koresh.

”The world” was already converted v19? Paul wrote not to the unconverted masses, but to the leaders of the Churches that already existed. Do you not believe in the power to bind and loose?

 

[WesleyF]

That the righteousness of Christ is perfect and flawless.
Do you disagree with that assessment?

No. So is mine when I am cleansed from all sin.

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

I think you still are. When Catholics speak of righteousness they are speaking in terms of the purity of the soul. In other words, the person is immaculate, free from any kind of sin. There is no charge against him. That does not mean that the person is also completely sanctified.

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

As a Catholic I would say that when something is credit to my account, it is not merely thought of as being credited but really credited. If some money is credited to my bank account, it is not merely thought of as being credit, but the money is actually transferred. We believe that God does what he says. If God declares someone to be righteous, then he makes that person righteous (again, I am using the Catholic sense of the term “righteousness” - purity of the soul), because as Isaiah says,

“For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and return not thither but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and prosper in the thing for which I sent it.” (Isaiah 55:10-11)

We believe that when God declares someone to be righteous, his very declaration causes righteousness to be infused in that person.

 

[WCH]

But why confess, if one has imputed righteousness?

Because we sin.

Does that righteousness somehow fail?

No.

 

[WCH]

Of course it does, as man’s understanding of revealed truth increased.

Yes it does.

If you are a Calvinist, why do you believe in Calvin and not Luther, Zwingli, or one of the others? Personal preference?

I think Calvin’s “doctrines of grace,” and soteriology are the most biblical.

Well, the NT, anyway.

Indeed.

You say so.

I quoted Paul; therefore my position is, Paul said so.

So said Jim Jones and David Koresh.

So did Jesus.

Paul wrote not to the unconverted masses, but to the leaders of the Churches that already existed. Do you not believe in the power to bind and loose?

That doesn’t answer the question, and Paul didn’t only write to the leaders of the Churches that already existed, but to all the “saints” in those Churches.

Do you not believe in the power to bind and loose?

I do.

 

[WCH]

No.

OK. You don’t believe the righteousness of Christ is perfect and flawless.

I think you still are.

I know I’m not.

When Catholics speak of righteousness they are speaking in terms of the purity of the soul. In other words, the person is immaculate, free from any kind of sin. There is no charge against him. That does not mean that the person is also completely sanctified.

I know. I’ve read Akin’s explanation.

As a Catholic I would say that when something is credit to my account, it is not merely thought of as being credited but really credited.

As a Protestant, the righteousness of Christ is really credited to my account.

We believe that when God declares someone to be righteous, his very declaration causes righteousness to be infused in that person.

How do you support that belief?

 

[WesleyF]

OK. You don’t believe the righteousness of Christ is perfect and flawless.

Yes, I believe the righteousness of Christ is perfect and flawless and so is mine every time I do confession.

How do you support that belief?

As I said, God’s declaration causes what he declares -

“For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and return not thither but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater,** so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose**, and prosper in the thing for which I sent it.” (Isaiah 55:10-11)

So I am not just merely declared righteous, but made righteous by God.

 

[guanophore]

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

Yes, and that is why it is so important not to separate the Scriptures they wrote, from the faith they espoused. When this is done, innumerable positions can be taken, some of them quite far from the Truth.

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

Dear brother (sister?), I understand that you would like to take credit, but I was taught this during my three years in Protestant seminary, probably before you were born.

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

I would love to have a discussion on baptism! It is one of my favorite topics. However, I am not sure that we should do it on this thread. If it is ok with the OP, it is ok with me, but otherwise, we should probably start a new one.

 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.

Calvin’s theology is not a strawman. He spent many years writing his ideas, researched them to the best of his ability, and created a system that he believed came “from the Scriptures”.

If you wish to read about his positions, I have referred you to an appropriate website, or if you like, I can give you some links to his written works, though I am sure you will have no trouble finding them. They are in the public domain.

It is silly for you to ask me to argue Calvin, a position to which I do not subscribe. I am here to give you Catholic Answers, to the best of my ability. If you wish to debate with Calvinists, CARM might be a better forum.

 

[guanophore]

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

YES!

But for Calvin, it is not real righteousness put inside a person, but more of a “covering” of their depraved nature.

For Apostolic Christians, the “credit” is REAL. The HS works righteousness into the human soul, in the circumcision made without hands.

Did you know that the oldest reference we have to the Gk. word “baptize” is a pickle recipe from the intertestamental period? Have you ever made pickles? Even if not, you will probably realize that once a cucumber is “dipped” or “submerged” into the brine, it can never go back to being a cucumber.

 

[WCH]

Yes, I believe the righteousness of Christ is perfect and flawless and so is mine every time I do confession.

I thought you believed that about Christ.

so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose

, and prosper in the thing for which I sent it." (Isaiah 55:10-11)

So I am not just merely declared righteous, but made righteous by God.Why didn’t you use the passage that declares you righteous by God. Will you cite it, so that I might know which passage it is?

 

[guanophore]

From Father John Hardon, on Imputed Justice:

A Reformation theory that God ceases to impute to a sinner the guilt of one’s sins because the merits of Christ are imputed to one in justification. The theory was condemned by the Council of Trent, which declared that, through justification, the sinner is not merely no longer considered sinful (because of Christ’s imputed merits) but becomes a child of God, possessed of sanctifying grace and having a right to heaven.

This has always been a mystery to me.

Some of our separated brethren honestly seem to believe that the nature of sin has changed - that it no longer separates man from God.

 

[WesleyF]

Why didn’t you use the passage that declares you righteous by God. Will you cite it, so that I might know which passage it is?

I borrowed that “declaration” terminology from Protestant sources. Protestants refer to justification using statements like “In justification we are declared righteous through faith alone based on the merit of Christ alone.”

So if someone holds to that position (as probably you do) then the implication is that such a declaration causes a person to be actually made righteous.

As a Catholic, I am declared to be righteous each time the priest says to me, “I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Cleansed from sin, my soul is completely righteous.

 

[WCH]

YES!

But for Calvin, it is not real righteousness put inside a person, but more of a “covering” of their depraved nature.

For Apostolic Christians, the “credit” is REAL. The HS works righteousness into the human soul, in the circumcision made without hands.

Forensic justification is God declaring the sinner righteous in His sight. The sinner is no longer guilty.

The inward change begins at that time, and through sanctification the believer is brought into conformity with the image of Christ.

Did you know that the oldest reference we have to the Gk. word “baptize” is a pickle recipe from the intertestamental period? Have you ever made pickles? Even if not, you will probably realize that once a cucumber is “dipped” or “submerged” into the brine, it can never go back to being a cucumber.

Pickle
3 : an article of food that has been preserved in brine or in vinegar;
specifically : **a cucumber ** that has been so preserved
Merriam-Webster, I. (1996, c1993). Merriam-Webster’s collegiate dictionary. Includes index. (10th ed.). Springfield, Mass., U.S.A.: Merriam-Webster. IOW, guanophore, A pickle IS A CUCUMBER.

 

[WCH]

I borrowed that “declaration” terminology from Protestant sources. Protestants refer to justification using statements like “In justification we are declared righteous through faith alone based on the merit of Christ alone.”

So if someone holds to that position (as probably you do) then the implication is that such a declaration causes a person to be actually made righteous.

As a Catholic, I am declared to be righteous each time the priest says to me, “I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Cleansed from sin, my soul is completely righteous.

I’m sorry, I probably wasn’t very clear in my request.

I asked if you would please cite the verse in which it is stated that God infuses you with righteousness? Which scripture passage(s) says that?

 

[po18guy]

That doesn’t answer the question, and Paul didn’t only write to the leaders of the Churches that already existed, but to all the “saints” in those Churches.

Well, this causes me to wonder what you must think of Paul’s letter and the reason for its writing. Since those in the Church had already received “imputed righteousness”, why would they need to confess at all? Are you claiming that sin can destroy that righteousness?

I do.

Any idea why it was given, and what happened to it?