Do Catholics believe in imputed righteousness?

[WCH]

“Infusion” is a Latin term that refers to the placing of the grace of the HS within a person when they are justified in baptism.

John 14:15-17
16 And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever, 17 even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you.

Jesus is talking about the indwelling of the Spirit. He doesn’t say a thing about “infused” anything.

The HS comes to dwell within the beliver, and the believer becomes a “member” of Christ. It is a way to describe God’s action of “pouring” into the soul, and the results of that pouring.

There are more verses on this link.

All believers are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and none of the verses you’ve linked talk about “infused” anything.

In my reading of Luther and Calvin, the damage resulting from original sin did not just mar the image of God, but caused a total loss of it.

Regarding Calvin, and the image of God, you’re reading is wrong. For Calvin, the image of God was not lost.

For Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, and other Reformers, God’s grace does not heal and elevate our fallen human natures;

Wrong again, guanophore, by grace is one regenerated, or born again.

God’s grace saves us in spite of our depraved natures.

Scripture’s very clear that it is by grace, that God JUSTIFIES THE UNGODLY, IOW, God JUSTIFIES SINNERS, guanophore (Rom 4:5; 5:6), so your beef about that makes no sense?

God, in his great mercy, declares us to be in right relation with him—a “forensic” righteousness…

Yes, that’s justification.

…that does not include an actual or righteousness that is “poured” into (infused) into the soul.

You’re wrong, guanophore.

Hear the following scripture:

2 Corinthians 3:18

But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image [of Jesus] from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.

 

[Windfish]

The thing is, I dunno why things need to get this complicated. Any argument that a Protestant poses to a Catholic cannot ever be taken seriously because we know that they presuppose the authority of the Catholic Church in doing so. They presuppose it every time they quote the Bible at us, and that just undermines anything they say. This is a serious fundamental flaw with any Protestant apologetic against Catholicism. We just can’t take them seriously because we know where the authority is.

 

[guanophore]

Those verses are why Protestants believe in the need for the church, and for those men God sends to teach the church.

I don’t think all Protestants believe this. I have met many that do not.

Wanna bet?

I would not lose money on that bet. I have found that Sola Scripturists will stubbornly cling to this doctrine, in spite of vast amounts of historical and biblical evidence to the contrary.

Will you cite any scripture which states that Christians are not clean?

I think that Rom. 7 is one of the best examples. Paul talks about sin living in himself. Does not sound to “clean” to me.

Will you cite any scripture which states that at death, Christians have an attachment to sin?

Where do you think it goes? Vanishes into thin air at death?

You know very well that I said it is your assertions that are straw men, and that you can’t prove them. And obviously you can’t, or you would have by now. You’ve had ample time.

Or, perhaps I have no wish to defend Calvin? I think he did a more than adequate job himself. I referred you to a Reformed website that will take weeks to get through all the documents.

Rev 21:27 also says that the only people who will enter heaven are those people named in the Lamb’s book of life, and no one else.

At what point do you think the name of a person goes into the book?

, my sin is forgiven. Listen to Scripture: “when you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross” (Col 2:13-14). That’s what Calvin believed. That our sins are forgiven by God.

what part of Col 2:13, and the statement, "He…has forgiven us all out transgressions" are you in doubt over.

That’s what Calvinists believe: God’s forgiveness of sins.

Yes, but their beliefs about it represent a significant departure from what the Apostles believed and taught. The Aposltes taught that one could have their sins forgiven, then fall into them again, leaving them in a position where the blood of Christ no longer covers their sins.

Proof?

The best evidence that salvation is a process is found in the NT and the writings of the early Christians. If you do not accept this testimony, nothing else would help much.

What’s the difficulty, Carlan?

Catholics interpret scripture in the light of what the Apostles believed and taught. Reformed Christians interpret it according to what Calvin believed and taught. This is why we understand them differently.

 

[guanophore]

You were talking about pickles, and how pickles aren’t cucumbers, but I straightened that out for you, and now you understand that pickles are cucumbers.

I am sorry, WCH, and I do not wish to poke holes in your vast esteem of yourself, but your posting of the dictionary definition of the pickling process has not changed my mind at all.

Pickles are made out of cucumbers. Once they are pickled, they can never go back to their original state. They cannot be used in recipes calling for cucumbers because they are permanently and substantially changed. Likewise, if a person likes pickles on their hamburgers, they will not be happy with the substitution of a cucumber, because it is substantially different.

If anything needs to be straightened, it is your perceptions about what happens in the pickling process.

However, if you’d care to say something about baptism, go ahead.

If you cannot understand that a cucumber is substantially and permanently changed when it is baptized (pickled), I doubt that anything I try to show from the Scriptures will help much. Understanding baptism seems to require a level of intellectual abstraction that you have not yet attained.

 

[guanophore]

Jesus is talking about the indwelling of the Spirit. He doesn’t say a thing about “infused” anything.

He probably knew some Latin, but I agree, for the most part, He spoke in Aramaic and some Greek.

Catholics understand that the HS is poured into the soul at Baptism, and circumcises without hands, clothing the person in Christ, and saving him from all sins, both original and personal.

All believers are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and none of the verses you’ve linked talk about “infused” anything.

This may be your belief, WCH, but the Apostles taught that it was possible to quench the Spirit, and to separate oneself from the Spirit of grace by whom we are saved.

Regarding Calvin, and the image of God, you’re reading is wrong. For Calvin, the image of God was not lost.

Oh happy fault!

Wrong again, guanophore, by grace is one regenerated, or born again.

Being born again does not automatically heal the damaged human nature. If it did, we would not be in need of sanctification, would we?

Scripture’s very clear that it is by grace, that God JUSTIFIES THE UNGODLY, IOW, God JUSTIFIES SINNERS, guanophore (Rom 4:5; 5:6), so your beef about that makes no sense?

I have no beef. This is one point in which we are in agreement. :extrahappy:

Yes, that’s justification.

That is justification for Calvin. But the Apostles taught that we are not just “declared” to be righteous when we are justified but actually MADE righteous. This occurs, they taught, by grace being POURED into us, transforming us (kinda like a cucumber is transformed into a pickle).

You’re wrong, guanophore.

Hear the following scripture:

2 Corinthians 3:18

But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image [of Jesus] from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.

I think we are talking apples and oranges here WCH. Calvin did not teach that this happens at justification, but was part of the process of sanctification, which occurs after one is justified. He did not believe transformation happened at baptism like the Apostles taught, but after one was regenerated. He did not consider baptism regenerative.

 

[lampalm]

The difference in theology is not in the sanctification phase (working out salvation with fear and trembling) but with what happens at baptism. Calvin denied the spiritual effects of baptism as taught by the Apostles.

Really?
Do you just mean water baptism or being baptized by the Holy Spirit?

 

[guanophore]

Really?
Do you just mean water baptism or being baptized by the Holy Spirit?

He thought water baptism was important, and retained it, but did not believe that the HS was joined to the water, as the Apostles taught.

 

[WCH]

The thing is, I dunno why things need to get this complicated. Any argument that a Protestant poses to a Catholic cannot ever be taken seriously because we know that they presuppose the authority of the Catholic Church in doing so. They presuppose it every time they quote the Bible at us, and that just undermines anything they say.

It’s hard to take what you say seriously. You might want to try and understand what “presuppose” means.

This is a serious fundamental flaw with any Protestant apologetic against Catholicism. We just can’t take them seriously because we know where the authority is.

How do you know where the authority is?

 

[guanophore]

It’s hard to take what you say seriously. You might want to try and understand what “presuppose” means.

I could see why it would be difficult, not knowing the history of your faith as you don’t. Most of our separated brethren don’t know that the Bible is a Catholic books. And the arguements extracted from the pages of it originate in Catholic faith, wiritten by, for, and about Catholics. There is nothing in the NT that is not Catholic. In using the NT to make theological arguements or design doctrines, presupposition is made that it is the Word of God. This foundation, unbeknowst to many of our brethren, is based in and upon the Catholic faith.

How do you know where the authority is?

Jesus was revealed by God the Father with “all authority”. He sent His apostles with the same authority. They chose faithful men who were able to teach others also, and so on The successors of the apostles received this same “all authority” over the preaching and teaching of the gospel. Jesus kept His promises never to lead or forsake HIs Church, and to guide them into “all Truth”. We know where the authority is because we know where Jesus is (at the Head of His One Body, the Church). Where the bishop is, there is the Church founded by Christ. Authority is probably also a topic for another thread, though.

 

[Carlan]

It’s hard to take what you say seriously. You might want to try and understand what “presuppose” means.

How do you know where the authority is?

Could it mean some Protestants suppose the authority ( Apostolic teaching of Christ’s revelation)of the Catholic Church is not valid when it comes to their own particular interpretation of scripture,the Gospel?

Peace, Carlan

 

[Carlan]

I could see why it would be difficult, not knowing the history of your faith as you don’t. Most of our separated brethren don’t know that the Bible is a Catholic books. And the arguements extracted from the pages of it originate in Catholic faith, wiritten by, for, and about Catholics. There is nothing in the NT that is not Catholic. In using the NT to make theological arguements or design doctrines, presupposition is made that it is the Word of God. This foundation, unbeknowst to many of our brethren, is based in and upon the Catholic faith.

Jesus was revealed by God the Father with “all authority”. He sent His apostles with the same authority. They chose faithful men who were able to teach others also, and so on The successors of the apostles received this same “all authority” over the preaching and teaching of the gospel. Jesus kept His promises never to lead or forsake HIs Church, and to guide them into “all Truth”. We know where the authority is because we know where Jesus is (at the Head of His One Body, the Church). Where the bishop is, there is the Church founded by Christ. Authority is probably also a topic for another thread, though.

Thank you Guan , Amen!
Peace, Carlan

 

[WCH]

I could see why it would be difficult, not knowing the history of your faith as you don’t.

Guanophore, the history of my faith goes back through the Catholic Church to the apostles, which, it seems, you don’t know.

Most of our separated brethren don’t know that the Bible is a Catholic books. And the arguements extracted from the pages of it originate in Catholic faith, wiritten by, for, and about Catholics.

You’re engaging in the fallacy of anachronism, guanophore. The Bible is Christian, written for God’s people.

 

[WCH]

Could it mean some Protestants suppose the authority ( Apostolic teaching of Christ’s revelation)of the Catholic Church is not valid when it comes to their own particular interpretation of scripture,the Gospel?

Peace, Carlan

Yes.

 

[WCH]

I don’t think all Protestants believe this. I have met many that do not.

Differences in the acceptance, or rejection of doctrine and church teaching is not exclusive to Protestantism, guanophore. Look at statistics concerning Catholic acceptance and rejection of RC teaching.

I would not lose money on that bet. I have found that Sola Scripturists will stubbornly cling to this doctrine, in spite of vast amounts of historical and biblical evidence to the contrary.

Hey, it’s your private interpretation of historical and biblical evidence vs. theirs. Of course each will choose his own private interpretation. Even Catholics choose in that manner.

I think that Rom. 7 is one of the best examples. Paul talks about sin living in himself. Does not sound to “clean” to me.

There are no verses in Scripture stating Christians aren’t clean, guanophore.

Where do you think it goes? Vanishes into thin air at death?

You haven’t cited any scripture which states Christians have an attachment to sin at death because there aren’t scriptures which state that.

Or, perhaps I have no wish to defend Calvin? I think he did a more than adequate job himself. I referred you to a Reformed website that will take weeks to get through all the documents.

I’ve never asked you to defend Calvin, but only to defend your straw man assertions concerning what you say is Calvin’s description of imputed righteousness.

You’re still dodging that.

At what point do you think the name of a person goes into the book?

In eternity.

Yes, but their beliefs about it represent a significant departure from what the Apostles believed and taught. The Aposltes taught that one could have their sins forgiven, then fall into them again, leaving them in a position where the blood of Christ no longer covers their sins.

Guanophore, Jesus says that it is He who gives eternal life. And Jesus of those to whom He gives eternal life, they will never perish (Jn 10:28). So concerning your understanding of sin, and a believer “falling into” it, you must be wrong about Christ not forgiving it and covering it, always.

The best evidence that salvation is a process is found in the NT and the writings of the early Christians. If you do not accept this testimony, nothing else would help much.

Proof?

Catholics interpret scripture in the light of what the Apostles believed and taught.

What the apostles believed and taught is Scripture, guanophore, and scripture is the light for that.

Reformed Christians interpret it according to what Calvin believed and taught.

Guanophore, there’s only one message in the Scripture, and it’s not Calvin’s message, but God’s.

 

[pablope]

Differences in the acceptance, or rejection of doctrine and church teaching is not exclusive to Protestantism, guanophore. Look at statistics concerning Catholic acceptance and rejection of RC teaching.

Hey, it’s your private interpretation of historical and biblical evidence vs. theirs. Of course each will choose his own private interpretation. Even Catholics choose in that manner.

There are no verses in Scripture stating Christians aren’t clean, guanophore.

You haven’t cited any scripture which states Christians have an attachment to sin at death because there aren’t scriptures which state that.

I’ve never asked you to defend Calvin, but only to defend your straw man assertions concerning what you say is Calvin’s description of imputed righteousness.

You’re still dodging that.

In eternity.

Guanophore, Jesus says that it is He who gives eternal life. And Jesus of those to whom He gives eternal life, they will never perish (Jn 10:28). So concerning your understanding of sin, and a believer “falling into” it, you must be wrong about Christ not forgiving it and covering it, always.

Proof?

.

Excerpts from Hebrews 10:

26For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,

27 but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries.

36For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God you may receive what is promised.

 

[WCH]

I am sorry, WCH, and I do not wish to poke holes in your vast esteem of yourself, but your posting of the dictionary definition of the pickling process has not changed my mind at all.

Pickles are made out of cucumbers. Once they are pickled, they can never go back to their original state. They cannot be used in recipes calling for cucumbers because they are permanently and substantially changed. Likewise, if a person likes pickles on their hamburgers, they will not be happy with the substitution of a cucumber, because it is substantially different.

If anything needs to be straightened, it is your perceptions about what happens in the pickling process.

If you cannot understand that a cucumber is substantially and permanently changed when it is baptized (pickled), I doubt that anything I try to show from the Scriptures will help much. Understanding baptism seems to require a level of intellectual abstraction that you have not yet attained.

 

[WCH]

Excerpts from Hebrews 10:

26For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,

27 but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries.

36For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God you may receive what is promised.

I too can post verses without explanation.

Here’s the wrap-up of the chapter from which you’ve posted the above:

Hebrews 10:39

***…WE ARE NOT OF THOSE who shrink back to destruction,
BUT *[WE ARE] *OF THOSE WHO HAVE FAITH to the preserving of the soul.***Christ’s sheep will never perish (Jn 10).

 

[Odell]

I think we are talking apples and oranges here WCH. Calvin did not teach that this happens at justification, but was part of the process of sanctification, which occurs after one is justified. He did not believe transformation happened at baptism like the Apostles taught, but after one was regenerated. He did not consider baptism regenerative.

I went back and read the context of what you are saying. So after all I have said Calvin still did not believe that Adam had infused grace in order to avoid temptation of the devil in the Garden. Calvin only talked about having external graces. So Calvin did not believe in a infused righteousness as I think WCH is perporting. My post may need a little help im going by what I have read and I am no expert.

guanophore im thinking this was more of Luthers point of view. I think to Calvin regeneration must precede faith. Since that would be a change by God and not dependent on the will of man, which in turn allows him to reach out in faith and apprehend Christ. Luther stressed the “seizing” of Christ threw faith, Calvin stressed that Christ irresistibly “seized” the individual.

Luther believed that justification came immediately upon faith. Calvin believed faith was prompted by internal regeneration of the individual.

WCH really doesn’t know how complicated the Protestant position is.

Apparently Calvin foresaw the problem in Lutheranism between faith being a gift of God and faith being an act required of mans will.

However, in claiming that regeneration preceded faith and resulted in a secure justification, this meant that the regeneration which produced justification would be very similar to or identical with the Catholic concept that justification entailed an internal transformation or regeneration of the individual.

 

[pablope]

I too can post verses without explanation.

Here’s the wrap-up of the chapter from which you’ve posted the above:

Hebrews 10:39

***…WE ARE NOT OF THOSE who shrink back to destruction,
BUT ***[WE ARE] *OF THOSE WHO HAVE FAITH to the preserving of the soul.*Christ’s sheep will never perish (Jn 10).

It doesn’t need any explanation as it is self evident. Continuing in sin, after believing in Jesus does not get one into eternal life. As v36 says, there is a need for endurance…to follow the Father’s will.

You are looking at verse 39 in isolation, and should be looked at with the rest of the passages. It is with endurance, a process, that we partake of what is stated in v 39.

Look at also the verses before this:

v38:

“Yet a little while,
and the coming one will come and will not delay;
38 but my righteous one shall live by faith,
** and if he shrinks back,
my soul has no pleasure in him.”**

What does “shinks back” back mean to you? Doesn’t it mean going back to one’s sinful state?

39But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, **but of those who have faith and preserve their souls. **

So what does “having faith and preserving their souls” mean?

 

[Windfish]

Guanophore, the history of my faith goes back through the Catholic Church to the apostles, which, it seems, you don’t know.

You are a Protestant, right? Or are you an Greek/Eastern Orthodox Christian? If the former, no, sorry to inform you that Protestantism did not exist until 500 years ago. If you do not acknowledge that fact, that is disgustingly deluded.

You’re engaging in the fallacy of anachronism, guanophore. The Bible is Christian, written for God’s people.

What he is saying is just a fact of history. The Christian movement that began in Palestine and spread to Europe was led by the apostles and later their successors. This organization is the Catholic Church. Several hundred years after the Ascension of its founder, this organization put together the Bible. With this in mind, it is really difficult to take any Protestant apologetic seriously because it undermines everything put forth - every time they quote the Bible at us, they presuppose the authority of the organization that created it. They are arguing with their feet firmly planted in midair. I really think that if you ask any informed Catholic on this board, they feel like they have to condescend themselves when in a Protestant argument. It is not a serious point of view for us.