Do Catholics believe in imputed righteousness?

[guanophore]

A Ransom Payment

In Mark 10:45 Jesus said, “the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (cp. Matt. 20:28, NIV). This is a powerful statement. Jesus redeemed his followers from sin. The price of this redemption, however, was his own life (1 Tim. 2:6; 1 Pet. 1:18,19), the supreme expression of his love for us (cf. John 15:13).

That Jesus described his death as a ransom payment is clear. But to whom was the ransom paid? Jesus never said. In fact, to pose the question is to stretch the metaphor out of shape. Yet the question was posed nonetheless.

The first suggestion was articulated by the second-century Irenaeus of Lyons. He argued that Jesus was paid as a ransom to the devil. Specifically, so the theory goes, Christ was paid as a ransom to the devil to free people’s souls. This was a clever ruse on God’s part, however, for unknown to the devil, Jesus was actually God Himself. Unable to constrain Jesus’ divine soul, the devil was defeated and Christ emerged victorious. This view, known as the “Ransom” or “Classic” theory, was taught consistently by nearly all of the Church Fathers, including Augustine

A view well illustrated in the Narnian Tales of CS Lewis, as well.

 

[guanophore]

Substitution or Participation?

There is another dimension to the Atonement that is neglected in the Penal Substitution theory. That is the element of participation: We participate in the sacrifice of Jesus’ death (cf. Heb. 13:11-16).

***Substitution ***implies an “either/or”; ***participation ***implies a “both/and.” Substitution would have me say, “Jesus died, therefore I don’t have to”; participation would have me say, “Jesus died, therefore I must also.” Which is more Scriptural? Consider Romans 6:1-14.

This is a good point. The other place I have seen this go far afield from orthodoxy is when preachers state that “God the Father turned His back on Jesus at that moment on the cross” (When He said My God My God, why have you forsaken me?"). This notion, somehow derived from the penal substitution theory, is a denial of the nature of the Trinity.

 

[Algo1]

This is a good point. The other place I have seen this go far afield from orthodoxy is when preachers state that “God the Father turned His back on Jesus at that moment on the cross” (When He said My God My God, why have you forsaken me?"). This notion, somehow derived from the penal substitution theory, is a denial of the nature of the Trinity.

The words of Jesus at Matthew 27:46 have come in for many kinds of interpretation. Unfortunately, many of the theories have compromised the Bible’s teachings on the nature of the relationship between the Father and the Son. The Father was never separated from or abandoned the Son. This truth is clear from many sources. Jesus uses the second person when speaking to the Father-“why have You forsaken Me?” rather than “why did He forsake Me?” as if the Father is no longer present. Immediately on the heels of this statement Jesus speaks to the Father ("Father, into your hands. . "), showing no sense of separation. Whatever else Jesus was saying, He was not saying that, at the very time of His ultimate obedience to the Father, the Father abandoned Him. Rather, it seems much more logical to see this as a quotation of Psalm 22 that is meant to call to mind all of that Psalm, which would include the victory of v. 19ff, as well as verse 24, which states, “For He has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither has He hidden His face from him; but when he cried to Him for help, He heard.”

James R. White. Forgotten Trinity, The (p. 217). Kindle Edition.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

My understanding of penal substitution isn’t that they believe Christ “died” instead of us but rather that he bore the punishment for our sins instead of us bearing it. Death is a given to all of us…That’s my reading of it. I could be wrong.

Penal Substitution declares that salvation must be earned by perfect, perpetual obedience;5 the Scriptures declare that God saves us “in accordance with his pleasure and will” (Eph. 1:5, NIV).
Penal Substitution declares that “God must visit sin with punishment”;6 the Scriptures declare that God “does not treat us as our sins deserve or repay us according to our iniquities” (Psa. 103:10, NIV).
Penal Substitution declares that in the Atonement, God is reconciled to humankind;7 the Scriptures declare rather that humankind is reconciled to God (Rom. 5:10; 2 Cor. 5:18,19; Col. 1:20).
**Penal Substitution **declares that Christ dies instead of the sinner; the Scriptures declare that sinners must die with Christ (Rom. 6:1-14).

Peace, Carlan

 

[guanophore]

My understanding of penal substitution isn’t that they believe Christ “died” instead of us but rather that he bore the punishment for our sins instead of us bearing it. Death is a given to all of us…That’s my reading of it. I could be wrong.

This is a Catholic understanding. He bore our sins on the cross (in our place). It is the other additional aspects that are added to it by the Reformers that must be rejected. Algo has posted the Catholic understanding from the Fathers. These elements are not the issue, but the innovations that followed.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Such as…

This is a Catholic understanding. He bore our sins on the cross (in our place). **It is the other additional aspects that are added to it by the Reformers that must be rejected. **Algo has posted the Catholic understanding from the Fathers. These elements are not the issue, but the innovations that followed.

 

[Carlan]

My understanding of penal substitution isn’t that they believe Christ “died” instead of us but rather that he bore the punishment for our sins instead of us bearing it. Death is a given to all of us…That’s my reading of it. I could be wrong.

Penal Substitution declares that Christ dies instead of the sinner; the Scriptures declare that sinners must die with Christ (Rom. 6:1-14).

Ro 6 says in part-Our old self was crucified with him so that the sinful body might be destroyed and we might be slaves to sin no longer.
A man who is dead has been freed from sin, if we have died with Christ, we believe that we are also to live with him.(this is what happens in Baptism.)

*Substitution *implies an “either/or”; *participation *implies a “both/and.” Substitution would have me say, “Jesus died, therefore I don’t have to”; participation would have me say, “Jesus died, therefore I must also.” Which is more Scriptural? Consider Romans 6:1-14. Peace, Carlan

 

[faithnotworks1]

Not by faith alone?! give me a break man…
Romans 3:28 - “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law”. Salvation is by faith alone, no matter what you do to try and work for Salvation, no matter what deeds you do…u aint gonna get it except by God’s grace.

Romans 11:7 - And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace.

Ephesians 2:8-9 - “For by grace you have been saved through faith and that not of yourselves,it is the gift of God, not of works…”

That’s straight from the Bible…the true Gospel, which gospel are you Catholics preaching?? And I see one of u say that the Bible was written by Catholics, and for Catholics…and u cant even follow what is written in it?
Can anyone of you correct me on this that it is not by faith alone, by using the Bible? If any of you can, im eagerly waiting!

 

[WesleyF]

Not by faith alone?! give me a break man…
Romans 3:28 - “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law”. Salvation is by faith alone, no matter what you do to try and work for Salvation, no matter what deeds you do…u aint gonna get it except by God’s grace.

Romans 11:7 - And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace.

Ephesians 2:8-9 - “For by grace you have been saved through faith and that not of yourselves,it is the gift of God, not of works…”

That’s straight from the Bible…the true Gospel, which gospel are you Catholics preaching?? And I see one of u say that the Bible was written by Catholics, and for Catholics…and u cant even follow what is written in it?
Can anyone of you correct me on this that it is not by faith alone, by using the Bible? If any of you can, im eagerly waiting!

My friend, I would happy to reply to your post, but that’s not the subject being discussed here. If you do a search on “faith alone” in these forums, you will see plenty of threads on the subject. Or perhaps, you can start a thread of your own.

 

[PRmerger]

Not by faith alone?! give me a break man…

Firstly, welcome to the forums, faithnotworks1!

Secondly, as you are new to this, may I make a suggestion? You are already starting out with an adversarial spirit. I suggest you tone it down a little.

Now, to answer your question, we don’t believe in “faith alone”, because, well, the Bible doesn’t proclaim we should believe in “faith alone.”

I am certain you are aware that the only place “faith alone” is mentioned in the bible is where the disclaimer “NOT BY” is prefixed before it.
[BIBLEDRB]James 2:24[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[JackVk]

Not by faith alone?! give me a break man…
Romans 3:28 - “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law”. Salvation is by faith alone, no matter what you do to try and work for Salvation, no matter what deeds you do…u aint gonna get it except by God’s grace.

Romans 11:7 - And if by grace, then it is no longer of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace.

Ephesians 2:8-9 - “For by grace you have been saved through faith and that not of yourselves,it is the gift of God, not of works…”

That’s straight from the Bible…the true Gospel, which gospel are you Catholics preaching?? And I see one of u say that the Bible was written by Catholics, and for Catholics…and u cant even follow what is written in it?
Can anyone of you correct me on this that it is not by faith alone, by using the Bible? If any of you can, im eagerly waiting!

James 2:20 “Do you need proof that faith without works is dead?”/COLOR

And in the verses you mentioned, Paul is referring to the law of Moses. And Jesus clearly says that “Not everyone who calls me ‘Lord, Lord’ will enter the Kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father will enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 7:21), and then that whoever does not take up his cross and follow him is not worthy of eternal life (Matthew 10:38). Then Paul says in Romans 2:6 that God “will repay each man according to his works”.

Peace be with you.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

But like I said, the substitution is “penal” implying “punishment.” Penal is punishment. So Christ is “punished” in our place, doesn’t “die” in our place. Jesus, according to the theory (and mind you, I’m not saying I believe this, just explaining, discussing it) was punished so that we don’t have to bear the punishment. Like Jesus, we have to die, according to Calvinists. He doesn’t die in our place, He’s punished in our place, so goes the theory? Calvinists are aware of our death and the need to die with him and be raised with Him, they just believe He bore the brunt of the punishments we deserve.

Penal Substitution declares that Christ dies instead of the sinner; the Scriptures declare that sinners must die with Christ (Rom. 6:1-14).

Ro 6 says in part-Our old self was crucified with him so that the sinful body might be destroyed and we might be slaves to sin no longer.
A man who is dead has been freed from sin, if we have died with Christ, we believe that we are also to live with him.(this is what happens in Baptism.)

*Substitution *implies an “either/or”; *participation *implies a “both/and.” Substitution would have me say, “Jesus died, therefore I don’t have to”; participation would have me say, “Jesus died, therefore I must also.” Which is more Scriptural? Consider Romans 6:1-14. Peace, Carlan

 

[Carlan]

But like I said, the substitution is “penal” implying “punishment.” Penal is punishment. So Christ is “punished” in our place, doesn’t “die” in our place. Jesus, according to the theory (and mind you, I’m not saying I believe this, just explaining, discussing it) was punished so that we don’t have to bear the punishment. Like Jesus, we have to die, according to Calvinists. He doesn’t die in our place, He’s punished in our place, so goes the theory? Calvinists are aware of our death and the need to die with him and be raised with Him, they just believe He bore the brunt of the punishments we deserve.

O.k Gurney.Peace, Carlan

 

[guanophore]

But like I said, the substitution is “penal” implying “punishment.” Penal is punishment. So Christ is “punished” in our place, doesn’t “die” in our place. Jesus, according to the theory (and mind you, I’m not saying I believe this, just explaining, discussing it) was punished so that we don’t have to bear the punishment. Like Jesus, we have to die, according to Calvinists. He doesn’t die in our place, He’s punished in our place, so goes the theory? Calvinists are aware of our death and the need to die with him and be raised with Him, they just believe He bore the brunt of the punishments we deserve.

Yes. But the most serious punishment we deserve is eternal damnation in separation from God. In a mystical way that we may not understand until we get to heaven, Jesus paid this penalty in His Body on the cross, without taking our place in Hell.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Right. No disagreement there, guanophore.

Yes. But the most serious punishment we deserve is eternal damnation in separation from God. In a mystical way that we may not understand until we get to heaven, Jesus paid this penalty in His Body on the cross, without taking our place in Hell.

 

[lampalm]

No, lampalm. The Holy Spirit is not “representative” of God, but IS the person of God.

Not sure what your religious denomination is, but would you say that you are a Trinitarian Christian?

I tried to make sure not to put “representative of God” in the post, because I recognize the Holy Spirit as God. One of the three eternal persons that is the One Truth God.

The Holy Spirit is the representative (or vicar) of Christ.
Edit: and Christ is God… so the Holy Spirit is the representative of Christ (second person of the Godhead) and the Holy Spirit is God (third person of the Godhead)

 

[lampalm]

You did not answer my question, lampalm. You take issue that the successor of Peter in Rome is less a representative of Christ than you are. Why is that?

Acts 5:3
3 But Peter said, "Anani’as, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land?

In what way does Peter NOT from the HS?

Acts 15:28
28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us

How is the HS NOT at work in this magesterial decision?

Where did I say that the current Bishop of Rome cannot be a representative of Christ?

As long as he is a Christian he can be a representative.

Edit: When did I mention Peter? There is no way I would say Peter is not a Christian.

 

[guanophore]

I tried to make sure not to put “representative of God” in the post, because I recognize the Holy Spirit as God. One of the three eternal persons that is the One Truth God.

The Holy Spirit is the representative (or vicar) of Christ.
Edit: and Christ is God… so the Holy Spirit is the representative of Christ (second person of the Godhead) and the Holy Spirit is God (third person of the Godhead)

This concept is not scriptural.

 

[guanophore]

Where did I say that the current Bishop of Rome cannot be a representative of Christ?

As long as he is a Christian he can be a representative.

Edit: When did I mention Peter? There is no way I would say Peter is not a Christian.

…I do not believe that the Catholic Bishop in Vatican City is the earthly representative of God.

Ok, you said “the”. I said “a”. I asked you why the successor of Peter cannot be at least as good a representative of Christ as you are.

Perhaps you are saying he is not a Christian?

Jesus gave Peter certain, specific gifts and responsibilities that He gave to no one else. Peter paseed these on to his successor, and he to his, unto the present day. I will unhappily concede that not all of the successors of Peter have been representatives of Christ.

I wonder why you do not beleive the current one is Christian?

 

[lampalm]

Perhaps you are saying he is not a Christian?

Jesus gave Peter certain, specific gifts and responsibilities that He gave to no one else. Peter paseed these on to his successor, and he to his, unto the present day. I will unhappily concede that not all of the successors of Peter have been representatives of Christ.

I wonder why you do not beleive the current one is Christian?

Its not up to me to decided who is a Christian.