Faith Alone

[Odell]

I got a question why did Christ come and just cover our sins?

I mean if we are dung covered in snow 2000 years ago why didn’t Christ just take the dung with him then?

Why are we still here? What would be the purpose in coming back?

The catholic view makes perfect sense to me. He came to restore us to what we were before the fall this is why Christ tells the pharsees “in the beginning it was not so” Christ will come again and judge us are we as he created us to be or have we freely chosen to not adhere to his commands.

To me a Protestant who believes Christ came not to restore us but to just merely cover us up. Then he should have just coverd us and taken us.

But as a catholic our lives have a purpose and it is to live as we are created to be.

I’m not saying the Protestant does not have a purpose but its hard for me to get the big picture threw there lens

 

[catholic1seeks]

However, intellectual assent is not the type of faith that Paul talks about. James talks about the belief of demons. They would know the truth and agree that it was true. Paul would not say we are justified by intellectual assent as in Romans 5:1. Hebrews 11:1 gives a definition of faith as “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”

Protestants wrongly accuse James statement, “faith apart from works is dead” and turn it into the definition, “if faith does not produce works it is ‘death faith’; James says ‘dead faith’ won’t save us”

The invaliditiy of the interpreation can be tested (once again) can be demonstrated when we substitute “dead faith” wherever the text mentions faith.

The above solution fails, that like anything impungns the faith James speaks of, because James does not see anything wrong with the faith - other than it’s alone.

Every Protestant will agree the topic of Hebrews 11 is saving faith. Yes, Hebrews 11:1-2 tells us, “faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it men of old received divine approval.”

One does not get divine approval of one’s faith unless it is saving faith. Thus the faith in Hebrews 11:8 that Abraham had must be saving faith. But when did he have this faith? The passage tells us: Abraham had it “when he was called to go out to the place he would afterward receive his inheritance.” The problem for the once-for-all view of justification is that the call of Abraham to leave Haran is recorded in Genesis 12:1-4, three chapters before he is justified in 15:6. We therefore know that Abraham was justified well before ( years before ) he was justified in Genesis 15:6.

 

[catholic1seeks]

The demons do not hope for the truth they agree will occur. Also they have seen, which we have not. Our faith is a faith working through love. Note that Paul does not say “faith and love” or “faith and works”. It is faith that justifies us, not the working through love. This is made clearer by Ephesians 2:8-10. We are saved by faith it says. It emphasizes that it is not the result of works, even though we are created for works. We are saved for good works, not faithed by faith and works. If works are part of saving us then as Paul says it is not by grace.

So about this Ephesians 2:8-9

Usually, those who use this verse (especially Protestants) like to say the works Paul is speaking of are good works. If that were true, it would in no way conflict with Catholic theology. Note that the passage speaks of salvation as a past event - “you have been saved.” This passage thus refers to the salvation one received at the beginning of the Christian life.

Paul speaks of salvation as past, present, and future events. The kind of salvation he is discussing in Ephesians 2:8-9 is initial salvation (salvation as a past event).

Ephesians 2:8-9 does the contradict the Catholic way of thinking, even if the “works” Paul mentions are good works. This is because the Catholic Church does not teach we receive initial justification by good works. We do not have to do good works in order to come to God and be justified; as the Council of Trent says, "we are said to be justified by grace because nothing that precedes justification, whether faith or works, merits the grace of justification.

We as Christians are the result of God’s work, for he created us anew in the body of Christ so that we might do good works, for God intended us ahead of time for us to do them.

---

Ephesians 2:6-10

6And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, 7in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. 8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9not by works, so that no one can boast. 10For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.

 

[moondweller]

What then, is the significance of “salvation by faith alone”?

Eternal life in Christ alone.

Does it provide assurance of salvation? No it does not.

Yes it does! Because the faith through which God saved the true believer rests completely in the “once for all,” finished work of Someone other than himself. A perfect, infinite work with eternal results:Rom 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.Can’t get more assurance than that!!! We who have believed have God’s Word on it. And in His Word we rejoice. Works, other than Christ’s finished work, can guarantee nothing (Matt. 7:22:23).

Only bearing fruit for Him can accomplish that assurance that you truly have a salvific faith.

And who on this earth is appointed as God’s “fruit tester?” You? Your priest? The present Pope? If your logic was accurate then Paul could not have written:Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, {it is} the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

So then, other than distinguishing oneself from the Catholic Church, what does the doctrine of Sola Fide accomplish, or provide for the believer?

(1) Alignment with Apostolic teaching: (2) Assurance of salvation - guaranteed totally on the finished work of Another, bestowed as a divine, irrevocable gift (Rom. 11:29): (3) Exceeding joy. :extrahappy:

 

[SyCarl]

Perhaps I can give an anology, knowing of course that nothing can perfectly reflect the divine reality.

I am a motorist. I am a bad motorist. I compulsively break every rule of the road and traffic law there is. I speed, I don’t yield, I cut people off, I run red lights and stops signs, the whole bit. Then some benefactor tells me of a child who was killed by someone like me. This changes me. I see the wrongness of what I am doing. I want to obey the rules of the road and all the traffic regulations. The benefecator also agrees to pay for every traffic ticket I might have received if I had been caught. Now as long as I think of that little child who was killed I don’t speed, I yield the right of way, I stop for all lights and signs etc. Sometimes I make mistakes. Perhaps I am tired and become impatient and so speed. I realize what I am doing and go back to obeying the rules as I think of the child killed. The benefactor pays any fines I might have been liable for because of these slips as long as I remember the child. The longer I try to obey the rules the less I slip up. If I forget the child, I go back to my old ways, he stops paying.

Now the change from someone who couldn’t keep the traffic rules to someone who wants to obey them is what a Protestant would liken to regeneration. The benefactor paying all possible past fines is justification. Even though I broke all those laws I am no longer liable for any penalties. I am still guilty of them but am treated as if I am not because my benefactor paid. Trying to obey the laws would be like sanctification, even though I occasionally slip up, my penalties are still paid for me. If I forget the child I have lost my faith.

Now, even though I am obeying all the traffic laws and even being a courteous driver, do I expect the government to reward me for this? Of course not I am just doing what I should have been doing all along. However my new habits do shows others that I have changed.

This gives an idea of how I relate faith alone and works.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Perhaps I can give an anology, knowing of course that nothing can perfectly reflect the divine reality.

I am a motorist. I am a bad motorist. I compulsively break every rule of the road and traffic law there is. I speed, I don’t yield, I cut people off, I run red lights and stops signs, the whole bit. Then some benefactor tells me of a child who was killed by someone like me. This changes me. I see the wrongness of what I am doing. I want to obey the rules of the road and all the traffic regulations. The benefecator also agrees to pay for every traffic ticket I might have received if I had been caught. Now as long as I think of that little child who was killed I don’t speed, I yield the right of way, I stop for all lights and signs etc. Sometimes I make mistakes. Perhaps I am tired and become impatient and so speed. I realize what I am doing and go back to obeying the rules as I think of the child killed. The benefactor pays any fines I might have been liable for because of these slips as long as I remember the child. The longer I try to obey the rules the less I slip up. If I forget the child, I go back to my old ways, he stops paying.

Now the change from someone who couldn’t keep the traffic rules to someone who wants to obey them is what a Protestant would liken to regeneration. The benefactor paying all possible past fines is justification. Even though I broke all those laws I am no longer liable for any penalties. I am still guilty of them but am treated as if I am not because my benefactor paid. Trying to obey the laws would be like sanctification, even though I occasionally slip up, my penalties are still paid for me. If I forget the child I have lost my faith.

Now, even though I am obeying all the traffic laws and even being a courteous driver, do I expect the government to reward me for this? Of course not I am just doing what I should have been doing all along. However my new habits do shows others that I have changed.

This gives an idea of how I relate faith alone and works.

Thanks for taking your time to make this, for it shows the flaws of the Protestant’s view of justification in a simpler manner.

Yes, faith starts the process of conversion.

The benefactor must be like God’s grace that moves you towards conversion, and the grace of the Holy Spirit is received at Baptism. This is the initial justification: “saved”.

You can never do any of those good things (stopping at red lights and stop signs) without God’s grace. Refusing God’s grace and not cooperating with it is sinful. You could run a red light and hit a car.

 

[moondweller]

NT]
** Logizomai** was used in early secular documents as follows – “put to one’s account," “let my revenues be placed on deposit at the storehouse”, "I now give orders generally with regard to all payments actually made or credited to the government.”

Logizomai was a secular bookkeeping term which meant to make an entry in the account book or to put to one’s account. It carried the economic and legal meaning of crediting something to another’s account. It means to calculate or reckon, as when figuring an entry in a ledger. The purpose of the entry is to make a permanent record that can be consulted whenever needed. It means to credit money to a particular account. It means that when you deposit $1000, the bank credits your account with $1000. Therefore when you write a check for $500, you don’t worry about it because you are reckoning on the fact that money is actually in your account.
[/INDENT]

See Post # 979 part B. What has been divinely posted to the believer’s account is divine righteousness - Christ’s.

 

[SyCarl]

Thanks for taking your time to make this, for it shows the flaws of the Protestant’s view of justification in a simpler manner.

Yes, faith starts the process of conversion.

The benefactor must be like God’s grace that moves you towards conversion, and the grace of the Holy Spirit is received at Baptism. This is the initial justification: “saved”.

You can never do any of those good things (stopping at red lights and stop signs) without God’s grace. Refusing God’s grace and not cooperating with it is sinful. You could run a red light and hit a car.

I don’t see at all how this shows the flaws in the Protestant view. Although we obey the law and are courteous (good works) after regeneration and justification those good works do not merit anything and we don’t get anything for them.

Remember that Protestants define terms differently. Regeneration, justification, sanctification and glorification are all different, but interelated parts of salvation.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Now the change from someone who couldn’t keep the traffic rules to someone who wants to obey them is what a Protestant would liken to regeneration. The benefactor paying all possible past fines is justification. Even though I broke all those laws I am no longer liable for any penalties. I am still guilty of them but am treated as if I am not because my benefactor paid. Trying to obey the laws would be like sanctification, even though I occasionally slip up, my penalties are still paid for me. If I forget the child I have lost my faith.

The part in red above is problematic.

If you have fines on your record, you are guilty before the law. If those fines are paid you have them removed from your record and you are no longer seen as guilty by the law (because you are really no longer guilty).
The judge does NOT treat you as guilty if you are not guilty, NOR does the judge treat you as not guilty if you are guilty, that is injustice and corruption by definition.

Under the classical Protestant model you are guilty of breaking all the driving laws but when the judge looks at your driving record there is a note (“faith alone”) that says “see the record of Jesus” and the the judge looks at the perfect driving record of Jesus and counts it to be yours. On top of that Jesus, who never broke the law ever, served a jail sentence for all the laws you would break in your whole lifetime. On THIS basis you are “justified”, seen as righteous, before the judge. Should you break a law in the future the judge would not see this on your record because the judge looks at your record he continually sees only the record of Christ instead.

The Catholic (Biblical) view is that when you break the law the judge sees that on your record, you are no longer justified and seen as righteous before the judge, and you are guilty of that crime and its punishments until the charges are either dropped or you serve your time. At NO TIME are you guilty but treated as if you were not guilty, or vice versa.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Although we obey the law and are courteous (good works) after regeneration and justification those good works do not merit anything and we don’t get anything for them.

2007 With regard to God, there is no strict right to any merit on the part of man. Between God and us there is an immeasurable inequality, for we have received everything from him, our Creator.

2008 The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace. the fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man’s free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man’s merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit.

CCC

 

[SyCarl]

The part in red above is problematic.

If you have fines on your record, you are guilty before the law. If those fines are paid you have them removed from your record and you are no longer seen as guilty by the law (because you are really no longer guilty).
The judge does NOT treat you as guilty if you are not guilty, NOR does the judge treat you as not guilty if you are guilty, that is injustice and corruption by definition.

While the penalty is paid I still have a record. Paying the penalty does not remove the record. Also I can still violate and so am not perfect.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

While the penalty is paid I still have a record.

I’m not sure what this is supposed to be referring to. It appears to mean the penalty is paid over a period of time. None the less, if you have something on your record you are guilty until it is removed.

Paying the penalty does not remove the record.

It depends on what you mean here by record. God never forgets anything, so in that sense there remains a paper trail, just as if you committed a crime 20 years ago and already served jail time that crime will always be logged on paper until you die, but never again held against you.
When I mean record I am specifically talking about crimes committed that have not yet been sentenced. At that point you are in a guilty state and remain that way unless and until the charges are dropped or the jail time is served.

Also I can still violate and so am not perfect.

Exactly, this is why Catholics teach justification is not necessarily a one time event, nor is based on imputation. It is based on your own personal record at all times with the judge viewing your record at all times. God always sees the state of our souls, if they become unrighteous then God considers us unrighteous and we lose our salvation. This is why Catholics say it is impossible and unacceptable to separate justification and sanctification into two distinct phases the way Protestants do.

 

[SyCarl]

I’m not sure what this is supposed to be referring to. It appears to mean the penalty is paid over a period of time. None the less, if you have something on your record you are guilty until it is removed.

It means that in a criminal case if you are convicted and and pay the penaly, you still have a criminal record. The record still exists and can affect things like bondability, penalties for subsequent offences can be higher, and international travel.

It depends on what you mean here by record. God never forgets anything, so in that sense there remains a paper trail, just as if you committed a crime 20 years ago and already served jail time that crime will always be logged on paper until you die, but never again held against you.
When I mean record I am specifically talking about crimes committed that have not yet been sentenced. At that point you are in a guilty state and remain that way unless and until the charges are dropped or the jail time is served.

As we have all sinned, we can never be completely righteous in God’s sight, as David says in Psalm 143.

Exactly, this is why Catholics teach justification is not necessarily a one time event, nor is based on imputation. It is based on your own personal record at all times with the judge viewing your record at all times. God always sees the state of our souls, if they become unrighteous then God considers us unrighteous and we lose our salvation. This is why Catholics say it is impossible and unacceptable to separate justification and sanctification into two distinct phases the way Protestants do.

It can be seen as a one time event in the sense that from that time all your past sins are forgiven and your future ones will be if you remain faithful. Any way of looking at it is trying to describe God’s actions and plan in human terms. But it is impossible to perfectly describe them.

We have sinned and even if we are forgiven our flesh cannot be righteous in God’s eyes. In addition we can still sin, so there is still a flaw in us, even if you don’t accept total depravity. We can be righteous in a relative sense in that we are trying to act righteously and have no penalties owing. But we cannot be righteous in an absolute sense. We can become more righteous through the process of sanctification.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

It means that in a criminal case if you are convicted and and pay the penaly, you still have a criminal record. The record still exists and can affect things like bondability, penalties for subsequent offences can be higher, and international travel.

There might or might not be corresponding “consequences” like the ones you listed above, but that doesn’t affect the main concept we are dealing with.

As we have all sinned, we can never be completely righteous in God’s sight, as David says in Psalm 143.

You need to keep the distinction between the “current criminal record” and “historical criminal record” I made.
Psalm 143 means God cannot forget that you have sinned in the past, it does not mean your soul cannot be righteous as passages like 1 Jn 1:9 and 3:7 make clear. If you want to force your claim any further you must logically reject the concept of sanctification because becoming righteous is impossible at that point.

It can be seen as a one time event in the sense that from that time all your past sins are forgiven and your future ones will be if you remain faithful.

A Catholic can agree with this to a great extent. Of course, what you said is heresy in the ears of Calvinists.

Also, what you describe is incompatible with the concept of imputation of an alien righteousness.

Any way of looking at it is trying to describe God’s actions and plan in human terms. But it is impossible to perfectly describe them.

While I would agree with this, I would add that there are certain descriptions that are unacceptable. A judge imputing the record of a righteous man to that of a criminal is unacceptable.

We have sinned and even if we are forgiven our flesh cannot be righteous in God’s eyes.

Care to explain what passages like 1 Jn 1:9 mean, “cleanse us from all unrighteousness”? Or what about Mat 5:8, “Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God”?

In addition we can still sin, so there is still a flaw in us, even if you don’t accept total depravity.

Being ABLE to still sin doesn’t make you unrighteous anymore than being ABLE to rob a bank makes you a robber. You are only a robber if you commit the crime.

One reason why I think Sola Fide originated was due to the fact Christians feared what could happen in the future, that the could still fall into sin, and SF gave them a “guarantee” and “assurance”.

We can be righteous in a relative sense in that we are trying to act righteously and have no penalties owing.

There is nothing “relative” about that, it is a objective reality.

But we cannot be righteous in an absolute sense. We can become more righteous through the process of sanctification.

These two sentences are a contradiction. The concept of becoming more and more sanctified is meaningless if we can never be righteous in a full and true sense. You would be saying God is perfectly satisfied with a 99% righteous person entering Heaven, but a 100% righteous person is not only unlikely, it is impossible.

Rev 21:27 says “Nothing impure shall enter” into Heaven, that means 99% righteous is not enough. If you don’t believe in purgatory, you have to admit a Christian must be 100% righteous before they die.

 

[SyCarl]

There might or might not be corresponding “consequences” like the ones you listed above, but that doesn’t affect the main concept we are dealing with.

You need to keep the distinction between the “current criminal record” and “historical criminal record” I made.
Psalm 143 means God cannot forget that you have sinned in the past, it does not mean your soul cannot be righteous as passages like 1 Jn 1:9 and 3:7 make clear. If you want to force your claim any further you must logically reject the concept of sanctification because becoming righteous is impossible at that point.

A Catholic can agree with this to a great extent. Of course, what you said is heresy in the ears of Calvinists.

Also, what you describe is incompatible with the concept of imputation of an alien righteousness.

While I would agree with this, I would add that there are certain descriptions that are unacceptable. A judge imputing the record of a righteous man to that of a criminal is unacceptable.

Care to explain what passages like 1 Jn 1:9 mean, “cleanse us from all unrighteousness”? Or what about Mat 5:8, “Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God”?

Being ABLE to still sin doesn’t make you unrighteous anymore than being ABLE to rob a bank makes you a robber. You are only a robber if you commit the crime.

One reason why I think Sola Fide originated was due to the fact Christians feared what could happen in the future, that the could still fall into sin, and SF gave them a “guarantee” and “assurance”.

There is nothing “relative” about that, it is a objective reality.

These two sentences are a contradiction. The concept of becoming more and more sanctified is meaningless if we can never be righteous in a full and true sense. You would be saying God is perfectly satisfied with a 99% righteous person entering Heaven, but a 100% righteous person is not only unlikely, it is impossible.

Rev 21:27 says “Nothing impure shall enter” into Heaven, that means 99% righteous is not enough. If you don’t believe in purgatory, you have to admit a Christian must be 100% righteous before they die.

We will never be completely righteous in this life. When we die we will become righteous. I do not think that this is a matter of punishment for temporal penalties of sin.

However with respect to imputation of an alien righteousness, a thought has come to mind. Isn’t this exactly what the Catholic Church purports to do with indulgences. They are transferring the excess merits of the saints from the treasury of merits to cover the penalty for someone else’s sin. As a side note, doesn’t excess merits imply that there is some quota of merits that is required that some people can exceed?

 

[sandusky]

See Post # 979 part B. What has been divinely posted to the believer’s account is divine righteousness - Christ’s.

 

[sandusky]

The part in red above is problematic.

If you have fines on your record, you are guilty before the law. If those fines are paid you have them removed from your record and you are no longer seen as guilty by the law (because you are really no longer guilty).
The judge does NOT treat you as guilty if you are not guilty, NOR does the judge treat you as not guilty if you are guilty, that is injustice and corruption by definition.

Under the classical Protestant model you are guilty of breaking all the driving laws but when the judge looks at your driving record there is a note (“faith alone”) that says “see the record of Jesus” and the the judge looks at the perfect driving record of Jesus and counts it to be yours. On top of that Jesus, who never broke the law ever, served a jail sentence for all the laws you would break in your whole lifetime. On THIS basis you are “justified”, seen as righteous, before the judge. Should you break a law in the future the judge would not see this on your record because the judge looks at your record he continually sees only the record of Christ instead.

The Catholic (Biblical) view is that when you break the law the judge sees that on your record, you are no longer justified and seen as righteous before the judge, and you are guilty of that crime and its punishments until the charges are either dropped or you serve your time. At NO TIME are you guilty but treated as if you were not guilty, or vice versa.

What is it Christ has done, if not taken the penalty for His peoples’ sins upon Himself?

 

[davidv]

What is it Christ has done, if not taken the penalty for His peoples’ sins upon Himself?

He paid the fine so you could get out of jail, but his sacrifice did not change your heart. Only you can do that. Without a change of heart you will continue to commit crimes and send yourself back to jail. At any time you can change your heart, ask for forgiveness and be set free again.

 

[moondweller]

If you have fines on your record, you are guilty before the law. If those fines are paid you have them removed from your record and you are no longer seen as guilty by the law (because you are really no longer guilty).
The judge does NOT treat you as guilty if you are not guilty, NOR does the judge treat you as not guilty if you are guilty, that is injustice and corruption by definition. Under the classical Protestant model you are guilty of breaking all the driving laws but when the judge looks at your driving record there is a note (“faith alone”) that says “see the record of Jesus” and the the judge looks at the perfect driving record of Jesus and counts it to be yours.

This is poor logic and doctrinally incorrect. According to Scripture, the forgiveness of sins toward sinners is not an immediate act of grace. God does not deal with ANY sin in mercy, or leniency. The sinner is never forgiven because God is big-hearted enough to remit the penalty, or to waive the righteous judgments. Any presentation of divine forgiveness which represents God as directly exercising clemency toward a sinner is a fatal detraction from the meaning of the cross of Christ.

According to Scriptural Truth, the Lamb of God has already taken away the sin of the world (Jn. 1:29). The fact that Christ, as Substitute, has already borne the undiminished righteous judgments of God against sin, is the sole ground upon which all divine forgiveness is now exercised. The forgiveness of God toward sinners, therefore, is not an immediate act of grace (favor); but rather a judicial pardon of a debtor in view of the fact that the debt has been fully paid by Another. The righteous basis on which all divine forgiveness is extended is the cross of Christ.

The Gospel message of the cross is that sinners (through faith in Christ alone) may now stand forever pardoned before God; not because God is gracious enough to excuse their sins; but because there is plentiful redemption through the blood of Christ that was shed:Eph 1:7-8 “In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace which He lavished on us.”

1 Pet 1:18-19 "knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, {the blood} of Christ."Being free to forgive all (because of the cross of Christ), God is free to forgive perfectly.

On top of that Jesus, who never broke the law ever, served a jail sentence for all the laws you would break in your whole lifetime.

(1) Jesus served no “jail sentence.” He gave His life as a ransom:1 Tim 2:5 “For there is one God, {and} one mediator also between God and men, {the} man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony {given} at the proper time” (see Matt. 20:28; Mk. 10:45)(2) The believer is not under law, but under GRACE (Rom. 6:14).Rom 4:13-16 “For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith. For if those who are of the Law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise is nullified; for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation. For this reason {it is} by faith, in order that {it may be} in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all,”

On THIS basis you are “justified”, seen as righteous, before the judge.

The believer is not seen as justified before God because through Christ ALL his sins are forever forgiven, he is justified, giftwise (Rom. 3:24), seen as righteous, because he is no longer “in Adam,” but now “in Christ,” a new creation, imputed (even credited) HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS (2 Cor. 5:21).

Should you break a law in the future the judge would not see this on your record because the judge looks at your record he continually sees only the record of Christ instead.

He sees the true believer pardoned of ALL sins (Jn. 1:29), now in Christ, made righteous.

The Catholic (Biblical) view is that when you break the law the judge sees that on your record, you are no longer justified and seen as righteous before the judge, and you are guilty of that crime and its punishments until the charges are either dropped or you serve your time.

Yes, this view is truly “Catholic,” but not at all Biblical. It is a “gospel” of works. The Person and work of Christ completely out of the picture. God can not justly “drop charges,” nor can a sinner “serve time” for his sins. The wages of sin is a death sentence: Rom 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

We will never be completely righteous in this life. When we die we will become righteous.

This is a pretty serious claim to make, and it carries with it certain problems. You say we will never be completely righteous in this life, thus that means Christians die at less than 100% sanctified.
The question is, when do they become 100% sanctified, or do they not need to? If they do, the only option is purgatory.

Also, you have to prove from Scripture that “when we die we become righteous,” otherwise you have no grounds to make that claim.

However with respect to imputation of an alien righteousness, a thought has come to mind. Isn’t this exactly what the Catholic Church purports to do with indulgences. They are transferring the excess merits of the saints from the treasury of merits to cover the penalty for someone else’s sin.

No because imputation of an alien righteousness operates from the outside only, it does not cause a change to the inner being. If I put a stain in a carpet, imputation would be like putting a new rug over the stain; infusion would be like removing the stain with detergent. Indulgences deal with sanctification of a soul, so imputing an alien quality does not work.

When we sin our attachment to (urge to and ease of committing) sin grows, indulgences help curb that attachment to sin by proving graces to strengthen our soul and hopefully, eventually, remove any attachment to sin. Imputing an external righteousness doesn’t change our attachment to sin (in fact it doesn’t have any effect at all).

As a side note, doesn’t excess merits imply that there is some quota of merits that is required that some people can exceed?

I don’t know the details of this, but I don’t think it is correct to think of this in terms of “excess merits” like excess cash floating around. What it means to me is that the merits of Christ are of infinite value, a value that can always be drawn upon and never exhausted. These merits are graces given to help the soul grow in sanctification that can be applied to souls directly (e.g. through personal prayer) or indirectly (e.g. through intercessory prayer).