How can a blood-sacrifice renew our Nature?

[R_C]

My agenda is to be able to respond to the Protestant argument, which is grammatically strong, as well as logically, that Paul never really does present a causal connection between the transformation of the inner man and being justified, but rather than Jesus’ sacrifice for sin is the cause of justification (Rom 3:21-26).

The Protestant seeks to read the Scripture, and be able to interpret the Scripture as it is written in the most logical way.

If you want to be able to respond to the Protestant heresy, which is grammatically strong as well as logically, but ultimately fallacious and refuted time and again, then you may want to read the Sixth Session of the Council of Trent on the Doctrine of Justification.

I sincerely do not consider an accurate statement that “the Protestant seeks to read the Scripture”, for in accepting the heresy of sola Scriptura the Protestant in fact idolatrizes the Bible by making the word of God into the Word of God and rejecting the God-given teaching authority granted to the Apostles and their successors (beginning with the Church Fathers and the illustrious Church Doctors). Yet even Peter in his letter clearly points that the Scripture is not a matter of personal interpretation, and in Acts we see very clearly through Philip and the Ethiopian that the apostolic teaching is needed to understand Scripture correctly. And ultimately, even Christ stated very clearly, speaking to the apostles, that “to them the secrets of the Kingdom are revealed” and that “those who listen to them listen to Him, while those who reject them reject Him”.

Therefore, while respecting with love and brotherly charity the commitment of all Christians to understand Scripture, let’s not talk about logic, here, because each and every fallacy of “protestantism” has been refuted for the past 500 years with extreme patience by the Church. “Logic” and “Reason” also suggest that for 15 centuries theologians studied Scripture and Tradition over and over, so it is most probable that the novel personal musings that have led to new doctrines in contradiction to Catholicism are ultimately erroneous to begin with - even the Apostles were careful to admonish (given that already by 90 AD we had some schismatic and heretic communities) to hold on to the tradition and to the Gospel as they had preached it.

So if anyone wants to understand Scripture, they ought to study what the Church teaches and has taught for the past twenty centuries about it. Only later, having a good, solid grasp of orthodox Christian doctrine, they may turn towards the novelties, and it will thus be evident to them as it is for us where the errors are.

Nobody negates that the sacrifice of the Lord is the cause for justification, or at least the causa meritoria. But it does not end there. Remember that the origin of the word “heresy” is the Greek αἵρεσις, meaning “chosen thing”. The basic tenet of every heresy is to pick and chose to match a man-made doctrine, ignoring the rest. The Church has never done that, but rather has always kept (with titanic effort) the entirety of Sacred Scripture and of Sacred Tradition before her eyes when defining matters of faith (for we know that Scripture and Tradition are in fact one body), therefore the Church does not err in her teachings simply because, to begin with, she doesn’t get stuck on one passage of one book of Scripture, but sees it in the context of the whole.

continued

 

[R_C]

Ultimately that the Protestant idea of imputed righteousness is so gravely erroneous can be shown by means of a very straightforward statement.

What does the “orthodox” Protestant doctrine of justification say? We find it in the Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord:

The term justification in this instance means the declaring just, the freeing from sin and the eternal punishment of sin in consideration of the justice of Christ imputed to faith by God. Through the obedience of Christ by faith the just are so declared and reputed, although by reason of their corrupt nature they still are and remain, sinners as long as they bear this mortal body.

Neither contrition nor love nor any other virtue, but faith alone is the means by which we can reach forth and obtain the grace of God, the merit of Christ and the remission of sin.

What is this saying?

That the kind of faith that justifies is not, as the Catholic Church teaches, a firm belief in God’s revealed truths and promises (fides theoretica, dogmatica), but is the infallible conviction (fides fiducialis, fiducia) that God for the sake of Christ will no longer impute to us our sins, but will consider and treat us, as if we were really just and holy, although in our inner selves we remain the same sinners as before.

That remission of sin is no real forgiveness, no blotting out of guilt. Sin is merely cloaked and concealed by the imputed merits of Christ; God no longer imputes it, whilst in reality it continues under cover its miserable existence. Thus there exist in man side by side two hostile brothers as it were — the one just and the other unjust; the one a saint, the other a sinner; the one a child of God, the other a slave of Satan.

However, in a man who is at once sinful and just, half holy and half unholy, we cannot possibly recognize a masterpiece of God’s omnipotence, but only a wretched caricature, the deformity of which is exaggerated all the more by the violent introduction of the justice of Christ.

Compare this novelty with the orthodox Christian teaching on justification:

the righteousness and sanctity which justification confers, although given to us by God as efficient cause (causa efficiens) and merited by Christ as meritorious cause (causa meritoria), become an interior sanctifying quality or formal cause (causa formalis) in the soul itself, which it makes truly just and holy in the sight of God.

In active justification an actual and real forgiveness of sins takes place so that the sin is really removed from the soul, not only original sin by baptism but also mortal sin by the sacrament of penance (Trent, Sess. V, can. v; Sess. VI, cap. xiv; Sess. XIV, cap. ii). This view is entirely consonant with the teaching of Holy Scripture, for the Biblical expressions: “blotting out” as applied to sin (Psalm 1:3; Isaiah 43:25; 44:22; Acts 3:19), “exhausting” (Hebrews 9:28), “taking away” [2 Samuel 12:13; 1 Chronicles 21:8; Mich., vii, 18; Psalm 10:15 and 102:12], the expression of “cleansing” and “washing away” the mire of sin (Psalm 1:4, 9; Isaiah 1:18; Ezekiel 36:25; 1 Corinthians 6:11; Revelation 1:5), that of coming “from death to life” (Col. ii., 13; 1 John 3:14); the removal from darkness to light (Ephesians 5:9).

Especially these latter expressions are significant, because they characterize the justification as a movement from one thing to another which is directly contrary or opposed to the thing from which the movement is made. The opposites, black and white, night and day, darkness and light, life and death, have this peculiarity, that the presence of one means the extinction of its opposite. Just as the sun dispels all darkness, so does the advent of justifying grace drive away sin, which ceases from that on to have an existence at least in the ethical order of things, though in the knowledge of God it may have a shadowy kind of existence as something which once was, but has ceased to be. It becomes intelligible, therefore, that in him who is justified, though concupiscence remain, there is “no condemnation” (Romans 8:50); and why, according to James (i, 14 sqq.), concupiscence as such is really no sin.

 

[R_C]

If we say justify means ‘‘make holy and good’’, how does an atoning sacrifice change our behavior. It has to be tied together somehow

Careful there: justification has several meanings.

Justification denotes the transforming of the sinner from the state of unrighteousness to the state of holiness and sonship of God.

Considered as an **act **(actus justificationis), justification is the work of God alone, presupposing, however, on the part of the adult the process of justification and the cooperation of his free will with God’s preventing and helping grace (gratia praeveniens et cooperans).

Considered as a **state or habit **(habitus justificationis), it denotes the continued possession of a quality inherent in the soul, which theologians aptly term sanctifying grace.

The nature of sanctifying grace (given once in Baptism, lost in every mortal sin, renewed in every Reconciliation) is learnt better by a study of its formal operations in the soul than by a study of the grace itself. Sanctifying grace designates a grace producing a permanent condition. It is a permanent, supernatural quality after the manner of a habit, denoting a disposition of the soul to produce certain operations or acts, specifically virtue and moral good. Grace does not impart to the soul the act but rather the disposition to perform supernatural and meritorious acts. It is neither natural nor an acquired habit, but it is only infused from above.

Sanctifying grace also has formal operations:
(1) sanctity, which makes the baptized just and holy in the sight of God while in a state of grace;
(2) beauty, referring to a supernatural beauty, as the spouse of the Bridegroom is described in the Canticle of Canticles, such that the Blessed Trinity inhabits in the soul, which becomes the true temple of God;
(3) friendship, a love of benevolence, which seeks only the happiness and well-being of the friend (on the part of God, in the bestowal of supernatural benefits, on the part of man, in the promotion of God’s glory, and partly in the performance of works of fraternal charity);
(4) sonship, the wonder of Divine filiation by which man is entitled to a share in the paternal inheritance, which consists in the beatific vision. The great and unfathomable love of God at once bestows the adoption and the consequent heirship to the kingdom of heaven, and the value of this inheritance is not diminished by the number of coheirs.

The Protestant conception of justification boasts of three characteristics:

• absolute certainty (certitudo)
• complete uniformity in all the justified (aequalitas)
• unforfeitableness (inamissibilitas).

According to the teaching of the Church, sanctifying grace has the **opposite **characteristics:

• uncertainty (incertitudo): since Scripture declares that we must work out our salvation “with fear and trembling” (Philippians 2:12), it is impossible to regard our individual salvation as something fixed and certain. Why did St. Paul (1 Corinthians 9:27) chastise his body if not afraid lest, having preached to others, he might himself “become a castaway”? He says expressly (1 Corinthians 4:4): “For I am not conscious to myself of any thing, yet am I not hereby justified; but he that judgeth me, is the Lord.”
• inequality (inaequalitas): possibility of increase in grace by good works, whence would follow its inequality in individuals, find its warrant in those Scriptural texts in which an increase of grace is either expressed or implied (Proverbs 4:18; Sirach 18:22; 2 Corinthians 9:10; Ephesians 4:7; 2 Peter 3:18; Revelation 22:11). Tradition had occasion, as early as the close of the fourth century, to defend the old Faith of the Church against the heretic Jovinian, who strove to introduce into the Church the Stoic doctrine of the equality of all virtue and all vice. St. Jerome (Con. Jovin., II, xxiii) was the chief defender of orthodoxy in this instance.
• amissibility (amissibilitas): on account of the grave moral dangers which lurked in the assertion that outside of unbelief there can be no serious sin destructive of Divine grace in the soul, the Church repudiated the lax principles of “evangelical liberty”, clarifying in accordance with Scripture and Tradition that not venial but only mortal sin involved the loss of grace. The principle of justification by faith alone is unknown to the Fathers. The fact that mortal sin takes the soul out of the state of grace is due to the very nature of mortal sin. Mortal sin is an absolute turning away from God, the supernatural end of the soul, and is an absolute turning to creatures; therefore, habitual mortal sin cannot exist with habitual grace any more than fire and water can co-exist in the same subject. Even in the Old Testament the prophet Ezechiel (Ezekiel 18:24) says of the godless: “All his justices which he hath done, shall not be remembered: in the prevarication, by which he hath prevaricated, and in his sin, which he hath committed, in them he shall die.” Not in vain does St. Paul (1 Corinthians 10:12) warn the just: “Wherefore he that thinketh himself to stand, let him take heed lest he fall”; and state uncompromisingly: “The unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God”. Hence it is not by infidelity alone that the Kingdom of Heaven will be lost.

 

[God_Seeker_1]

Ultimately that the Protestant idea of imputed righteousness is so gravely erroneous can be shown by means of a very straightforward statement.

What does the “orthodox” Protestant doctrine of justification say? We find it in the Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord:

What is this saying?

That the kind of faith that justifies is not, as the Catholic Church teaches, a firm belief in God’s revealed truths and promises (fides theoretica, dogmatica), but is the infallible conviction (fides fiducialis, fiducia) that God for the sake of Christ will no longer impute to us our sins, but will consider and treat us, as if we were really just and holy, although in our inner selves we remain the same sinners as before.

That remission of sin is no real forgiveness, no blotting out of guilt. Sin is merely cloaked and concealed by the imputed merits of Christ; God no longer imputes it, whilst in reality it continues under cover its miserable existence. Thus there exist in man side by side two hostile brothers as it were — the one just and the other unjust; the one a saint, the other a sinner; the one a child of God, the other a slave of Satan.

However, in a man who is at once sinful and just, half holy and half unholy, we cannot possibly recognize a masterpiece of God’s omnipotence, but only a wretched caricature, the deformity of which is exaggerated all the more by the violent introduction of the justice of Christ.

Compare this novelty with the orthodox Christian teaching on justification:

RC,

I assume that you think I am advocating a sola fide conception. I do not hold to that. All that I am asking is how can an atoning sacrifice directly cause an infusion of righteousness? The quote there dealing with real forgiveness as an actual obliteration of the sin is not an adequate argument. It is just not the definition of the word. Remission,blotting out, forgiveness, etc is referring to the cleansing from guilt. When we forgive one another just as God has forgiven us (Ephesians 5) we are not delving into the human heart and removing the sin from that person. It means to cover their sin and to not impute it to them.

All that I AsKing asking is how to understand Romans 3:21-26 as a passage supporting the infusion of righteousness. Blood sacrifice causes redemption which causes justification. Where does infusion of love and virtue fit in? This is not an argument against.

 

[R_C]

I actually presumed you were not supporting sola fide The only reason I went so in-depth (and of course, I lack the gift of conciseness) was because it shows that no matter how logical an argument may be, it is ultimately resting on an erroneous set of premises.

In post 43 I tried to show how in fact the atoning sacrifice merited that through the Sacrament of Baptism we receive sanctifying grace. It is this grace that infuses rigtheousness. It is a protestant idea (or, rather, a concoction of ancient errors) to believe that the death of Christ instantaneously meant an infusion of righteousness in everyone’s soul (or in every Christian’s soul, or however we want to put it). Even worse is this modern concept I’ve seen everywhere that in order to benefit of this salvation all we have to do is brace ourselves and believe reeealy hard that Christ is our savior and born again, justified, that’s it, it’s only a matter of time before I get to heaven.

The work of redemption of our Savior brought us eternal life, but there are ordinary ways to receive it. He established Baptism as the way in which grace is infused in our soul, and Reconciliation by the way in which the soul guilty of the kind of sin that brings death can be revived once more in that baptismal grace given once “for the forgiveness of sins”.

I think you refer to Ephesians 4:32: “forgiving one another, so as God also in Christ has forgiven you”. This does not mean that God covers our sins without imputing them to us. Quite the contrary, this tells us nothing on the manner in which God acts. In fact, the English translation is in truth a very poor rendition of the original IV Century Latin:

misericordes donantes invicem sicut et Deus in Christo donavit nobis

which more accurately (though still loosely) translates to

donating mercy to one another just like God donated it to us in Christ

I understand you want to know how Romans 3:21-26 works. However, I see an issue with the way you put it: “which causes justification”. As I have tried to show to the best of my ability (which is not much), justification is not a switch that is flipped. It is both an act and a quality. It is both something that God does and that man does. It is both an instantaneous action and a lifelong process. If we don’t agree on the meaning of justification, how can we approach such a mystery?

Let’s go over the passage:

23 omnes enim peccaverunt et egent gloriam Dei
23 For all have sinned, and do need the glory of God.

24 iustificati gratis per gratiam ipsius per redemptionem quae est in Christo Iesu
24 Being justified freely by his grace, by the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,

25 quem proposuit Deus propitiationem per fidem in sanguine ipsius ad ostensionem iustitiae suae propter remissionem praecedentium delictorum
25 Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation by faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins,

26 in sustentatione Dei ad ostensionem iustitiae eius in hoc tempore ut sit ipse iustus et iustificans eum qui ex fide est Iesu
26 through the forbearance of God, for the shewing of his justice in this time, so that he himself may be just, and the justifier of him, who is of the faith of Jesus.

I can’t see those clean-cut steps you define, namely to my eyes the following interpretation is not self-evident from the passage: that "sinful human beings are graciously “justified"by means of the blood-sacrifice of Jesus Christ”. The passage quite clearly affirms
(1) we are justified by His grace
(2) we are justified by the redemption that is in Christ
And it further adds just how these two things are possible: because God proposed Christ to be a propitiation by faith in his blood, to make his justice visible (ostendere), so that Christ may (1) be just (iustus) and (2) be the justifier (iustificans).

You say that “Protestants have stressed that “justification” is divine acquittal and pardon in God’s judgement and that “sanctification”, which happens alongside justification is the renewal of our hearts and mind in the image and likeness of God.” but Protestants have done none of that at all. I tried to show above what “Protestants” have brought forth, and how they distorted and even inverted the very concept of justification, entirely nullifying the very idea that there could be such a process of “sanctification” (a concept, this, that is inconceivable for protestantism as it directly contradicts the basic tenet that “[the freely justified] still are and remain, sinners as long as they bear this mortal body [and that] neither contrition, nor love, nor any other virtue, but faith alone” brings forth justification (meaning there is no sanctification process, just that one, poorly defined act of justification reflected in us by an act of fiduciary faith).

Sorry, this passage of St. Paul does not favor such a doctrine, because it would be in open and direct contradiction with other passages by the same author and, more importantly, with the statements made by Christ Himself. Of course, this passage, if properly cherry-picked, would suffice for a protestant to defend these erroneous doctrines, but a Catholic can always show, by bringing forth a more complete picture that ultimately this personal interpretation is appearently truthful but incoherent and contradictory when compared with that which Scripture and Tradition teaches on salvation.

 

[R_C]

In short: your original question is “How can a blood-sacrifice renew our Nature?” and the answer would be, I guess, indirectly.

Indirectly because the sacrifice of Christ per se does not renew our Nature. It is grace, merited by this sacrifice, that renews our nature. The grace received by baptism in water and spirit, at the moment of our spiritual re-birth.

Truly in Baptism we experience invisibly what Christ brought forth visibly:

• the Holy Spirit descends upon us
• the Father acknowledges us by saying: “This is my dearly beloved son, in whom I am well pleased”

That implies a complete renewal of our Nature, in the manner that St. Paul explains: “He saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, which He poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ, so that we might be justified by His grace and become heirs of eternal life”.

 

[God_Seeker_1]

In short: your original question is “How can a blood-sacrifice renew our Nature?” and the answer would be, I guess, indirectly.

Indirectly because the sacrifice of Christ per se does not renew our Nature. It is grace, merited by this sacrifice, that renews our nature. The grace received by baptism in water and spirit, at the moment of our spiritual re-birth.

Truly in Baptism we experience invisibly what Christ brought forth visibly:

• the Holy Spirit descends upon us
• the Father acknowledges us by saying: “This is my dearly beloved son, in whom I am well pleased”

That implies a complete renewal of our Nature, in the manner that St. Paul explains: “He saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, which He poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ, so that we might be justified by His grace and become heirs of eternal life”.

The construction of Romans 3:21 highly favor the following: justification is caused by a redemption which is caused by expiatiory sacrificial blood.Paul has in other places tied ‘‘blood’’ and ‘‘forgiveness of sin’’ and ‘‘redemption’’. Ephesians 1:17 and colossians 1:12-14 says that ‘’ in christ we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins’’. The same Greek for ‘‘in Christ’’, redemption, and blood. Justification is clearly the forgiveness of sin.

 

[God_Seeker_1]

Paul makes a parallel of the imputation of righteousness to man without works (justification by faith) with the forgiveness of sins (Romans 4:6-8). This is striking! For if God was imputing real moral righteousness to David, then this is what would be stated. There is no concern if David also describes this forgiven man as a man in whose spirit is no deceit. This could mean that he is honest in confessing his sin. But either way, Paul has not paralleled the imputation of righteousness with no deceit in the spirit of man, but rather the non imputation of sin. It seems that we have some exterior graces at work here, don’t you think?

Also, Paul also sees a DIRECT causal connection between our justification and Christs death: ''for he made him who knew no sin to be sin for us, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God ‘’ (2 Cor 5:21) . We have here an interchange. We are sinners. Christ knows no sin. He becomes sin for us. We become righteousness of God in Him. I think it is pretty clear this is an exterior grace just as much as sin is exterior to Christ. It is the divine acquittal from the guilt of sin. This is what the cross acheives for sinners. In another place, ‘‘having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God’’ (Romans 5:9). I thought it was striking how you cannot fathom abdirect causal relationship between Christs death and our being freely and graciously justified. Here it is explicit. Therefore justification is the reception of atonement for sin, expiation for sin, and the remission of transgressions. The catholic position remains the more difficult one to maintain logically.

 

[R_C]

Paul makes a parallel of the imputation of righteousness to man without works (justification by faith) with the forgiveness of sins (Romans 4:6-8). This is striking! For if God was imputing real moral righteousness to David, then this is what would be stated. There is no concern if David also describes this forgiven man as a man in whose spirit is no deceit. This could mean that he is honest in confessing his sin. But either way, Paul has not paralleled the imputation of righteousness with no deceit in the spirit of man, but rather the non imputation of sin. It seems that we have some exterior graces at work here, don’t you think?

Also, Paul also sees a DIRECT causal connection between our justification and Christs death: ''for he made him who knew no sin to be sin for us, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God ‘’ (2 Cor 5:21) . We have here an interchange. We are sinners. Christ knows no sin. He becomes sin for us. We become righteousness of God in Him. I think it is pretty clear this is an exterior grace just as much as sin is exterior to Christ. It is the divine acquittal from the guilt of sin. This is what the cross acheives for sinners. In another place, ‘‘having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God’’ (Romans 5:9). I thought it was striking how you cannot fathom abdirect causal relationship between Christs death and our being freely and graciously justified. Here it is explicit. Therefore justification is the reception of atonement for sin, expiation for sin, and the remission of transgressions. The catholic position remains the more difficult one to maintain logically.

You made your point. However, are you truly insisting in ignoring the rest of Scripture and the teaching of the Church Fathers (from which was developed the so-called “Catholic position”), preferring a personal interpretation brought forth in the XVI Century? That is very interesting. Honestly, very interesting. Makes me understand why we had separated communities in error since the days of the apostles.

I stick to the Tradition that was handed down to me. No matter what, I could never accept novelties, because that is in itself contrary to Scripture.

 

[God_Seeker_1]

You made your point. However, are you truly insisting in ignoring the rest of Scripture and the teaching of the Church Fathers (from which was developed the so-called “Catholic position”), preferring a personal interpretation brought forth in the XVI Century? That is very interesting. Honestly, very interesting. Makes me understand why we had separated communities in error since the days of the apostles.

I stick to the Tradition that was handed down to me. No matter what, I could never accept novelties, because that is in itself contrary to Scripture.

Besides Augustine I don’t know of any church father who says anything different than what I am saying

 

[thenobes]

Paul makes a parallel of the imputation of righteousness to man without works (justification by faith) with the forgiveness of sins (Romans 4:6-8). This is striking! For if God was imputing real moral righteousness to David, then this is what would be stated. There is no concern if David also describes this forgiven man as a man in whose spirit is no deceit. This could mean that he is honest in confessing his sin. But either way, Paul has not paralleled the imputation of righteousness with no deceit in the spirit of man, but rather the non imputation of sin. It seems that we have some exterior graces at work here, don’t you think?

Also, Paul also sees a DIRECT causal connection between our justification and Christs death: ''for he made him who knew no sin to be sin for us, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God ‘’ (2 Cor 5:21) . We have here an interchange. We are sinners. Christ knows no sin. He becomes sin for us. We become righteousness of God in Him. I think it is pretty clear this is an exterior grace just as much as sin is exterior to Christ. It is the divine acquittal from the guilt of sin.

No we have the life of God directly next to us. The righteousness of God flowing through us. His Grace transforms us directly and so this change has no chance to be exterior only. Just as Jesus actually died, we will actually be changed.

This is what the cross acheives for sinners. In another place, ‘‘having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God’’ (Romans 5:9). I thought it was striking how you cannot fathom abdirect causal relationship between Christs death and our being freely and graciously justified. Here it is explicit. Therefore justification is the reception of atonement for sin, expiation for sin, and the remission of transgressions. The catholic position remains the more difficult one to maintain logically.

I agree that we are justified by His Blood. But there are two steps here, each one of which involves His Blood.

Yes our sins are forgiven by the Expiation of Christ’s Sacrifice where His Blod was shed, and without the separation of Blood from Flesh, resulting in death, the Sacrifice would have been incomplete.

However, the Blood is offered now by Christ our High priest before the Father for our current sins.

Also, and more to the point of a second effect of the Blood, we are taught in the OT, the Life of the Body is in the Blood So when we receive the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist, we share in Christ’s Life, and in sharing, are currently being saved. Jesus wants us to receive His very Life.

It seems to me an important point of the Resurrection was to make available a living Body for Christ to share His Life with us.

peace
steve

 

[R_C]

Besides Augustine I don’t know of any church father who says anything different than what I am saying

Oh, so you consider that the Fathers taught this: that justification is an exterior imputation of grace, a divine acquittal from the guilt of sin even though interiorly we remain sinners. Well, as far as I know, tradition speaks of a regeneration and rebirth (“what is born of the flesh is flesh, what is born of the Spirit is spirit”). This is not exterior, for if grace were thus imputed, we would by all measure become just like the whited sepulchers, “which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean”. Is this the work of redemption of Christ, a marvel in God’s eyes? Is this the position that is more logical than the Catholic tradition?

No, justification is more than exterior grace, and our soul is truly purified when in the state of grace, so much that the Blessed Trinity deigns to inhabit it.

I would like to mention two in-depth articles by a Catholic apologist: this one and this one. I will quote a few things from the latter, because the former is a worthy reading but too extensive to quote.

Imputation signifies to credit something to someone’s account by transfer, i.e. God transfers the perfect righteousness of Christ to the elect sinner as a gracious gift, and transfers all of the sinner’s unrighteousness to Christ who has paid the full price of satisfaction for that unrighteousness. According to protestantism (as expressed in the Tyndale Biblical Dictionary):

the Bible sets forth the theological concept of imputation in three distinct yet related ways. First, Scripture affirms the imputation of Adam’s original sin to the entire human race. … Second, the sin and guilt of the human race was imputed to Christ… Finally, the Bible teaches that, as a result of his atoning work, Christ’s righteousness is set to the believer’s account.

It does fit the the Westminster Confession of Faith:

Those whom God effectually calls, He also freely justifies; not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous …] nor by imputing faith itself, …] but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them

“Infused righteousness” and “imputed righteousness” are clearly distinguished, so that the former may be rejected, and a secondary distinction is made, stating that faith is not what is imputed as righteousness, but rather the righteousness of Christ in itself.

Yet, protestant scholars have pointed that things are not so clear…George Ladd would write that “Paul never expressly states that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to believers” and he adds: “[Romans 4:3-5] could be taken to mean that God regarded faith as the most meritorious human achievement, and therefore God accounts faith as the equivalent to full righteousness. This, however, would ignore the context of Pauline thought.” Later on, D. A. Carson would state: “there is no Pauline passage that explicitly says, in so many words, that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to his people”, and he adds: “Paul does not unambiguously say that what was imputed was Christ’s righteousness. No, he says that faith was imputed – credited, reckoned – to Abraham as righteousness”. A striking contradiction of the Westminster Confession.

The word “impute” does appear in Scripture, 41 times in the New Testament (logizomai), 120 times in the Old Testament (chashab). However, it is never used the way Protestants contend. Let’s see why.

 

[R_C]

In the New Testament, to “reckon” (logizomai) something is to form a correct mental evaluation or calculation about it. To reckon something as having a certain quality, it is because that thing truly does have that quality. In each case it is clear a person either is reckoning something accurate or else he should have been.

Philemon 1:18 speaks of having a debt “charged to” Paul’s account. However the term logizomai does not appear in this text, but rather, ellogeo, which appears only here and in Romans 5:13.

Approaching Romans 4, especially the critical verse 4:3, it should be very clear that for God to reckon (logizomai) faith as righteousness, it is because faith in God does have a righteous quality about it.

Romans 4:4 uses logizomai sandwiched right between the important verses 3 and 5, where logizomai also appears. Obviously, the term must have the same meaning in all three verses, else Paul would be equivocating. Though many misread verse 4 to be saying wages are “transferred” to an “account,” that’s not what the verse is saying. Rather the verse is speaking in terms of a ledger, where ‘working wages’ are recorded on the “debt” column, and thus “reckoned as debt”. In other words, the wage is reckoned in the mind as what it truly is, having the quality of a debt.

Romans 4:8 is in a similar case as Romans 4:4. This text is important for it quotes Psalm 32:2. What is important to note here is how logizomai is being used, in a negated fashion: “Blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not impute sin”. If logizomai in Romans 4 means “to transfer,” then Romans 4:8 ends up saying: “Blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not transfer sin.” That’s absurd, for it means the Blessed (justified) individual is he whom the Lord will not get rid of his sin! Thus, logizomai cannot mean “transfer” in this context. This ties into the equivocation in the Westminster Confession that was mentioned earlier in this essay.

Psalm 32:2 gives an important insight on what it means to “not impute sin” to someone. This Psalm was written by David, repenting after he sinned gravely and lost his justification. Even Luther recognized this (see Smalcald Articles #43). The “blessed man” (i.e. justified) of verse 1 is he who has his “sins forgiven,” and “in who’s spirit there is no deceit”. He is the one who did not hide his sin but confessed it to God (verse 5), after which he became “righteous” and “upright in heart” (verse 11). The parallel prayer to this is David in Psalm 51, where he is just as explicit on what happens at forgiveness, namely the sinner is “washed,” “cleansed,” “purged,” resulting in a man “whiter than snow” and having “a clean heart”. With all this going on, how can there be sin to reckon? There cannot be! Thus to “not impute sin” is synonymous to saying “forgive,” that is “make my slate clean so there is no sin there to reckon”.

Commenting on Psalm 32:3, the Catholic Encyclopedia states, “It is one of God’s attributes always to substantiate His declarations; if He covers sin and does not impute it, this can only be effected by an utter extinction or blotting out of the sin. Tradition also has always taught this view of the forgiveness of sins". This description matches what we find when we examine the Fathers comments on this passage.

• Saint Clement uses this example in admonishing the Corinthians, saying: “Blessed are we, beloved, if we keep the commandments of God in the harmony of love; that so through love our sins may be forgiven us".
• Directly contradicting the Reformed idea that all future sins are forgiven at the moment of coversion, Saint Justin says, “you deceive yourselves, and some others who resemble you in this, who say, that even though they be sinners, but know God, the Lord will not impute sin to them. …] how can the impure and utterly abandoned, if they weep not, and mourn not, and repent not, entertain the hope that the Lord will not impute to them sin?"

It is clear that the “Catholic teaching” (which is simply the teaching that the Church has always held since the beginning) is far more solid than the “protestant teaching” (referring to Calvin, Luther, etc.), which does violence to both Scripture and Tradition.

Ultimately, why ought we to believe that this novel interpretation is then correct? Because it “sounds better” to our uneducated ears? Because it “makes more sense” even though it contradicts centuries of uncontradicted Christian doctrine? I simply can’t understand why would I refuse to accept the Catholic teaching.

 

[God_Seeker_1]

No, the Fathers did not believe the reformed schema. But they did believe in the meaning of the word “justified” being a declaration that one is acquitted from wrath, cleared of wrongdoing, and released from the sentence of death.

The Fathers did not understand that “justification” is the act whereby God reckons the sinner to be truly perfectly righteous because of Christ while we still remain the same old sinner inside. The reformers didn’t even teach this. All they wished to teach what that the ultimate resurrection-perfection is not realized in this life, and therefore one cannot be perfectly righteous yet until the restoration of all things. Therefore, in this life, if we are in a right-relationship with God, it is not one of absolute perfection yet, though we are all headed in that direction. Now, the Fathers did not term the language like the reformers at all! I am just clarifying what you think the reformers taught. The Catholic believes that someone can be perfectly righteous and yet committing several venial sins at the same time. This is something which the reformers would not accept. So you must understand the distinction in thought. For the reformers, a venial sin was worthy of death, and therefore cannot co-exist in a perfectly righteous and complete person.

The early Fathers simply spoke about “justification” in terms of the remission of sins that comes out of the regeneration of the soul. When one is born anew in Christ’s death and resurrection, they come out forgiven of their sin, and this means they are justified, and their sin nature is truly renewed in sanctification. So there is no being “justified” while at the same time being the same old vengeful sinner on the inside. The Fathers simply used the word to communicate, just like Paul, the exterior mode of grace and forgiveness, which is based upon the inner regeneration of the human person in baptism.

I can list many quotes if you would like.

 

[R_C]

No, the Fathers did not believe the reformed schema. But they did believe in the meaning of the word “justified” being a declaration that one is acquitted from wrath, cleared of wrongdoing, and released from the sentence of death.

The Fathers did not understand that “justification” is the act whereby God reckons the sinner to be truly perfectly righteous because of Christ while we still remain the same old sinner inside. The reformers didn’t even teach this. All they wished to teach what that the ultimate resurrection-perfection is not realized in this life, and therefore one cannot be perfectly righteous yet until the restoration of all things. Therefore, in this life, if we are in a right-relationship with God, it is not one of absolute perfection yet, though we are all headed in that direction. Now, the Fathers did not term the language like the reformers at all! I am just clarifying what you think the reformers taught. The Catholic believes that someone can be perfectly righteous and yet committing several venial sins at the same time. This is something which the reformers would not accept. So you must understand the distinction in thought. For the reformers, a venial sin was worthy of death, and therefore cannot co-exist in a perfectly righteous and complete person.

The early Fathers simply spoke about “justification” in terms of the remission of sins that comes out of the regeneration of the soul. When one is born anew in Christ’s death and resurrection, they come out forgiven of their sin, and this means they are justified, and their sin nature is truly renewed in sanctification. So there is no being “justified” while at the same time being the same old vengeful sinner on the inside. The Fathers simply used the word to communicate, just like Paul, the exterior mode of grace and forgiveness, which is based upon the inner regeneration of the human person in baptism.

I can list many quotes if you would like.

No, this makes a lot of sense, and is to me a bit different from what I had understood before.

But still, for the reformers the justification was solely exterior, and that venial sins lead to death is a contradiction of the words of the first letter of John: all wrongdoing is sin, but there is a sin that does not lead to death.

The justified, renewed and reborn in Christ, is still subject to those minor offenses due to the inherent imperfection of our nature (even st. Paul speaks of a “law of the flesh” that is to be fought, of a body that was to be kept under subjection), but the soul, the only thing that ultimately matters, is truly renewed through sanctifying grace, and it beats with live and beauty, and it becomes the living temple of God, and cries “Father!”. If stained with “mortal” sin (“a kind of sin that leads to death”, as s. John wrote), it is not just a bit ugly, no: it is dead. Thus tradition calls both Baptism and Reconciliation as Sacraments of the Dead.

After all, true righteousness is to be turned towards Christ, filled with the faith that works through charity. It certainly isn’t sanctity or impeccability. Otherwise, truly, not even the apostles (and perhaps, one may argue, even the Forerunner) were not “righteous”: St. Peter we all know how he denied the Lord, struck someone with a sword, and even made the Lord be upset to some degree; st. Thomas would not believe in the Resurrection; st. John the Baptist after being arrested sent disciples to ask if Jesus truly was the Christ; and all, truly all apostles (except s. John, because Our Lady needed him) ran away after the Lord’s arrest. After all, one of the reasons we love Our Lady so much is because we consider that she was the only creature who remained truly sinless throughout her life.

The reformers had a very erroneous idea of the meaning of being righteous. They did not wish to teach that true perfection is attained in the age to come, but that we are nothing but whited sepulchers until death, nice outside only because Christ painted us of shining white, or like a sick hand that looks decent only because someone covered it with a silk glove. This is exactly what the taught, a shame before the Father’s eyes and a pity before those who truly are deluded into thinking that thanks to Christ no sins will be imputed to them (thus no need for works, no need for confession). This we know that it leads to disaster.

Is there some degree of exterior grace? The best example I ever heard was from a humble nun who said: our soul is like a crystal. The more we draw close to Christ, the more the crystal becomes transparent, so that His light shines more and more through us and is more visible exteriorly in our deeds. The more we draw away from Christ and become prideful, the darker the crystal becomes. To me, exterior grace is only understandable as a shining forth of a truly interior grace, and sanctifying grace suffices for us to be truly righteous (though not without sin, for even wrongdoing that does not lead to death is still considered sin, and we sin very much in this sense), so righteous that S. Paul (and in general the Church) has called those in a state of grace “saints”, the saints of the Church Militant (this is the teaching of the Communion of Saints).

If the reformers don’t agree with this, then they cannot possibly know what they are doing: for in stating what you graciously and patiently explained that they state, they are saying that Christ was not speaking truthfully or asking for the impossible when He said: “Be perfect, as Your heavenly Father is perfect.” But if Christ said: “Be perfect”, then perfection must be attainable in this life, for Chris neither asked the impossible, nor asked what was hard: “my yoke is easy and my burden is light”.

 

[God_Seeker_1]

But the Catholic Church makes it sound like a baptized believer who is not in mortal sin is absolutely perfect, by saying such things as perfect love and charity makes us able to commune with God. But the believer then yells at his wife, and he feels like he is now damned to hell.

 

[R_C]

But the Catholic Church makes it sound like a baptized believer who is not in mortal sin is absolutely perfect, by saying such things as perfect love and charity makes us able to commune with God. But the believer then yells at his wife, and he feels like he is now damned to hell.

Sorry, thay sounds like a straw man sort of argument. But Ill go along. Was not Christ who said: whoever is angry with a brother will be subject to judgment and whoever calls his brother a fool will be in danger of hellfire? And how much greater is a wife than a brother, if Paul tells us to love our wife like Christ loves the Chrurch?

The fallacy here is in a misunderstanding of what makes a sin deadly. You know, yelling cab be a sign of deep love, or of a heart that was deeply wounded. It can also be a waybof exercising legitimate authority. Christ raised His voice more than once. What makes a sin mortal and deprives the soul of sanctifying grace is a sin meant to cause injury, as if the husband is verbally abusing the wife. Indeed he would be assured that unless he repents aand if possible, confesses, he is at risk of the eternal fire.

The Catholic doctrine does not claim that in the state of grace we are impeccable. Only thatour soul is purified and renewed and thus able to do good and attain heaven (perhaps after some purification).

 

[God_Seeker_1]

Sorry, thay sounds like a straw man sort of argument. But Ill go along. Was not Christ who said: whoever is angry with a brother will be subject to judgment and whoever calls his brother a fool will be in danger of hellfire? And how much greater is a wife than a brother, if Paul tells us to love our wife like Christ loves the Chrurch?

The fallacy here is in a misunderstanding of what makes a sin deadly. You know, yelling cab be a sign of deep love, or of a heart that was deeply wounded. It can also be a waybof exercising legitimate authority. Christ raised His voice more than once. What makes a sin mortal and deprives the soul of sanctifying grace is a sin meant to cause injury, as if the husband is verbally abusing the wife. Indeed he would be assured that unless he repents aand if possible, confesses, he is at risk of the eternal fire.

The Catholic doctrine does not claim that in the state of grace we are impeccable. Only thatour soul is purified and renewed and thus able to do good and attain heaven (perhaps after some purification).

This is not a straw man. The Catholic Church gives general guidelines for what a mortal sin actually is. But the problem it that it is general, and many people do not know with certainty if a sin which they commit is really a mortal sin or not. If I yell at my wife out of anger to hurt her feelings, I am immediately put into a state of being hell bound. These occurrences happen millions of times throughout your average marriage, even in the Church. And so theologically, these people, if they confess their sins to a priest, are constantly entering and exiting the body of Christ, the Spirit of God, and the state of grace. I am not sure a theology for this kind of constant “in and out” of the body really exists.

 

[po18guy]

The construction of Romans 3:21 highly favor the following: justification is caused by a redemption which is caused by expiatiory sacrificial blood.Paul has in other places tied ‘‘blood’’ and ‘‘forgiveness of sin’’ and ‘‘redemption’’. Ephesians 1:17 and colossians 1:12-14 says that ‘’ in christ we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins’’. The same Greek for ‘‘in Christ’’, redemption, and blood. Justification is clearly the forgiveness of sin.

Do you believe that justification is universal and automatic?

 

[po18guy]

But the Catholic Church makes it sound like a baptized believer who is not in mortal sin is absolutely perfect, by saying such things as perfect love and charity makes us able to commune with God. But the believer then yells at his wife, and he feels like he is now damned to hell.

Both mis-perceptions. Both opinion. We must set opinions and perceptions aside and seek revealed truth. Ah, but feelings and perceptions are so natural that they are much easier to embrace. Truth takes the sacrifice of self to embrace. Matthew 16:24, Luke 9:23