imputed righteousness

[With_Questions]

My problem is that if the ontological reality is that a person upon the moment of salvation has taken upon themselves the natur eof Christ that it would be a startling event. The empirical reality doesn’t seem to support that so much s it does seem to support the catholic view of infused grace.

Just a thought, I don’t suppose any Protestants have some thought as to how empirical reality better matches the notion of imputed grace or is this just going to have be a matter of exegesis?

As I have thought about it, the “empirical reality” approach is one that I have used to sort of sanity check myself before I buy into a proposed Christian belief.

The problem is that this is a knife that can cut many directions.

For example I can examine the Catholic claim of being the “one true church” and looking at “empirical reality” I can observe that they really don’t seem to be superior to anybody else, not the type of superiority that I would expect the “one true church” to have to the remaining sects (yes I think I have seen that word used here) out there.

As far as the claims of the OP goes, all I can do is look at my own life. I can testify there was a distinct change at the point in time I was born again. So something did definitely happen there.
I attribute that to the work of regeneration by the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5).

At the same time I am not perfect and still sin. So there is quite a bit left of my salvation left to be worked out. However at the same time, it really is God who is doing the work in me. Phillipians 2:12-13.

 

[Crucified]

Here is a question for the Protestants about imputed righteousness . . . Why isn’t much more obvious if some is saved vs non saved? It would seem that if someone is perfected in Christ, if this is the ontological reality, then such a huge immediate change should be very obvious.

Well - I would say that we agree that life is a process - and that we as Christians grow in the grace and knowledge of Christ until the end of our life. We do not believe - however - that we become more and more righteous throughout our life. Our righteousness is not a bunch of personal good works - but rather - our righteousness is a person; he is Christ (1 Cor. 1:30).

The believer - when he receieves Christ and his righteousness by faith - receives an additional principle of nature - this is true - however the “old man” is not yet fully eradicated; and will not be so until glory. And this is why it isn’t always “much more obvious” when a person is saved. The apostle Paul reminded the Galatians that “the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would.” (Galatians 5:17).

And so what the believer experiences inbetween his justification and his glorification is a serious tension; though the ultimate battle is already won. The old man was crucified with Christ (Rom 6:6; Gal 2:20) - but not eliminated. And the simple fact of the matter is that crucifixion is a long and agonizing death; for the crucified one does not die easy and without a fight!

In regeneration - (the new birth) - the old man receives his death blow; and is stripped of his “dominion” or “authority” so that you no longer have to serve him in everything that you do. Now you can resist him, and fight him as you - by the grace of God - mortify your flesh. But the fact is - the struggle will continue until glory.

There are two reasons that I believe God has designed the believer’s life in this way, and that is to keep us both happy and humble at the same time.

We are happy to know that the battle has ultimately been won, and that by faith we have the victory in Christ - (1 John 5:4). We are humble because evern though we are assured that Christ has triumphed over sin - for the mean time - we are continually being reminded of our utter helplessness and dependance upon our Savior. We are constantly being brought low by the humbling truth that “in me - that is in my flesh - dwelleth no good thing” (Rom 7:18). The Bible teaches that it is not by our own righteousness that we are justified - but by the righteousness of God - which is Jesus Christ the Lord (Jer. 23:6) - and the only way that we can receive Christ is by faith alone.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Once upon a time I was asked by a 5-point Calvinist if the Orthodox Church believed in infused or imputed righteousness.

I said, “Huh?”

I asked several priests, and they said, “Huh?”

I asked a Melkite priest about it, and he said, “Huh?”

The general Orthodox feeling is that righteousness is righteousness. We don’t think about its coming in different flavors.

The “imputed righteousness” is an exclusively Protestant understanding, and condemned by Trent.
It is in contrast to the Catholic notion of deification/theosis.

 

[brkn1]

The “imputed righteousness” is an exclusively Protestant understanding, and condemned by Trent.
It is in contrast to the Catholic notion of deification/theosis.

If you read (Romans ch.4&5), you will find that “imputed righteousness” is not an exclusively Protestant understanding.

Paul was very clear about righteousness being imputed to Abraham by strong faith in what God promised to him.

(Romans 4:22-25) “And therefore it (Abraham’s faith in God’s promise) was imputed to him for righteousness.
Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;
But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on Him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
Who was delivered for our offenses, and was raised again for our justification.”

How did the Council of Trent explain these verses as it condemned the biblical truth of “imputed righteousness”?

 

[With_Questions]

The problem with this question (as I see it) as well as with “Sola Fide” and “Sola Scriptura” is that these threads start with a title and then the contents of these titles are filled in such a way that may or may not accurately represent the belief.

So first you must have a common understanding of what “imputed righteousness” actually is before you can discuss its merits.

I don’t sense that discussion is there yet.

Second, these types of discussions can haggle over tangents that are relatively unimportant. In a related thread, there is haggling over whether God actually poured out His wrath on the crucified Christ, or whether Isaiah 53:10 was fulfilled in a more passive way (by God delivering Jesus up to the authorities).

Well, I believe in imputed righteousness, but I am not sure God actually actively poured out His wrath on the crucified Christ. That seems a little far-fetched.

But at any rate that issue seems very tangential to the main issue.

To me the primary issue is what is the basis of our righteousness before God? Is it the stuff that we do (works)? Or is it faith?

As BRKN1 pointed out, Romans 4, particularly 4:22-25 that is the heart of imputed righteousness.

If Catholics do not believe this, I am very curious what they believe is the basis of our righteousness before God? Is it our works, or is it faith?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

If you read (Romans ch.4&5), you will find that “imputed righteousness” is not an exclusively Protestant understanding.

Paul was very clear about righteousness being imputed to Abraham by strong faith in what God promised to him.

(Romans 4:22-25) “And therefore it (Abraham’s faith in God’s promise) was imputed to him for righteousness.
Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;
But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on Him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
Who was delivered for our offenses, and was raised again for our justification.”

How did the Council of Trent explain these verses as it condemned the biblical truth of “imputed righteousness”?

Here is an old post I made:

The term for “impute” in Greek is LOGIZOMAI, that is the term which is TRANSLATED as “impute” but it does not mean what you think. Here are some places where logizomai appears in the NT:Bible: Rom 3: 28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

Rom 6: 11Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.

Rom 8: 18For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us.
It does NOT mean to impute an alien status to someone. Logizomai means, in the great majority of the times it occurrs in the NT, to consider what the object ACTUALLY IS. Notice that is how it is used above. So when God ‘reckons/imputes/counts’ someone as righteous that means they ACTUALLY ARE, when sin is NOT imputed that means He does not reckon them to be a sinner because they are NO LONGER ACTUALY sinful.

This powerful article gets at the very heart of this issue:
pugiofidei.com/logizomai.htm
This Biblical evidence is so strong you wont find any Protestant apologists confronting it (or logizomai in general).

 

[nebula]

Thanks for the article. It helps me understand what it is I wanted to say in the first place

 

[brkn1]

Here is an old post I made:

The term for “impute” in Greek is LOGIZOMAI, that is the term which is TRANSLATED as “impute” but it does not mean what you think. Here are some places where logizomai appears in the NT:Bible: Rom 3: 28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.Rom 6: 11Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.Rom 8: 18For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us.It does NOT mean to impute an alien status to someone. Logizomai means, in the great majority of the times it occurrs in the NT, to consider what the object ACTUALLY IS. Notice that is how it is used above. So when God ‘reckons/imputes/counts’ someone as righteous that means they ACTUALLY ARE, when sin is NOT imputed that means He does not reckon them to be a sinner because they are NO LONGER ACTUALY sinful.

This powerful article gets at the very heart of this issue:
pugiofidei.com/logizomai.htm
This Biblical evidence is so strong you wont find any Protestant apologists confronting it (or logizomai in general).

That article does not get at the heart of the issue. It merely hides the issue in a mass of words and assumptions. The simple truth does not need that much explanation.

You are saying that God “somehow” makes a person “sinless” by infusion, where they “ACTUALLY ARE” sinless. That assumption is not found in the bible. You can’t even be saved by God, if you believe you are “sinless”.

It is all about our Lord Jesus Christ: “Who was delivered for OUR OFFENSES, and was raised again for our justification.”

It is not about “our righteousness”, which are as filthy rags in God’s sight. God’s Perfect Holiness can not accept our own imperfect ‘holiness’. It can only be Jesus’ perfect substitution in our place that will suffice for our standing as righteous “in Christ” in God’s sight. Our humble acceptance in true faith of that necessity is what God values in us; not Pharasitical assumptions of our own self-righteousness which God hates and condemns.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

That article does not get at the heart of the issue. It merely hides the issue in a mass of words and assumptions. The simple truth does not need that much explanation.

That is an odd thing to say considering Protestantism has totally misunderstood how the Bible itself uses the term “impute.” That article says let us be faithful to Scripture, let us see how Scripture uses that term, and after looking at how Scripture uses the term it is clear the Protestant understanding doesn’t fit. This is about being faithful to Scripture, and I that’s what I strive to do.

You are saying that God “somehow” makes a person “sinless” by infusion, where they “ACTUALLY ARE” sinless. That assumption is not found in the bible. You can’t even be saved by God, if you believe you are “sinless”.

It is all about our Lord Jesus Christ: “Who was delivered for OUR OFFENSES, and was raised again for our justification.”

You are mixing two issues here. One is in justification God making someone righteous. Second that logizomai most often means to consider the actual status of something.

It is not about “our righteousness”, which are as filthy rags in God’s sight. God’s Perfect Holiness can not accept our own imperfect ‘holiness’. It can only be Jesus’ perfect substitution in our place that will suffice for our standing as righteous “in Christ” in God’s sight. Our humble acceptance in true faith of that necessity is what God values in us; not Pharasitical assumptions of our own self-righteousness which God hates and condemns.

Nobody said it was “our righteousness” as if it originated in ourselves (2 Cor 3:5). As for the “filthy rags” comment, that is one of the most abused passages of all time.

 

[brkn1]

That is an odd thing to say considering Protestantism has totally misunderstood how the Bible itself uses the term “impute.” That article says let us be faithful to Scripture, let us see how Scripture uses that term, and after looking at how Scripture uses the term it is clear the Protestant understanding doesn’t fit. This is about being faithful to Scripture, and I that’s what I strive to do.

You are mixing two issues here. One is in justification God making someone righteous. Second that logizomai most often means to consider the actual status of something.

Nobody said it was “our righteousness” as if it originated in ourselves (2 Cor 3:5). As for the “filthy rags” comment, that is one of the most abused passages of all time.

Since you claim to strive to be faithful to Scripture, I would appreciate it if you could point out where “infused” righteousness is defined in the Bible. “Infused” is an invented word when it comes to our salvation.

Your claim that “our righteousness” does not originate in ourselves would follow that we can not save ourselves by any of our own works. It must originate in us to be our own work. It is entirely the “work of God” as Jesus explained.

 

[Crucified]

It does NOT mean to impute an alien status to someone. Logizomai means, in the great majority of the times it occurrs in the NT, to consider what the object ACTUALLY IS. Notice that is how it is used above. So when God ‘reckons/imputes/counts’ someone as righteous that means they ACTUALLY ARE, when sin is NOT imputed that means He does not reckon them to be a sinner because they are NO LONGER ACTUALLY sinful.

Imputation is an economic term meaning “to credit to one’s account.”

I think that your are meaning to establish - correct me if I am wrong - that when God justifies a person - declares that person to be just - it is only because that person is ACTUALLY just. If that is what you mean, then I agree. Their sins have been “taken away” by Christ and “nailed to his cross.” Therefore they are justified - declared to be just - since the taking away of their sins was not hypothetical but ACTUAL.

 

[Crucified]

Since you claim to strive to be faithful to Scripture, I would appreciate it if you could point out where “infused” righteousness is defined in the Bible. “Infused” is an invented word when it comes to our salvation.

I would love to hear the “Catholic Answer” to this one.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Since you claim to strive to be faithful to Scripture, I would appreciate it if you could point out where “infused” righteousness is defined in the Bible. “Infused” is an invented word when it comes to our salvation.

Infused simply describes the concept, like using the term “Trinity” to describe One God in Three Persons. All it is intended to convey is that the soul is made righteous. The Indwelling of the Holy Spirit is the apogee of infused righteousness.

Your claim that “our righteousness” does not originate in ourselves would follow that we can not save ourselves by any of our own works. It must originate in us to be our own work. It is entirely the “work of God” as Jesus explained.

True.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Imputation is an economic term meaning “to credit to one’s account.”

I think that your are meaning to establish - correct me if I am wrong - that when God justifies a person - declares that person to be just - it is only because that person is ACTUALLY just. If that is what you mean, then I agree. Their sins have been “taken away” by Christ and “nailed to his cross.” Therefore they are justified - declared to be just - since the taking away of their sins was not hypothetical but ACTUAL.

No that is not what I mean. If you read Rom 4:18-22 verse 22 tells us exactly why Abraham’s faith was “reckoned” as righteousness. His faith was a genuinely righteous act, from the heart, and God recognized that and blessed Abraham as a result. (also see Ps 106:30f, which uses the same phrase)

Protestants reject the notion of justification entailing an “actually just” soul, quite the opposite. Justification does not have any direct affect on the soul (which remains unrighteous during justification). Also Protestants and Catholics don’t agree what occurred on the Cross. Protestants teach that we deserve a bullet in the head for our sins, but that God turned His gun to Christ’s head and pulled the trigger instead. Catholics utterly reject that “gospel.”

 

[brkn1]

No that is not what I mean. If you read Rom 4:18-22 verse 22 tells us exactly why Abraham’s faith was “reckoned” as righteousness. His faith was a genuinely righteous act, from the heart, and God recognized that and blessed Abraham as a result. (also see Ps 106:30f, which uses the same phrase)

According to your description, Abraham earned God’s blessing and he technically has a right to “boast” that he deserves the blessing. It woud be of debt and not by grace that he gained God’s blessing.

Protestants reject the notion of justification entailing an “actually just” soul, quite the opposite. Justification does not have any direct affect on the soul (which remains unrighteous during justification). Also Protestants and Catholics don’t agree what occurred on the Cross. Protestants teach that we deserve a bullet in the head for our sins, but that God turned His gun to Christ’s head and pulled the trigger instead. Catholics utterly reject that “gospel.”

The Bible indicates that Jesus took the place of the elect on the Cross. Jesus “was delivered for our offences,…”
We deserved eternal damnation for our sin.
We could never repay that penalty (in any way) of ourselves.
The only Way we could be delivered was by the Gift of God’s Son Jesus Christ acting as the Substitute for us on the Cross.
Even the saving faith (accepting and believing in that substitution), which is required to make Christ’s attonement apply to us is a gift (grace) of God.
A person dead in sin can not regenerate himself. It must be completely the work of God as Jesus said.
All are dead in sin until that saving faith regenerates those given by the Father to the Son through the Holy Spirit unto salvation, and that not of ourselves… it is the gift of God.
That is the true Gospel.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

According to your description, Abraham earned God’s blessing and he technically has a right to “boast” that he deserves the blessing. It woud be of debt and not by grace that he gained God’s blessing.

He didn’t ‘earn’ because that is not how faith works. Faith trusts in God, and God is pleased to bless. If someone only does good with the notion God “owes him” then that individual is self-righteous and condemned by Jesus and Paul.

The Bible indicates that Jesus took the place of the elect on the Cross. Jesus “was delivered for our offences,…”
We deserved eternal damnation for our sin.
We could never repay that penalty (in any way) of ourselves.
The only Way we could be delivered was by the Gift of God’s Son Jesus Christ acting as the Substitute for us on the Cross.
Even the saving faith (accepting and believing in that substitution), which is required to make Christ’s attonement apply to us is a gift (grace) of God.

So the Protestant Gospel is that Jesus was damned in our place! …and you don’t see anything wrong with that “gospel” and “theology”?

This is a crystal clear example of the danger of the Protestant system which builds huge doctrines off of surface level thinking and actually ends up undermining and destroying central pillars of the Faith like the Trinity.

This is what Sola Fide does, it drives the Protestant to accept anything, no matter how absurd or blasphemous, as long as Sola Fide is kept safe. To the Protestant, Jesus can go to hell, literally, before Sola Fide can be questioned.

A person dead in sin can not regenerate himself. It must be completely the work of God as Jesus said.
All are dead in sin until that saving faith regenerates those given by the Father to the Son through the Holy Spirit unto salvation, and that not of ourselves… it is the gift of God.
That is the true Gospel.

Which does not necessitate imputing an alien righteousness.

 

[Crucified]

Protestants reject the notion of justification entailing an “actually just” soul, quite the opposite. Justification does not have any direct affect on the soul (which remains unrighteous during justification).

I am sorry but you have a misunderstanding of what we believe.

Can you please let Protestants speak for themselves? I can grab liberal Catholic quotes and make assertions about what Catholics believe all day long and prove nothing. I can also misinterpret genuine Catholic quotes and make assertions about what they believe all day long and still prove nothing.

Catholic Dude, If I ask you what you believe - I will allow you to answer for yourself. I will not tell you what you believe. Please - with an equal amount of respect - do not continue to tell other people what Protestants believe; because so far - I can clearly see that you are ignorant of the facts.

We believe that a man will only be justified - declared to be just - when that person is truly just. A man is made just before God when his sins have actually been “taken away” and he stands only in the righteousness of Christ - a righteousness that is “imputed without works” - (Rom 4:6).

I wonder what you believe about “being in Christ” - is it something that will not take place until glory, or something that will be realized in time? I believe that faith reveals a present reality - so that the one who believes is actually “in Christ Jesus.”

“Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.” (2 Cor. 5:17)

Since this is true - then as the Scriptures teach - my old man has been crucified with Christ – and therefore I am dead to the law and dead to sin. Therefore I am just, for the payment for sin and the satisfaction of the law’s demands have been met by Christ - and that alone is what justifies men.

However, since Jesus paid for all my sin – (even sins that I have not even committed yet) – then to the carnal mind – it appears as if old things are NOT passed away. But the spiritual man knoweth the mystery of God in Christ as an eternal and spiritual reality – not a physical and temporal possibility with no sure foundation.

And yet true believers walk by faith and not by sight – knowing that Christ Jesus hath put away our sins and therefore made us just before God. Therefore we have peace with God by this faith. “For by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are set apart.”

“Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: so that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.” (Romans 3:24-26).

God put forth Christ as a propitiation for the sins of his people – in order to vindicate Himself against the slanderous charge that He simply “passed over sins” in the past, setting aside the righteousness of the Law. But God does not pass over sin –ever– but has demonstrated before the world that He is Righteous and that all sin must be punished. God doesn’t merely forgive sin at the expense of His holiness and righteousness; for He said so Himself, “I will by no means clear the guilty.”

Therefore He put forth Christ to be a propitiation – in order to DECLARE HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS for the remission of sins past. He did this so that He might be just AND the justifier of all who believe on Christ – past, present, and future.

This is what Protestants believe.

Concerning the nature of justification itself - can you prove from the Scriptures that “to justify” is an actual process whereby one is “made inherently good or righteous” ??

 

[brkn1]

He didn’t ‘earn’ because that is not how faith works. Faith trusts in God, and God is pleased to bless. If someone only does good with the notion God “owes him” then that individual is self-righteous and condemned by Jesus and Paul.

So the Protestant Gospel is that Jesus was damned in our place! …and you don’t see anything wrong with that “gospel” and “theology”?

This is a crystal clear example of the danger of the Protestant system which builds huge doctrines off of surface level thinking and actually ends up undermining and destroying central pillars of the Faith like the Trinity.

This is what Sola Fide does, it drives the Protestant to accept anything, no matter how absurd or blasphemous, as long as Sola Fide is kept safe. To the Protestant, Jesus can go to hell, literally, before Sola Fide can be questioned.

Which does not necessitate imputing an alien righteousness.

You invented the idea of Jesus being “damned” in our place.
Jesus paid the complete penalty for our sin on the cross, but that penalty could not be eternal damnation, since Jesus was perfectly holy and sinless.
I think you seriously underestimate the extremely infinite price that Jesus had to suffer to redeem us from the deserved eternal punishment that our sin required.
Only a God Man could pay that price and that price was so much more than just the physical suffering that worldy people imagine.
Sin is so infinitely contrary to a Holy God, that it required God Himself to redeem us from the penalty. Any assumption that we could do anything of ourselves to “help” God in this respect is insulting to God’s Sacrifice.
The infinite love shown by God’s Sacrifice is also insulted and denigrated by the foolish assumption that we can “help” in our redemption.
The glory that God obtained by His Sacrifice of infinite love will be what Heaven is all about as we forever love, thank, and praise Him, as we keep continuing to discover just how much He first loved us. It is love that can never be described. All praise and glory be to our Most Holy God forever!

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I am sorry but you have a misunderstanding of what we believe.

I can clearly see that you are ignorant of the facts.

I’ve read the major classical Protestant Creeds and Confessions like the Book of Concord, Westminster Confession, etc., as well as read books on justification by faith alone by respected Protestant apologists like White, Sproul, Piper, etc

In the link in my signature I quote clear and direct passages from the Book of Concord and Westminster that clearly state justification has no effect on the soul, the soul remains unchanged, it is a declaration only.

We believe that a man will only be justified - declared to be just - when that person is truly just. A man is made just before God when his sins have actually been “taken away” and he stands only in the righteousness of Christ - a righteousness that is “imputed without works” - (Rom 4:6).

Not when a person is “truly just,” for that obliterates the need for an alien righteousness to be imputed to you. You’re definition of “truly just” is like me covering a stain in the carpet with a fancy rug and calling that spot “truly clean.”

I wonder what you believe about “being in Christ” - is it something that will not take place until glory, or something that will be realized in time? I believe that faith reveals a present reality - so that the one who believes is actually “in Christ Jesus.”

“Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.” (2 Cor. 5:17)

This is quite ironic for this verse explicitly says the sinner is a new creation, an actual transformation took place, the exact opposite of what imputation does. Imputation covers, overlooks, bypasses, the ACTUAL status of the soul (which is actually unrighteous).
Catholics, along with Scripture, teach justification entails an actual transformation in the soul, Protestants (at least those faithful to the Reformers) flatly reject that.

Since this is true - then as the Scriptures teach - my old man has been crucified with Christ – and therefore I am dead to the law and dead to sin. Therefore I am just, for the payment for sin and the satisfaction of the law’s demands have been met by Christ - and that alone is what justifies men.

You are just externally only, that is my point.

However, since Jesus paid for all my sin – (even sins that I have not even committed yet) – then to the carnal mind – it appears as if old things are NOT passed away. But the spiritual man knoweth the mystery of God in Christ as an eternal and spiritual reality – not a physical and temporal possibility with no sure foundation.

The Bible nowhere says sins are pre-forgiven and that Jesus died so you could sin. If Jesus already got punished for a sin you would commit in the future, that means he pre-paid for sin, and that is blasphemy. Further, it is pure blasphemy to suggest you appear perfectly righteous in God’s sight even during the very moment of grave sins like rape and murder because righteousness is purely external.

And yet true believers walk by faith and not by sight – knowing that Christ Jesus hath put away our sins and therefore made us just before God. Therefore we have peace with God by this faith. “For by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are set apart.”

“Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: so that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.” (Romans 3:24-26).

God put forth Christ as a propitiation for the sins of his people – in order to vindicate Himself against the slanderous charge that He simply “passed over sins” in the past, setting aside the righteousness of the Law. But God does not pass over sin –ever– but has demonstrated before the world that He is Righteous and that all sin must be punished. God doesn’t merely forgive sin at the expense of His holiness and righteousness; for He said so Himself, “I will by no means clear the guilty.”

Therefore He put forth Christ to be a propitiation – in order to DECLARE HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS for the remission of sins past. He did this so that He might be just AND the justifier of all who believe on Christ – past, present, and future.

God was not “vindicating Himself against the slanderous charge that He simply passes over sins.” God was vindincating Himself only so far as He promised a Messiah and was vindicated when it was revealed that He actually sent that Messiah. The most illogical part of the Protestant idea of justification is that they go to great lenghts to show how justification is a purely legal event in a courtroom setting, yet right in the midst of strict law and justice we see ‘mercy’ and ‘faith’ exercised (things which don’t belong in the courtroom) and worse yet they claim ‘justice’ entails God punishing an innocent person so He wouldn’t have to punish the criminal.

This is what Protestants believe.

I know what Protestants believe, and you have nowhere shown I actually misrepresented you.

Concerning the nature of justification itself - can you prove from the Scriptures that “to justify” is an actual process whereby one is “made inherently good or righteous” ??

Yes. Titus 3:4-7 is one of the best proofs (also note 1 Cor 6:9-11 where God justifies the ‘ungodly’ Corinthians). Also, the fact we see Abraham justified multiple times further proves this.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

You invented the idea of Jesus being “damned” in our place.
Jesus paid the complete penalty for our sin on the cross, but that penalty could not be eternal damnation, since Jesus was perfectly holy and sinless.
I think you seriously underestimate the extremely infinite price that Jesus had to suffer to redeem us from the deserved eternal punishment that our sin required.
Only a God Man could pay that price and that price was so much more than just the physical suffering that worldy people imagine.
Sin is so infinitely contrary to a Holy God, that it required God Himself to redeem us from the penalty. Any assumption that we could do anything of ourselves to “help” God in this respect is insulting to God’s Sacrifice.
The infinite love shown by God’s Sacrifice is also insulted and denigrated by the foolish assumption that we can “help” in our redemption.
The glory that God obtained by His Sacrifice of infinite love will be what Heaven is all about as we forever love, thank, and praise Him, as we keep continuing to discover just how much He first loved us. It is love that can never be described. All praise and glory be to our Most Holy God forever!

I did not invent that idea at all, you and others continue to admit it. The sinner deserves hellfire, and Jesus took that punishment you deserved, that is Penal-Substitution by definition.

A well known Protestant author and radio host named John MacArthur said this in his recent book titled “The Murder of Jesus”:
To [Jesus] was imputed the guilt of their sins, and He was suffering the punishment for those sins on their behalf. And the very essence of that punishment was the outpouring of God’s wrath against sinners. In some mysterious way during those awful hours on the cross, the Father poured out the full measure of His wrath against sin, and the recipient of that wrath was God’s own beloved Son.
In this lies the true meaning of the cross."
(page 219, emphasis mine)

“Christ died in our place and in our stead - and He received the very same outpouring of divine wrath in all its fury that we deserved for our sin. It was a punishment so severe that a mortal could spend all eternity in the torments of hell, and still he would not have begun to exhaust the divine wrath that was heaped on Christ at the cross.
This was the true measure of Christ’s sufferings on the cross. The physical pains of crucifixion - dreadful as they were - were nothing compared to the wrath of the Father against Him. The anticipation of this was what had caused Him to sweat blood in the garden. This is why He looked ahead to the cross with such horror. We cannot begin to fathom all that was involved in paying the price of our sin. It’s sufficient to understand that all our worst fears about the horrors of hell - and more - were realized by Him as He received the due penalty of others’ wrongdoing.
And in that awful, sacred hour, it was as if the Father abandoned Him. Though there was surely no interruption in the Father’s love for Him as a Son, God nonetheless turned away from Him and forsook Him as our substitute.”
(page 220-221, emphasis mine)
The Protestant Gospel is pure blasphemy and heresy, all maintained for the sake of defending Sola Fide at all costs.