imputed righteousness

[Crucified]

Yes. Titus 3:4-7 is one of the best proofs.

This passage is not speaking about justification in the experiential sense - but regeneration in the experiential sense; and that regeneration is the consequence of Christ having objectively justified us by His death and resurrection. Being “made heirs” is not a process of holiness - but was accomplished by Christ. His death and resurrection made us heirs.

1 Cor 6:9-11 where God justifies the ‘ungodly’ Corinthians.

Uh . . . where is the process?

This passage gives us the fact that God justifies the ungodly - not how God justifies the ungodly.

Also, the fact we see Abraham justified multiple times further proves this.

The sum of the whole is this: we are justified freely by God’s grace, meritoriously by Christ’s righteousness, instrumentally by faith, and *evidentially * by good works.

So Abraham’s justification is one justification - viewed from different aspects.

Christians were decretively justified from all eternity: efficaciously so when Christ rose again from the dead; actually so when they believed; sensibly so when the Spirit bestows joyous assurance; and manifestly so when they tread the path of obedience. :thankyou:

 

[brkn1]

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.

I see a lot of quoting of others and words such as “Penal-Substitution” in your posts.

Perhaps you could explain what you understand as the RCC position on exactly what happened on the Cross. I would appreciate relative simplicity if you are able to do so.
Please show me where you see the heresy and blasphemy.
Thanks.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

This passage is not speaking about justification in the experiential sense - but regeneration in the experiential sense; and that regeneration is the consequence of Christ having objectively justified us by His death and resurrection. Being “made heirs” is not a process of holiness - but was accomplished by Christ. His death and resurrection made us heirs.

Experiential sense? So explain the phrase in v7, “having been justified by his grace.”

Uh . . . where is the process?

That passage is talking about the beginning of the process, which is an inner transformation. The real issue is whether justification transforms the soul, and Protestants deny this.

This passage gives us the fact that God justifies the ungodly - not how God justifies the ungodly.

So words like “washed” and “sanctified” have nothing to do with it?

The sum of the whole is this: we are justified freely by God’s grace, meritoriously by Christ’s righteousness, instrumentally by faith, and *evidentially * by good works.

The Bible never uses the phrase “Christ’s Righteousness” and never says such a thing is imputed. The Bible does not say faith is the only instrument for justification (eg Ps 106:30f). The Bible does not use good works as merely fruit proving salvation (because good works are not guaranteed, eg 2 Pt 1:9), but also as a condition for salvation (Gal 6:7-9).

So Abraham’s justification is one justification - viewed from different aspects.

Three different dates in his life is equivalent to three different aspects? That doesn’t make sense. But even if you want to argue that, it demolishes your claim for Gen 12 clearly shows this “faith” was in the fact Abraham “obeyed” (Heb 11:8). And even more damning to your argument that they are merely different aspects is Gen 26:4-5 (hardly faith alone).

Christians were decretively justified from all eternity: efficaciously so when Christ rose again from the dead; actually so when they believed; sensibly so when the Spirit bestows joyous assurance; and manifestly so when they tread the path of obedience. :thankyou:

This is irrelevant because I could agree with everything you said but have a different definition of justify.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I see a lot of quoting of others and words such as “Penal-Substitution” in your posts.

Perhaps you could explain what you understand as the RCC position on exactly what happened on the Cross. I would appreciate relative simplicity if you are able to do so.
Please show me where you see the heresy and blasphemy.
Thanks.

The most basic answer I can give at this moment is to read an apologetics article I wrote (see my signature):
catholicdefense.googlepages.com/article.htm
Go to chapter 2, which distinguishes the Catholic view from the Protestant view. I wrote my article as basic as I could, and though it looks long it actually reads pretty fast overall.

 

[brkn1]

This is quite ironic for this verse [2 Cor.5:17] 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).
. .

A new creation is not the same thing as a transformation.
The Holy Spirit plants something entirely new in a regenerated man. This new creation is described as “incorruptible”.
You are assuming that the old man is what is transformed into a new creation, when actually that old man begins dying as the new incorruptible nature assumes dominance. The old carnal man and the new inward spiritual man are what Paul described as the war within himself in Romans 7.

 

[brkn1]

The most basic answer I can give at this moment is to read an apologetics article I wrote (see my signature):
catholicdefense.googlepages.com/article.htm
Go to chapter 2, which distinguishes the Catholic view from the Protestant view. I wrote my article as basic as I could, and though it looks long it actually reads pretty fast overall.

I have read this and I promise to get back to you after studying it more thoroughly. Thanks.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Here is a question for the Protestants about imputed righteousness. One reason the Catholic position makes sense is that it correlates to observed reality. People who profess Chrsit to be baptized are often no ‘nicer’ than people who don’t, that is, we need continual grace throughout life and our perfection is a process. According to the Protestant opinion as soon as someone accepts Christ as Savior that person has Christ’s imputed righteousness and is now saved. Any goodness that they do is a response to this grace,

What else could it be ?​

the grace has enabledt hem to do good and also causes in them a deep sense of gratitude that they express through good works. But one thing that never completed made sense to me is that if this is the case 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.

Because they are not perfect, nor does the doctrine require them to be. You’re overlooking the imputedness of Christ’s Righteousness - it’s imputed,​

which is perfectly compatible with its empirical inevidentiality.

Your argument proves too much - for a consecrated host is equally impossible to tell apart from one that is not: the effect of the consecration is anything but obvious Yet it is real.

You may ask, how is the Catholic position any improvement on this? Because it acknowledges that life is a process, faith is a process and the road to perfection is a process- that is just the empirical reality. Hence there are saints who are closest to perfection and they are in a very obvious way different from those just starting down the road. That’s why we need continual infusions of grace in life, and that’s also why Catholicism posits purgatory.

Any thoughts?

What you say, though true, does not make imputation of Christ’s merits to the justified sinner any less a fact (if fact it be).​

The empirical argument is not IMHO a good one - simply because empirically, viewed without faith, Jesus was indeed a false prophet, blasphemer & seducer of the people. Only to the eyes of faith do the accusations against Him become true in a sense that His critics did not intend. Humanly speaking, they were completely in the right. Christ was made sin, that in Him the Christian might become the Righteousness of God - His Righteousness & the unrighteousness of the sinner are exchanged.

Sight is the very thing by which we cannot walk - we have to walk by faith, and not by sight. Sight shows Christ to be an evildoer - faith OTOH shows Him to be “God-with-us”. If we begin with faith, we should continue in faith, so as to end in faith; not support purselves by sight, by empirical tests. If we do that, we put ourselves in danger of denying God’s goodness, & even His existence: for there is plenty of evidence in the world that God is nothing, & always was nothing

As for the difference between Saints & others - that might be countered by pointing out that however holy creatures might be, in comparison with the Infinitely Holy God no creature is anything. It is God Who must be impressed - not man ; & God can’t be impressed, for all holiness in all creatures is from Him Alone, the Alone-Holy. Saints can be quoted to show their awareness of their nothingness & sinfulness - but how many can be quoted as witnesses to their holiness ? Only non-Saints are vain enough to think they are Saints.

 

[With_Questions]

The most basic answer I can give at this moment is to read an apologetics article I wrote (see my signature):
catholicdefense.googlepages.com/article.htm
Go to chapter 2, which distinguishes the Catholic view from the Protestant view. I wrote my article as basic as I could, and though it looks long it actually reads pretty fast overall.

I actually am spending the time to read it and try to understand it.

It seems to be a quite well written article.

I have finished the first two sections. I will ask my questions piecemeal.

And now my questions.

Chapter One:

How do Catholics handle the Scriptures: Isaiah 64:6: “And all of our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment?.” Romans 3:10-18:
“There is none righteous, not even one. and following…”

For all: What is the relevance of the differences here. Is this haggling over details or is it something significant?

Chapter Two

Are you saying that the only difference here is that the Protestant Position is that the Father was actively pouring out His wrath on the Son as he was dying on the cross? I have questions for both on this one.

To Protestants: What do you exactly mean by this? Was the excruciating death on the cross not enough for the Father so He decided to add to the torments of Christ by additional torture?

To Catholics: When Jesus said on the cross “My God My God why has Thou forsaken Me” what does that mean?

For all: What is the relevance of the differences here. Is this haggling over details or is it something significant (repeat of question 1…how is this important)?

 

[Crucified]

Experiential sense? So explain the phrase in v7, “having been justified by his grace.”

This justification was an objective accomplishment, merited by the gracious act of God sacrificing Christ on our behalf. Please notice that faith is not in the passage - only grace.

That passage is talking about the beginning of the process, which is an inner transformation.

Yes - and the beginning of that process is regeneration.

Regeneration is the first application of redemptive benefits to the soul - which is the beginning of the transformation process that continues through sanctification unto glorification. Justification is not an “inner transformation” but is the legal declaration that provides the only legitimate grounds for any person to be regenerated and transformed by the Spirit of God.

So words like “washed” and “sanctified” have nothing to do with it?

Again - this is regeneration - the new birth.

The Bible never uses the phrase “Christ’s Righteousness” and never says such a thing is imputed.

The Bible teaches that “all our righteousness is as filthy rags” before the Lord - (Isa 64:6).

The Bible goes on to affirm that Christ “is our righteousness.” (1 Cor. 1:30)

The Bible also affirms that this “righteousness is imputed without works.” (Romans 4:6)

The Bible also makes it very clear that this imputation of righteousness is by faith “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.” (Romans 4:23, 24)

The Bible does not say faith is the only instrument for justification (eg Ps 106:30f).

Show me where there is anything else stated to be the instument of justification besides faith.

The Bible does not use good works as merely fruit proving salvation (because good works are not guaranteed, eg 2 Pt 1:9), but also as a condition for salvation (Gal 6:7-9).

You are taking manifestative principles and turning them into conditional propositions - the Scritptures do not allow this “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus UNTO good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.” (Eph. 2:8-10) “Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began.” (2 Tim 1:9) “And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.” (Romans 11:6)

Three different dates in his life is equivalent to three different aspects? That doesn’t make sense.

And I am pretty sure it never will.

Again - the sum of the whole is this:

We are justified freely by God’s grace, meritoriously by Christ’s righteousness, instrumentally by faith, and evidentially by good works.

So Abraham’s justification was not a process- but was one reality viewed from different aspects, and manifested in different ways.

Christians were decretively justified from all eternity: efficaciously so when Christ rose again from the dead; actually so when they believed; sensibly so when the Spirit bestows joyous assurance; and manifestly so when they tread the path of obedience.

 

[brkn1]

The most basic answer I can give at this moment is to read an apologetics article I wrote (see my signature):
catholicdefense.googlepages.com/article.htm
Go to chapter 2, which distinguishes the Catholic view from the Protestant view. I wrote my article as basic as I could, and though it looks long it actually reads pretty fast overall.

You say in your article that: “Jesus offered Himself up to the Father not as a whipping boy…” and that "God did not punish His own Son in wrath as a “substitutionary punishment” for our sin.

How do you reconcile this claim with (Isaiah 53:10-11)? :

“10. Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He hath put Him to grief: when Thou shalt make His soul an offering for sin, He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in His hand.
11. He shall see the travail of His soul, and shall be satisfied: by His knowledge shall My righteous Servant justify many; for He shall bear their iniquities.”

These verses contradict the whole theme of your article.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

A new creation is not the same thing as a transformation.

It is talking about the same thing, a change inside the soul takes place and that is out of the question when it comes to justification and Protestants.

The Holy Spirit plants something entirely new in a regenerated man. This new creation is described as “incorruptible”. You are assuming that the old man is what is transformed into a new creation, when actually that old man begins dying as the new incorruptible nature assumes dominance. The old carnal man and the new inward spiritual man are what Paul described as the war within himself in Romans 7.

A change is still taking place inside the soul, Protestant justification denies that.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I actually am spending the time to read it and try to understand it.

It seems to be a quite well written article.

I have finished the first two sections. I will ask my questions piecemeal.

Good. Thank you.

And now my questions.

Chapter One:

How do Catholics handle the Scriptures: Isaiah 64:6: “And all of our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment?.” Romans 3:10-18:
“There is none righteous, not even one. and following…”

For all: What is the relevance of the differences here. Is this haggling over details or is it something significant?

The Is 64:6 passage is a HUGE favorite of Protestants, but is actually one of the most abused passages of all time. Note the context: 5 You come to the help of those who gladly do right,
who remember your ways.
But when we continued to sin against them,
you were angry.
How then can we be saved?
6 All of us have become like one who is unclean,
and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags;
we all shrivel up like a leaf,
and like the wind our sins sweep us away.

Protestants read v6 and say EVERYTHING we do “filthy rags,” when that is not what the passage meant at all. Note v5, it clearly says when they do good God is pleased. What the passage (and Isaiah as a whole) is saying is that the Jews kept turning back to sin so often that their good works didn’t mean anything anymore, they werent really sorry enough to change. It would be like a child apologizing to the parent, the parent loves when the child apologizes, but there comes a point where an apology wont cut it if the child is going to abuse things.

Rom 3:10 and other such passages Catholics fully believe, we are all born unrighteous due to the fall and our own powers cannot change that…BUT that does not mean we can NEVER BE righteous (which we can and must) and that is by the power of God at work in us.
Lk 1: 5There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. 6And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

1 Jn 1: 9If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.

1 Jn 3: 7Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. He who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous.

For all: What is the relevance of the differences here. Is this haggling over details or is it something significant?

The real difference is that Catholics and Protestants understand Original Sin very differently (I talk about this in ch1 of my article). We start off with different ‘problems’ that have to be solved, so logically we come up with different ‘solutions’ (eg imputed grace versus infused grace).

Chapter Two

Are you saying that the only difference here is that the Protestant Position is that the Father was actively pouring out His wrath on the Son as he was dying on the cross? I have questions for both on this one.

No, that is not what I meant nor said. Protestants believe God drained His wrath on Jesus, Catholics totally reject that. God’s wrath was dumped on nobody, it was appeased so nobody (including Jesus) would undergo it.

Clear examples of a hero turning away God’s wrath by good works (without the hero taking the wrath) are in Deut 9:15-20 (Ps 106:19-23) and Num 25:5-13 (Ps 106:28-31) and Job 42:7-9.

To Protestants: What do you exactly mean by this? Was the excruciating death on the cross not enough for the Father so He decided to add to the torments of Christ by additional torture?

There was no ‘additional’ torture for Protestants, the real meaning, to them, of the Cross was about God’s wrath being dumped on Christ, while the ‘external’ sufferings by the Jews and Romans was more or less a side show. (See Post #40)

(Cont )

 

[Catholic_Dude]

(cont 2 of 2)

To Catholics: When Jesus said on the cross “My God My God why has Thou forsaken Me” what does that mean?

It means God did not rescue Jesus from the evil men. Jesus was actually quoting Psalm 22 when He said that and was applying it to Himself. When the people heard that, they would immediately have recognized it was Ps 22: 1 My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
**Why are you **so far from saving me,
so far from the words of my groaning? 2 O my God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer,
by night, and am not silent.
3 Yet you are enthroned as the Holy One;
you are the praise of Israel. a]
4 In you our fathers put their trust;
they trusted and you delivered them.
5 They cried to you and were saved;
in you they trusted and were not disappointed.
6 But I am a worm and not a man,
scorned by men and despised by the people.
7 All who see me mock me;
they hurl insults, shaking their heads:
8 “He trusts in the LORD;
let the LORD rescue him.
Let him deliver him,
since he delights in him.”
9 Yet you brought me out of the womb;
you made me trust in you
even at my mother’s breast.
10 From birth I was cast upon you;
from my mother’s womb you have been my God.
11 Do not be far from me,
for trouble is near
and there is no one to help.
12 Many bulls surround me;
strong bulls of Bashan encircle me.
13 Roaring lions tearing their prey
open their mouths wide against me.
14 I am poured out like water,
and all my bones are out of joint.
My heart has turned to wax;
it has melted away within me.
15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd,
and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth;
you lay me **(“http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ps 22;&version=31;#fen-NIV-14220b”)] in the dust of death.
16 Dogs have surrounded me;
a band of evil men has encircled me,
they have pierced my hands and my feet.
17 I can count all my bones;
people stare and gloat over me.
18 They divide my garments among them
and cast lots for my clothing.
19 But you, O LORD, be not far off;
O my Strength, come quickly to help me.
20 Deliver my life from the sword,
my precious life from the power of the dogs.
21 Rescue me from the mouth of the lions;
save me from the horns of the wild oxen.
22 I will declare your name to my brothers;
in the congregation I will praise you.
23 You who fear the LORD, praise him!
All you descendants of Jacob, honor him!
Revere him, all you descendants of Israel!
24 For he has not despised or disdained
the suffering of the afflicted one;
he has not hidden his face from him
but has listened to his cry for help.
25 From you comes the theme of my praise in the great assembly;
before those who fear you e] will I fulfill my vows.
26 The poor will eat and be satisfied;
they who seek the LORD will praise him—
may your hearts live forever!
27 All the ends of the earth
will remember and turn to the LORD,
and all the families of the nations
will bow down before him,
28 for dominion belongs to the LORD
and he rules over the nations.

Notice that these are all unjust physical attacks by wicked men, nothing at all about God the Father spiritually abandoning His Son. Once you read ALL of Psalm 22 it becomes VERY clear what Jesus is saying.

BUT NOT FOR Protestants. Protestants think “why have you abandoned me” means God the Father abandoned Jesus just as if God were abandoning a damned soul to hellfire. That is utter blasphemy.

For all: What is the relevance of the differences here. Is this haggling over details or is it something significant (repeat of question 1…how is this important)?

These issues are critical and in them determine whether the Catholic Church was right all along and was truly faithful to Scripture and that Luther and Protestants invented a heretical gospel, OR whether Rome was in grave error this whole time and Luther was a hero. This is a ‘winner takes all’ level of seriousness and I believe the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the Catholic position and stands in direct contrast to the unBiblical, heretical, and blasphemous conclusions of Luther.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

This justification was an objective accomplishment, merited by the gracious act of God sacrificing Christ on our behalf. Please notice that faith is not in the passage - only grace.

That passage is clearly about the individual being saved, and v4-7 make that clear.

As for “faith” not being mentioned, so what? The phrase “washing of regeneration and renewal by the Spirit” is in reference to Baptism (footnote 5.3).

Yes - and the beginning of that process is regeneration.

The whole passage (v4-7) is a single thought.

Regeneration is the first application of redemptive benefits to the soul - which is the beginning of the transformation process that continues through sanctification unto glorification. Justification is not an “inner transformation” but is the legal declaration that provides the only legitimate grounds for any person to be regenerated and transformed by the Spirit of God.

This is another serious issue Calvinists cannot explain, they admit regeneration causes an inner transformation, yet they believe justification is not based on anything in us and must be by an alien righteousness. Further, the Bible makes no such distinction as Protestants make.

Again - this is regeneration - the new birth.

You’re parsing the passage when it is one complete thought as well as introducing a logical absurdity: first inner transformation (regen), then external righteousness (justif), then back to inner transformation (sanct).

The Bible teaches that “all our righteousness is as filthy rags” before the Lord - (Isa 64:6).

Protestants love this passage, but it is one of the most abused passages of all time (see post 52).

The Bible goes on to affirm that Christ “is our righteousness.” (1 Cor. 1:30)

He is the source of our righteousness, as the rest of that verse demonstrates. The Bible nowhere talks about “Christ’s Righteousness” in the sense it is a status that is imputed to us.

The Bible also affirms that this “righteousness is imputed without works.” (Romans 4:6)

Nowhere does this passage or context say it is “Christ’s Righteousness” that is imputed, and you already know that the Greek word used here for “impute” does not mean what you claim it means (Post 26).

The Bible also makes it very clear that this imputation of righteousness is by faith “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.” (Romans 4:23, 24)

Irrelevant because Catholic have no problem with that. The real issue is that Protestants and Catholics define justification differently.

Show me where there is anything else stated to be the instument of justification besides faith.

Ps 106:30f (referencing Num 25:5-13) explicitly teaches Phinehas’ good work was “credited as righteousness.”

You are taking manifestative principles and turning them into conditional propositions - the Scritptures do not allow this “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus UNTO good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.” (Eph. 2:8-10) “Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began.” (2 Tim 1:9) “And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.” (Romans 11:6)

You totally brushed off my two clear passages, 2 Pt 1:9 and Gal 6:7. Those passages you cite don’t contradict what I said nor the Catholic position, and nowhere do your passages (or any passage) teach good works are guaranteed.

As for Eph 2:8, I wrote another article on that and why it actually proves the Catholic position rather than the Protestant one.

And I am pretty sure it never will.

It will never make sense to you?

Again - the sum of the whole is this:

We are justified freely by God’s grace, meritoriously by Christ’s righteousness, instrumentally by faith, and evidentially by good works.

So Abraham’s justification was not a process- but was one reality viewed from different aspects, and manifested in different ways.

Christians were decretively justified from all eternity: efficaciously so when Christ rose again from the dead; actually so when they believed; sensibly so when the Spirit bestows joyous assurance; and manifestly so when they tread the path of obedience.

You are ignoring what I said and just repeating yourself. The Bible teaches Abraham was justified at MULTIPLE different EVENTS in his life…that is NOT the same as looking back to one event or looking at one aspect. The fact Abraham believed in God long before Gen 15:6 demolishes the Protestant position. (see my sig, that means by the time 15:6 came around Abraham was actually in the sanctification phase, if Protestant theology is to be consistent).

 

[Catholic_Dude]

You say in your article that: “Jesus offered Himself up to the Father not as a whipping boy…” and that "God did not punish His own Son in wrath as a “substitutionary punishment” for our sin.

How do you reconcile this claim with (Isaiah 53:10-11)? :

“10. Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He hath put Him to grief: when Thou shalt make His soul an offering for sin, He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in His hand.
11. He shall see the travail of His soul, and shall be satisfied: by His knowledge shall My righteous Servant justify many; for He shall bear their iniquities.”

These verses contradict the whole theme of your article.

No. That is an OT prophecy that must be interpreted in light of how the NT shows them unfold. Look at all 4 Gospel Crucifixion accounts, nowhere do we see God inflicting a punishment on Jesus which is quite astonishing if that is the real meaning of the Cross (as Protestants say). Acts of the Apostles makes this just as clear in many places (eg Acts 3:13-15). Passages like Is 53:10a are interpreted by Catholics in reference to passages like Rom 8:32 and Acts 2:23-24 which mean God’s grand plan was to allow Jesus to endure what wicked men would do and God would not stop it.
Further, we must look at how Is 53 is quoted in the NT, and the most explicit reference is from 1 Pt 2:
18Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. 19For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God. 20But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. 21To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.
22"He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth." {Is 53:9} 23When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. {Is 53:7} Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. 24He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.{Is 53:5}
Notice the theme of Peter directly quoting and alluding to Is 53. Peter’s theme is that it is pleasing in God’s sight to endure injustice for the sake of God…nothing at all about God unleashing His wrath.

I’m taking all the Biblical evidence and basing my conclusions off of that, Protestants take one or two verses and interpret everything else in light of them which in the end makes everything surrounding the cross a mere side show to the ‘real issue’ of God dumping His wrath on His Beloved Son.

 

[brkn1]

No. That is an OT prophecy that must be interpreted in light of how the NT shows them unfold. Look at all 4 Gospel Crucifixion accounts, nowhere do we see God inflicting a punishment on Jesus which is quite astonishing if that is the real meaning of the Cross (as Protestants say). Acts of the Apostles makes this just as clear in many places (eg Acts 3:13-15). Passages like Is 53:10a are interpreted by Catholics in reference to passages like Rom 8:32 and Acts 2:23-24 which mean God’s grand plan was to allow Jesus to endure what wicked men would do and God would not stop it.

Further, we must look at how Is 53 is quoted in the NT, and the most explicit reference is from 1 Pt 2:18Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. 19For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God. 20But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. 21To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.

22"He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth." {Is 53:9} 23When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. {Is 53:7} Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. 24He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.{Is 53:5}Notice the theme of Peter directly quoting and alluding to Is 53. Peter’s theme is that it is pleasing in God’s sight to endure injustice for the sake of God…nothing at all about God unleashing His wrath.

I’m taking all the Biblical evidence and basing my conclusions off of that, Protestants take one or two verses and interpret everything else in light of them which in the end makes everything surrounding the cross a mere side show to the ‘real issue’ of God dumping His wrath on His Beloved Son.

Let’s see if I got this straight, after reading the biblical quotes you provided:

24.He (Jesus) BORE OUR SINS in His body on the tree,…"

That means Jesus was our sin-bearer as I understand it, but you seem to believe that Jesus was just suffering to “leave us an example, that we should follow in His steps”.

If Jesus willingly suffered the wrath of the Father against our sins that Jesus willingly bore for us, then how do you come up with the idea that it was “unjust” for the Father to punish His willing (though innocent) Son for our sins. Jesus was the only One capable of redeeming us from our sin as a sin-bearer, if He was willing to. God’s Holiness does not allow Him to simply overlook sin(without punishment) as you claim. His Holiness and Perfect Justice would suffer if He did so.

You or anyone else can not be a sin-bearer for anyone, including yourself, since none of us are innocent, as Jesus was and is.

 

[Snow]

Here is a question for the Protestants about imputed righteousness. One reason the Catholic position makes sense is that it correlates to observed reality. People who profess Chrsit to be baptized are often no ‘nicer’ than people who don’t, that is, we need continual grace throughout life and our perfection is a process. According to the Protestant opinion as soon as someone accepts Christ as Savior that person has Christ’s imputed righteousness and is now saved. Any goodness that they do is a response to this grace, the grace has enabledt hem to do good and also causes in them a deep sense of gratitude that they express through good works. But one thing that never completed made sense to me is that if this is the case 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.

You may ask, how is the Catholic position any improvement on this? Because it acknowledges that life is a process, faith is a process and the road to perfection is a process- that is just the empirical reality. Hence there are saints who are closest to perfection and they are in a very obvious way different from those just starting down the road. That’s why we need continual infusions of grace in life, and that’s also why Catholicism posits purgatory.

Any thoughts?

Great post… but I think lots of denominations besides the RCC would agree with you.

Born-again evangelicals probably wouldn’t. For them or some of them being saved is as simple as accepting Christ and believing. For many other Christian, exercising faith is just the start.

 

[Crucified]

The phrase “washing of regeneration and renewal by the Spirit” is in reference to Baptism.

That passage has nothing to do with baptism.

This is another serious issue Calvinists cannot explain, they admit regeneration causes an inner transformation, yet they believe justification is not based on anything in us and the Bible makes no such distinction as Protestants make.

I can explain it – though you cannot seem to be able to admit it.

Regeneration is the first of all graces applied to the soul – which leads to faith in Christ. When a person believes on Christ, his legal status changes by virtue of justification being brought and applied to the soul. Now when I say that justification is not BASED upon anything in us – I think that you are confusing objective and subjective truth. My justification is not GROUNDED upon faith – but upon the finished work of Christ. And yet it is not APPLIED by the finished work of Christ – but by faith. These are two different aspects of salvation. Redemption accomplished – and redemption applied.

He is the source of our righteousness, as the rest of that verse demonstrates. The Bible nowhere talks about “Christ’s Righteousness” in the sense it is a status that is imputed to us.

Nowhere does the Bible say that he is the source of our righteousness – but rather that he is our righteousness. Show me otherwise.

The real issue is that Protestants and Catholics define justification differently.

This is true – Protestants define justification according to the word of God.

You totally brushed off my two clear passages, 2 Pt 1:9 and Gal 6:7. Those passages you cite don’t contradict what I said nor the Catholic position, and nowhere do your passages (or any passage) teach good works are guaranteed.

2 Peter 1:9 does not prove this assertion of yours. It only teaches that we need to constantly be reminded of our salvation – which is the motive for all good works. And the one who is not producing these virtues has neglected the contemplation of God’s grace. However if he is truly saved – a swift remembrance is all that is needed. This is why Peter wrote these two epistles – “to stir up their pure minds by way of remembrance.” (3:1)

Christ taught his disciples: “You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain.” The bible is clear – Jesus Christ has a purpose for those he saves, and he does not leave his purposes unfulfilled. He “gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.” (Titus 2:14) Does Jesus ever fail in this regard? No! “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.” (Eph. 2:8-10). If God has ordained us unto good works – then we shall produce these good works. Remember that it is God - not us - who produces good works anyways - for He is the one who makes you “perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ.” (Heb 13:21)

Catholic Dude, you are now calling into question – not the ability of the believer to keep his salvation – but the ability of God to fulfill His purposes. Actually what you end up doing by employing this shameful tactic is denying the efficacy of the blood of Christ – I mean, the bible is so plain - “How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” (Heb 9:14)

The fact of the matter is - every believer who is justified is guaranteed to produce good works – for James said that “faith without works is dead.” Paul said that “the fruit of the Spirit is manifest” – and Jesus said that “you can tell a tree by it’s fruit.” Concerning Galatians 6, we must remember the pattern that Scripture sets down. There is a thing called categorical manifestation – meaning that IF you do not manifest good works – you are demonstrating that you have not been justified by faith and shall not be saved from the wrath to come!

What does this foolish assertion have to do with imputed righteousness anyways?

You are ignoring what I said and just repeating yourself. The Bible teaches Abraham was justified at MULTIPLE different EVENTS in his life…that is NOT the same as looking back to one event or looking at one aspect.

Abraham was justified by the death of Christ – and this justification was applied when he believed God – and this justification was made manifest when he offered up his son. There is only one justification for every child of God – though that justification has many aspects to it.

It was purposed in eternity.
It was accomplished on the cross.
It is applied at the moment of faith.
It is manifested through our works.

Since “to be justified” means “to be declared to be righteous” then there should be more than one confirmation of a justified person’s righteousness.

When men see that I do good works - they “justify me” or “declare me to be righteous” - though this aspect of the truth is not under dispute.I get the feeling that you are actually purporting that Abraham was justified BY GOD on more than one occasion - and this is utterly false. Please prove this.

Christ died and accomplished his justification once for all time - the faith of Abraham applied that justification to his soul once for all times, and yet that justification will be made manifest and shall be confirmed by his works numerous times throughout his entire life.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Let’s see if I got this straight, after reading the biblical quotes you provided:

24.He (Jesus) BORE OUR SINS in His body on the tree,…"

That means Jesus was our sin-bearer as I understand it** [1], but you seem to believe that Jesus was just suffering to “leave us an example, that we should follow in His steps”.[2]**

If Jesus willingly suffered the wrath of the Father against our sins that Jesus willingly bore for us, then how do you come up with the idea that it was “unjust” for the Father to punish His willing (though innocent) Son for our sins.[3] Jesus was the only One capable of redeeming us from our sin as a sin-bearer, if He was willing to. **[4] **God’s Holiness does not allow Him to simply overlook sin(without punishment) as you claim. His Holiness and Perfect Justice would suffer if He did so. [5]

You or anyone else can not be a sin-bearer for anyone, including yourself, since none of us are innocent, as Jesus was and is.**[6] **

[1] Jesus was our sin-bearer, but NOT in the sense of Penal-Substitution. Bearing sin does not mean Jesus unstrapped the sinner out of the electric chair and then sat Himself down in the electric chair. He was a sin bearer in the sense He put the burden on Himself to fix the problem, in a similar sense to how when a person adopts a child he puts the burden of raising the child.
(see Deut 9:18-20 as an example)

[2] Jesus DID suffer to leave us an example, and that is part of the the whole point of 1 Pt 2:18ff is: But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God.
Jesus suffered for doing good, and THAT was what made His sufferings meritorious/propitiation/pleasing before God.
NOTHING in that context even hints Jesus was getting punished or taking the punishment sinners deserved, especially not from His Father.

Further, the fact it says this was “leave us an example, that we should follow in His steps” demolishes any claim to 1 pt 2 as a penal sub passage because the whole point of penal sub is so that we would not have to follow in His steps.

[3] Nowhere does the Bible teach Jesus endured God’s wrath, not even important texts like 1 Pt 2:18ff which quote Is 53 more than any other place.

[4] That is a Protestant presumption that (1) punishment can be transferred to an innocent party and (2) that that is what in fact happened.

[5] This is seriously flawed logic. It is the same false argument that people say about how abortion should be allowed in cases of rape. Man rapes woman, so woman is justified in turning around and murdering innocent child? Where is the logic/justice? Where is the logic/justice in punishing an innocent party? If you are forced to serve life in jail or receive the death penalty, does it make sense in terms of justice for an innocent person to serve that sentence for you?

**[6] **We can only in a limited sense, by Christ’s help. Christ, however, was the only one in a position to merit and make satisfaction by His own power.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

That passage has nothing to do with baptism.

Says you. Martin Luther even explicitly said it was talking about Baptism, and his Small Catechism, which teaches this, is accepted by all Lutherans.

I can explain it – though you cannot seem to be able to admit it.

Regeneration is the first of all graces applied to the soul – which leads to faith in Christ. When a person believes on Christ, his legal status changes by virtue of justification being brought and applied to the soul. Now when I say that justification is not BASED upon anything in us – I think that you are confusing objective and subjective truth. My justification is not GROUNDED upon faith – but upon the finished work of Christ. And yet it is not APPLIED by the finished work of Christ – but by faith. These are two different aspects of salvation. Redemption accomplished – and redemption applied.

We are talking past eachother. I’m talking about the fact in Protestantism God declares someone to be righteous (justifies) who is in fact unrighteous. Luther’s famous phrase for this was, ‘simul iustus et peccator’ (simultaneously just and sinful). The whole point of the righteousness being alien is because your own soul is actully unrighteous.

Nowhere does the Bible say that he is the source of our righteousness – but rather that he is our righteousness. Show me otherwise.

Rom 5: 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
Christ is the source.

Protestants mistakenly think righteousness is a status granted for keeping the Law perfectly, and since we could not keep the Law perfectly Christ had to keep it in our place and impute that perfect record to us.

As an example, if you were $1000 in debt, the Banker (God) would say you have bad credit (unrighteous). For Protestants, the way the person gets the status of ‘good credit’ is if they post a sign on their account saying “see Christ’s rich account” (faith imputing Christ’s righteousness) and when the Banker comes to check on your account He sees Christ’s account instead but none the less declares you personally have good credit. For Catholics that is nothing but a legal fiction, and unacceptable both morally and Biblically. Instead, for Catholics, Christ’s infinite funds are applied directly into our account paying the debt and making our own account actually debt free, when the Banker looks at our account He sees an actually debt free (righteous) account. Big difference.

This is true – Protestants define justification according to the word of God.

False. There are many passages which show in the context of salvation, justification (dikaioo in Greek) means to transform the soul. Romans 6:7 is a powerful example:6For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin— 7because anyone who has died has been **freed **from sin.
The passage clearly talks about a inner transformation, the word in red is the SAME Greek word (dikaioo) translated in English as “justify.”

2 Peter 1:9 does not prove this assertion of yours. It only teaches that we need to constantly be reminded of our salvation – which is the motive for all good works. And the one who is not producing these virtues has neglected the contemplation of God’s grace. However if he is truly saved – a swift remembrance is all that is needed. This is why Peter wrote these two epistles – “to stir up their pure minds by way of remembrance.” (3:1)

Peter says anyone who does not do good works is blind and shortsighted and forgotten he has been forgiven of his sins, it totally and flatly contradicts your position which states good works are guaranteed if someone is “truly saved.” He also says “if you do these things you will never fall,” meaning if you don’t do those things you will fall (cf Mat 24:12-13, another contradiction of your theology).

Christ taught his disciples: “You did not choose Me but I chose you, and appointed you that you would go and bear fruit, and that your fruit would remain.”

In that same passage He WARNS against not producing good fruit (keeping His commandments) and as a result being ‘cut off.’ (Jn 15:6)

The bible is clear – Jesus Christ has a purpose for those he saves, and he does not leave his purposes unfulfilled. He “gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.” (Titus 2:14) Does Jesus ever fail in this regard? No!

Jesus does not fail, but we can through evil works:2 Tim 2: 12if we endure,
we will also reign with him.
If we disown him,
he will also disown us;

“For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.” (Eph. 2:8-10).

Nothing here guarantees good works or says you cannot do evil works and lose salvation (Eph 5:5 + Gal 5:19-21).

If God has ordained us unto good works – then we shall produce these good works.

Nowhere does it say good works are guaranteed, and that is in fact contradicted all over the place. The Corinthians and Galatians both turned to lives of sin, which is impossible if good works are guaranteed.

Remember that it is God - not us - who produces good works anyways - for He is the one who makes you “perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ.” (Heb 13:21)

God is working in us, but we must cooperate and not abuse that grace (Phil 2:12-13).

(cont)