imputed righteousness

[Catholic_Dude]

(cont 2 of 2)

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)

Nobody said God’s purposes will fail, that says nothing about losing salvation however (which is part of God’s plans for those who do evil).Heb 10:26If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. 28Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?
The Bible is very clear salvation can be lost and warns this repeatedly. Protestants blasphemously and heretically invented the notion (via penal sub and such) that salvation cannot be lost, and as a result brush off so many passages and make a mockery of warnings.

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.”

LOL, totally false. James was writing to CHRISTIANS who had turned to lives of sin!James 2: 1My brothers, as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, don’t show favoritism. … 6But you have insulted the poor.
This passage totally contradicts your claim. In the same breath James calls them believers in Jesus and WARNS against discrimination against the poor. That would be absurd if - as you say - true believers were guaranteed good works.

Paul said that “the fruit of the Spirit is manifest” – and Jesus said that “you can tell a tree by it’s fruit.”

That says nothing about good works guaranteed.

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!

That is a totally false claim which Calvinists are forced to invent and contradicts many Scriptures.Gal 5: 19The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like.** I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God**.

Gal 6:7Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. 8The one who sows to please his sinful nature, from that nature will reap destruction; the one who sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. 9Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.
The Protestant position has no response to these passages so they must twist them into total irrelevance. Nothing here says they were never really saved, it warns them precisely because salvation is on the line.

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

A lot, because so many heretical things result from it. Not only is imputed alien righteousness unbiblical, but even logical conclusions (eg Once Saved always saved, good works guaranteed, etc) are also flatly unBiblical (which in turn proves Sola Fide is false).

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. …

Abrahame belived in God LONG BEFORE Gen 15:6, so now you have to explain how Gen 15:6 can be justification. Your theology cannot answer that.
Further, nothing indicates Abraham was MERELY proving he was saved by offering up Isaac rather than that being an actual justification as well. The evidence actually contradicts your claim (Abraham was not ‘proving himself’ to anyone but God).

It was purposed in eternity.
… …

Irrelevant to the situation of Abraham. You believe Abraham was justified in Gen 15:6, yet Abraham believed in God and was justified as early as Gen 12. That is the problem which your theology cannot explain.

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.

So Abraham merely confirmed justification in Gen 15:6?

…you are actually purporting that Abraham was justified BY GOD on more than one occasion…

That is EXACTLY what I am saying. Abraham was justified by God multiple times. And I have been proving this already by the fact Abraham believed and was justified in Gen 12; Gen 15 and Gen 22.

…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.

So Gen 15:6 was merely proving Abraham was already justified?..that is a difficult proposition to defend.

 

[brkn1]

[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.

Please explain what Jesus needed to “merit” to please God? Jesus was equally God too.

Please also explain how “our suffering to do good being commendable to God” does anything to remit our sins?
You seem to be saying that pleasing God by merit (with Jesus’ help) causes God to remit our sins without the shedding of blood.
I don’t find that method described in the Bible.

 

[brkn1]

[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.

.

If punishment can not be transferred to an innocent party, then all the children of Adam and Eve should not have ended up with their parents original sin and punishment being transferred to them.

 

[brkn1]

[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.

[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.

You say that God the Father did not ever smite His Son Jesus.

Jesus said the following: “…for it is written, I will smite the Shepherd,…” (Matthew 26:31)

(Mark 14:27) repeats Jesus’ words: “…I will smite the Shepherd,…”

Please be honest, when you tell me exactly Who “I” is. Do not dismiss the other words that follow “I” as follows: “I WILL SMITE”.

The “for it is written” points to (Zechariah13:7), which prophecy clearly identifies Who the “I” is:
“Awake, O sword, against my Shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the LORD of hosts: smite the Shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered:…”

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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).

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

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.

It is not alien - we cannot be justified by anything in us, for it is we who need justification. To be justified, we have to receive it as totally free gift from Another. This is Calvinism 101 - its not even peculiar to Calvinism.​

 

[With_Questions]

Hi:
I am a little slower than others in working through this.

I also note that my interest at this point in time really is not debating. It is instead to try to analyze the two positions and try to p(name removed by moderator)oint exactly where the differences are as opposed to differences based on misunderstanding. My observation on discussions like this is that they focus on the areas of difference while not acknowledging the areas of agreement.

I also apologize if you have answered these questions elsewhere. I am just slow I guess.

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.

Let me ask this question another way.

For the one who is not a Christian, a non-believer.

What is the value of the good works that he does in the sight of God?

I am not asking whether the non-believer can do good works. Neither am I asking what is the relationship of works to faith in the life of the believer. I get that Catholics and Protestants probably disagree on this issue, although at some point I might be interested in the same type of analysis.

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.

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 )

OK. I get that one difference on the atonement is:

Protestants (I will qualify by some Protestants) believe that God was actively pouring out His wrath on the crucified Christ. Catholics believe that the verses cited are in a more passive sense (they are fulfilled by God delivering Jesus up to). Protestants (some) believe that Jesus was separated from the Father on the cross. Catholics deny this.

Just to clarify, do Catholics believe that the Father gave His son up to sinful men to be crucified?

Let me ask a more basic questions.

What is the Catholic response to 2 Corinthians 5:21.

He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf that we might become the righteousness of God in Him

1 Peter 2:24

and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross that we might die to sin and live to rightousness, for by His wounds you were healed.

In other words, the Old Testament describes sin and guilt offerings. Was Jesus our sin and guilt offering.

I will start working through the next chapter.

 

[Crucified]

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

With all due respect to Martin Luther – he was wrong. I am not a Lutheran, and I see that according to the Scriptures – there is absolutely no evidence for linking regeneration to water baptism. We read that into the text, and yet it is not consistent with the flow of biblical data.

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 actually unrighteous.

We are unrighteous in and of ourselves – but we are righteous in Christ.

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.

Christ is our righteousness – 1 Cor. 1:30; Jer 23:6.

We are “made righteous” by the imputation of Christ’s merit.

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.

Well hey – I am glad that you got that one right.

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.

Not quite buddy – nice try though.

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.

Stop pretending please. That is not what you believe. That is what I believe.

We believe that when we receive Christ by faith – we come into a realized union with him – we become one with Christ (1 Cor. 6:17).

Therefore all that he is – we become – IN HIM, and all that he has accomplished – we now have accomplished – IN HIM.

Christ’s merit is now our merit – and his account is our account. So in fact – there is a merging of accounts. In reality then – all my sins have now become his, and all his righteousness has now become mine. We are one. Christ is my husband, and he is the head of my house and the manager of my account. He will protect me and provide for me – being my very rest and Sabbath. He is my wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption.

What you believe is a bit more complex and humanistic than that. You believe that Christ only OFFERS to pay your debt. It is up to you, however, to meet particular conditions for that cash (merit). Only when you meet those particular conditions – going to WORK in the sacramental corn fields – then he PAYS that merit to you, depositing it into your account. But the sad part is that it is fully up to you to keep your account in the positive. You cannot cease from working for your merit – for then you will go bankrupt. You have not entered into his rest – “having ceased from your own works” (Heb 4). You are a wife that is “bringing in the income” having to work full time to support yourself, your relationship, and are stuck managing fully - you and your husband’s financial situation.

 

[Crucified]

False. 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 “freed” is the SAME Greek word (dikaioo) translated in English as “justify.”

Catholic Dude – we were crucified with Christ. And our crucifixion and justification was accomplished 2000 years ago.

What faith does is unite us to the crucified and resurrected Christ – bringing our soul into union with him; making all that he is and did now become what we are and what we did – IN HIM. Faith reveals to us an objective truth that took place outside ourselves, the accomplishment of Calvary. This passage does not say that we are NOW crucified – but that we now REALIZE that we WERE crucified with Christ. The intention of this passage is to encourage us to live in the reality of the cross. This passage nowhere teaches that the nature of justification is an inner transformation. Seriously; you are way off.

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.”

No it doesn’t. Though I admit that those who are justified are not yet glorified – the Bible teaches nowhere that a man who has been justified and therefore has received the Spirit of adoption – will not produce the fruit of the Spirit. It is called the fruit of the Spirit for a reason. What Peter is saying is that if anyone does not do good works – he either has “forgotten” about the glorious salvation of his soul – and therefore must be “reminded” by and through the spirit of grace – (which is the whole purpose of him writing these epistles) – or that he is not truly saved. He encourages those who think themselves saved – “to make their election and calling sure” – as Paul has said elsewhere – “test yourselves whether to see if you are truly in the faith.”

Paul makes mention of those things “which accompany salvation” and goes on to identify these as the “work and labour of love” in “ministering to the saints” as well as “being not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises.” (Heb 6:9-12)

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).

I agree that if you do not do these things you will fall – but I also believe that if you are truly justified – you will do these things. These passage does not disprove my position. However, this is an issue surrounding the doctrine of eternal security – not for the doctrine of imputation.

The Bible is very clear salvation can be lost and warns this repeatedly. Protestants brush off so many passages and make a mockery of warnings.

Again – this is concerning eternal security – and we are discussing imputation.

Let’s try and stick to the topic of the thread.

That is a totally false claim which Calvinists are forced to invent and contradicts many Scriptures Gal 5:19-21 ;Gal 6:7-9. The Protestant position has no response to these passages so they must twist them into total irrelevance. Nothing here says they were never really saved, it warns them precisely because salvation is on the line.

Please – I do not deny the truth of these passages – but I deny your assertion that truly justified men will so sow to the flesh that they will end up reaping destruction. You cannot prove this assertion. But again – this is a topic for eternal security – not imputation.

Abrahame belived in God LONG BEFORE Gen 15:6, so now you have to explain how Gen 15:6 can be justification. Your theology cannot answer that.

James is speaking about being justified before men.

James is not here speaking about the justification of our souls – but the justification of our faith.

“If a man SAYS he hath faith BUT hath no works . . .”

James is writing TO Christians – yes – but is here talking ABOUT those who merely profess to have true saving faith.

James is simply saying that if you have true justifying faith, then you will produce good works.

This is why he said – “I will SHOW you my faith BY my good works.”

James is here speaking about manifesting and demonstrating true saving faith – not to be justified by God – but to be justified by all who can SEE your good works. He is using Abraham as an example who demonstrated his faith by his works.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Please explain what Jesus needed to “merit” to please God? Jesus was equally God too.

I quote St Thomas in my article:
He properly atones for an offense who offers something which the offended one loves equally, or even more than he detested the offense. But by suffering out of love and obedience, Christ gave more to God than was required to compensate for the offense of the whole human race. First of all, because of the exceeding charity from which He suffered; secondly, on account of the dignity of His life which He laid down in atonement, for it was the life of one who was God and man; thirdly, on account of the extent of the Passion, and the greatness of the grief endured, as stated above (46, 6). And therefore Christ’s Passion was not only a sufficient but a superabundant atonement for the sins of the human race; according to 1 John 2:2: “He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.” [7]

Please also explain how “our suffering to do good being commendable to God” does anything to remit our sins?
You seem to be saying that pleasing God by merit (with Jesus’ help) causes God to remit our sins without the shedding of blood.
I don’t find that method described in the Bible.

The term “shedding of blood” merely refers to sacrifice and merits gained from it. Thus, Christ’s merits applied to a Christian’s act makes that act meritorious. In examples like Deut 9b, we see Moses doing good works and turning away God’s wrath. These good works were not by the sole power of Moses but rather made such by Christ’s enabling grace and merits.

If punishment can not be transferred to an innocent party, then all the children of Adam and Eve should not have ended up with their parents original sin and punishment being transferred to them.

You seem to think Original Sin is an injustice imposed on others, if that were so then it could not have been transferred to an innocent party. The graces that Adam forfeited were a special gift, and a gift is never owed.

You say that God the Father did not ever smite His Son Jesus.

Jesus said the following: “…for it is written, I will smite the Shepherd,…” (Matthew 26:31)

(Mark 14:27) repeats Jesus’ words: “…I will smite the Shepherd,…”

Please be honest, when you tell me exactly Who “I” is. Do not dismiss the other words that follow “I” as follows: “I WILL SMITE”.

The “for it is written” points to (Zechariah13:7), which prophecy clearly identifies Who the “I” is:
“Awake, O sword, against my Shepherd, and against the man that is my fellow, saith the LORD of hosts: smite the Shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered:…”

But we don’t see a hand from Heaven come down and slap Jesus to the ground. That passage means God would allow the Jews to take Jesus away and abuse Him. The full phrase is “I will strike the shepherd and the sheep will scatter.” What does this mean in terms of actual events unfolded in the Gospels? Jesus said that in the context of Peter and the Apostles who would fear the Jews and run away scared when the Jews carried their Messiah away.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Let me ask this question another way.

For the one who is not a Christian, a non-believer.

What is the value of the good works that he does in the sight of God?

I am not asking whether the non-believer can do good works. Neither am I asking what is the relationship of works to faith in the life of the believer. I get that Catholics and Protestants probably disagree on this issue, although at some point I might be interested in the same type of analysis.

There is such thing as objectively good works, like caring for your family. If an unbeliever cares for his family, he is not sinning at all and is doing a good work. However, it is only good on the natural level.
A believer has grace in their soul, and that raises naturally good works to a super-naturally (above human nature) pleasing work in God’s sight. Only supernaturally good works contribute towards God’s Kingdom and thus are the only ones rewarded with supernatural gifts like eternal life.

This is a critically important issue and distinction to make because it relates directly to the fall in the garden, which Protestants see very different than Catholics do. In Protestantism human nature became corrupt, and like a contaminated water source made everything tainted with sin. In Catholicism there was a super-added grace added to (human) nature, which was stripped away by Adam’s disobedience, leaving only human nature, which on its own cannot produce supernaturally good works.

OK. I get that one difference on the atonement is:

Protestants (I will qualify by some Protestants) believe that God was actively pouring out His wrath on the crucified Christ. Catholics believe that the verses cited are in a more passive sense (they are fulfilled by God delivering Jesus up to). Protestants (some) believe that Jesus was separated from the Father on the cross. Catholics deny this.

Just to clarify, do Catholics believe that the Father gave His son up to sinful men to be crucified?

This is correct.

Let me ask a more basic questions.

What is the Catholic response to 2 Corinthians 5:21.

I talk about this in my article in Appendix 1.

1 Peter 2:24

I addressed this so many times I will simply point you to the post where I directly addressed it, Post55 and Post59.

In other words, the Old Testament describes sin and guilt offerings. Was Jesus our sin and guilt offering.

I will start working through the next chapter.

Yes Jesus was our sin and guilt offering. Notice that the OT never describes OT sacrifices in a penal-sub sense, never does God pour out his wrath on the animal so He wont have to do it on the sinner.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

With all due respect to Martin Luther – he was wrong. I am not a Lutheran, and I see that according to the Scriptures – there is absolutely no evidence for linking regeneration to water baptism. We read that into the text, and yet it is not consistent with the flow of biblical data.

That just exposes the error of Sola Scriptura. The Church Fathers, Martin Luther, all Lutherans, John Calvin, allusions in the Westminster, etc, etc ALL state Titus 3:5 is in reference to Baptism, and you flatly deny it.

Also, the phrase “washing of regeneration and renewal by the Spirit” is what refers to Baptism, not just ‘regeneration’. Second, Paul never used the word ‘regeneration’ in the SYSTEMATIC Theological sense which Reformed do, Paul did not list salvation in terms of “regeneration, justification, sanctification.”

We are unrighteous in and of ourselves – but we are righteous in Christ.

Protestants and Catholics interpret what you just said very differently. For Protestants, the unrighteous is corrupt in himself and must have a righteous blanket covering him to ‘hide’ from God’s sight. For Catholics the unrighteous is lacking what makes one righteous, infused grace, and must have that grace put back. A battery lacking electric charge is dead by definition and must have that charge put back into him, so too in Catholicism the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit is the epitome of righteousness and a soul lacking the Spirit is unrighteous by definition.

Christ is our righteousness – 1 Cor. 1:30; Jer 23:6.

We are “made righteous” by the imputation of Christ’s merit.

See above. The justification Paul talks about is one which “gives life” (Rom 5:18), and that is IMPOSSIBLE if this righteousness is imputed. If a battery is dead, you cannot give it life by imputing the fully charged status of another battery to the dead battery. You can only give it life by infusing an electrical charge back into the battery.

Further, the Bible never talks about imputing Christ’s merit or righteousness, it simply never talks like that.

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.

Well hey – I am glad that you got that one right.

Got it right as in you DO believe that your that you DONT?
Gal 2:21I do not set aside the grace of God, for **if **righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"
Paul clearly teaches the law cannot justify, it lacks the power to. IF the law could justify, then there was no reason for Christ to die. Christ keeping perfectly (in our place) a Law that cannot save in the first place is illogical.

Not quite buddy – nice try though.

Where did I misrepresent you?

Stop pretending please. That is not what you believe. That is what I believe.

Exactly backwards. Protestants reject and condemn the notion of being made right (justified) involves an actual change in the sinner.

We believe that when we receive Christ by faith – we come into a realized union with him – we become one with Christ (1 Cor. 6:17).

Therefore all that he is – we become – IN HIM, and all that he has accomplished – we now have accomplished – IN HIM.

False. The whole point of imputation at justification is that YOU YOURSELF haven’t changed. The whole point of imputing righteousness is because the sinner in his soul is unrighteous and so God must base his declaration of righteousness off of something else.

Christ’s merit is now our merit – and his account is our account. So in fact – there is a merging of accounts. In reality then – all my sins have now become his, and all his righteousness has now become mine. We are one. Christ is my husband, and he is the head of my house and the manager of my account. He will protect me and provide for me – being my very rest and Sabbath. He is my wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption.

Then “simul iustus et peccator” is false and imputation of an alien status is false because your actual account is changed.

What you believe is a bit more complex and humanistic than that. You believe that Christ only OFFERS to pay your debt. It is up to you, however, to meet particular conditions for that cash (merit). Only when you meet those particular conditions – going to WORK in the sacramental corn fields – then he PAYS that merit to you, depositing it into your account. But the sad part is that it is fully up to you to keep your account in the positive. You cannot cease from working for your merit – for then you will go bankrupt. You have not entered into his rest – “having ceased from your own works” (Heb 4). You are a wife that is “bringing in the income” having to work full time to support yourself, your relationship, and are stuck managing fully - you and your husband’s financial situation.

This is a caricature. You believe faith is required for Christ’s merits to be applied to yourself, that is a CONDITION which you must meet before you are justified, so to make this appear as if Catholics must “work” while Protestants don’t have to do anything is false. However, you believe faith is a gift so while it is a condition for salvation it is also a indispensible gift which you cannot take strict credit for…GUESS What? Catholics believe the same thing! except we take it to its logical position: God’s grace enables everything from faith to good works, so while they are a condition for salvation they are only possible by God’s gifts and not something we can take strict credit for. This is precisely what Phil 2:12-13 is saying.

 

[brkn1]

But we don’t see a hand from Heaven come down and slap Jesus to the ground. That passage means God would allow the Jews to take Jesus away and abuse Him. The full phrase is “I will strike the shepherd and the sheep will scatter.” What does this mean in terms of actual events unfolded in the Gospels? Jesus said that in the context of Peter and the Apostles who would fear the Jews and run away scared when the Jews carried their Messiah away.

God the Father has no “physical hand”, since He is Spirit. God’s method of smiting is not dependent on physically doing anything Himself. God can use anything, including His enemies, to perform His Will. He is still the Author of what is done, if it is His Will that is being performed.
The smiting being described is not necessarily confined to the physical killing of Jesus either. The idea, that the physical and mental suffering, along with death of Jesus, is the sum total of what occurred at the Crucifiction, is an idea that cheapens what God performed to redeem His chosen sheep.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

What faith does is unite us to the crucified and resurrected Christ – bringing our soul into union with him; making all that he is and did now become what we are and what we did – IN HIM. Faith reveals to us an objective truth that took place outside ourselves, the accomplishment of Calvary. This passage does not say that we are NOW crucified – but that we now REALIZE that we WERE crucified with Christ. The intention of this passage is to encourage us to live in the reality of the cross. This passage nowhere teaches that the nature of justification is an inner transformation.

That issue isn’t about ‘realizing’, it is about what actually happened. Reading it in the original Greek, the reader would have seen the Greek word for ‘justify’ which is ‘dikaioo’ (freed from sin, v7) and not made the argument you just made. When the word ‘justify’ is used, then the context is about justification and here the context is undeniably about an inner transformation rather than a mere declaration.

No it doesn’t. Though I admit that those who are justified are not yet glorified – the Bible teaches nowhere that a man who has been justified and therefore has received the Spirit of adoption – will not produce the fruit of the Spirit.

Then you havn’t read the Bible. Paul spends almost half of his work yelling at Christians who turned to lives of sin, and that is impossible and inconceivable if good works are guaranteed.
You’re only option is to claim ‘never saved in the first place’, but Paul never talks like that, which is odd if that were actually true.

It is called the fruit of the Spirit for a reason.

In the SAME context where Paul mentions “fruit of the Spirit” he makes it clear if they turn to sin they will be damned (Gal 5:19-21), and how they must strive to do good works if they want to be saved (Gal 6:7-9).

What Peter is saying is that if anyone does not do good works – he either has “forgotten” about the glorious salvation of his soul – and therefore must be “reminded” by and through the spirit of grace – (which is the whole purpose of him writing these epistles) – or that he is not truly saved.

Peter says nothing about ‘never really saved’.
9But if anyone does not have them, he is nearsighted and blind, and has forgotten that he has been cleansed from his past sins. 10Therefore, my brothers, be all the more eager to make your calling and election sure. For if you do these things, you will never fall
Peter is not just ‘reminding’, he is warning that if they don’t they will fall away (not be saved). This contradicts the notion that good works are guaranteed.

He encourages those who think themselves saved – “to make their election and calling sure” – as Paul has said elsewhere – “test yourselves whether to see if you are truly in the faith.”

Yes, that contradicts the notion that good works are guaranteed and that salvation is secure.

Paul makes mention of those things “which accompany salvation” and goes on to identify these as the “work and labour of love” in “ministering to the saints” as well as “being not slothful, but followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises.” (Heb 6:9-12)

It never says those good works are guaranteed, it just means that is the ideal to strive for. Heb repeatedly warns against falling away.

I agree that if you do not do these things you will fall – but I also believe that if you are truly justified – you will do these things. These passage does not disprove my position. However, this is an issue surrounding the doctrine of eternal security – not for the doctrine of imputation.

You just contradicted your theology, you agreed with me that if you don’t do them you will fall, but that is impossible in your theology. The notion of ‘falling’ does not exist in your theology because either you were never saved or are saved and cannot lose salvation at all.

As for your comment “but I also believe that if you are truly justified – you will do these things,” that is a presumption never taught in Scripture and a presumption I have been repeatedly pointing out. Also, your claim turns the warnings in Scripture to empty talk because the ‘truly justified’ have nothing to fear.

Let’s try and stick to the topic of the thread.

Ok. All I’m showing is that OSAS is a logical product of SF, yet Scripture denies OSAS, which in turn undermines SF.

Please – I do not deny the truth of these passages – but I deny your assertion that truly justified men will so sow to the flesh that they will end up reaping destruction. You cannot prove this assertion.

You prove my point, those passages are warnings but you make them meaningless because the ‘truly justified’ is secure.

Abrahame belived in God LONG BEFORE Gen 15:6, so now you have to explain how Gen 15:6 can be justification. Your theology cannot answer that.

James is speaking about being justified before men.

You missed what I am saying. I pointed to Gen 12, James points to Gen 22. I’m talking about Abraham BEFORE Gen 15:6.

As for James talking about ‘justifed before men,’ that is a popular Protestant response but does not fit the evidence.
First of all in 2:14 James uses the word ‘save’ which is NOT a synonym with ‘justified before men’.
Second, in 2:23 James quotes Gen 15:6 which uses the Greek word for righteousness (dikaiosune) yet in 2:21 and 2:24 uses the Greek word for justify (dikaioo) which is the same root word. You would have James shifting definitions of ‘dikaio’ mid thought, and that is bogus.
Third, Abraham was not proving himself before men, just the opposite. Gen 22:1, 22:9-12 is explicitly clear this was for God alone to see.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

(cont 2 of 2)

James is not here speaking about the justification of our souls – but the justification of our faith.

“If a man SAYS he hath faith BUT hath no works . . .”

James is writing TO Christians – yes – but is here talking ABOUT those who merely profess to have true saving faith.

That is absurd. James is not giving a lesson on someon who says they have faith but in fact don’t really have faith. 14What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

Protestant interpretation: Brothers, if a man claims to have faith, but doesn’t really have faith, is he saved (can he be saved)?

Catholic: Brothers, if a man says he has faith but does not do good works, is that faith by itself enough to save him?
The Protestant interpretation is absurd. The issue is NOT about a man who SAYS he has faith BUT DOES NOT REALLY have faith. The issue is a ‘brother’, a believer, who has actual faith but is not living a Christian lifestyle: 1My brothers, as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, don’t show favoritism. 2Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in. 3If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, “Here’s a good seat for you,” but say to the poor man, “You stand there” or “Sit on the floor by my feet,” 4have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts? 5Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? 6But you have insulted the poor.
James is not concerned about fakers, he is concerned about Christians turning to lives of sin.

James is simply saying that if you have true justifying faith, then you will produce good works.

Nowhere does he say that. In fact the whole Epistle he is yelling a Christians who turned to lives of sin. Further, your comment is utterly absurd because as the MAIN EXAMPLE James points to Abraham in Gen 15:6 and then in Gen 22, that is a TWENTY YEAR GAP between being saved and ‘proving saved by good works’.

This is why he said – “I will SHOW you my faith BY my good works.”

The ‘show’ here is not talking about a visible display but rather saying ‘prove it’. THAT is why we don’t see James ‘showing’ by getting up out of his chair and going around doing good works, INSTEAD he immediately says “do you want evidence?,” meaning he is proving an argument, not making a visible display, and he points to Abraham and CONCLUDES by saying, “YOU SEE a man is justified by works…” James wasn’t talking about literal visible evidence, but rather a proven argument.

James is here speaking about manifesting and demonstrating true saving faith – not to be justified by God – but to be justified by all who can SEE your good works. He is using Abraham as an example who demonstrated his faith by his works.

Rediculous. The VERY EXAMPLE James uses, Abraham is AWAY from where people can see, NOBODY was around to physically see it. And in fact, God is explicitly shown to be the one who wanted to see this:Gen 22: 1 Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, “Abraham!”
“Here I am,” he replied. 2 Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about.”

…
…
9 When they reached the place God had told him about, Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it. He bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. 10 Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. 11 But the angel of the LORD called out to him from heaven, “Abraham! Abraham!”
“Here I am,” he replied.
12 “Do not lay a hand on the boy,” he said. "Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son."

The worst possible example of all time to use if James was talking about proving yourself before men rather than God. James should have pointed to Elijah when he called out all the people and false prophets and made a public display of God’s power.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

God the Father has no “physical hand”, since He is Spirit. God’s method of smiting is not dependent on physically doing anything Himself. God can use anything, including His enemies, to perform His Will. He is still the Author of what is done, if it is His Will that is being performed.

Amen, this is what I have been trying to get at. That claim seriously hurts the Penal Sub claim because God’s wrath against sin, specifically hellfire, could not have been poured out by mortals.
Mat 10:28Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
Christ was killed in the body, by men.

The smiting being described is not necessarily confined to the physical killing of Jesus either. The idea, that the physical and mental suffering, along with death of Jesus, is the sum total of what occurred at the Crucifiction, is an idea that cheapens what God performed to redeem His chosen sheep.

This just shows how the Penal Sub model totally misses the real meaning of the Cross and turns the injustice and physical pains and murder into a side show that doesn’t really belong. That is why Protestants don’t understand the Crucifix in churches and don’t pay any attention to the Passion (from the garden to the actual crucifixion). The “real meaning” of the Cross is God the Father damning God the Son in a just legal exchange, all of which was invisible to the naked eye (including the Gospel writers).
Which view do you think has the most Biblical evidence and makes the most theological sense? There should be no question.

 

[brkn1]

Amen, this is what I have been trying to get at. That claim seriously hurts the Penal Sub claim because God’s wrath against sin, specifically hellfire, could not have been poured out by mortals.Mat 10:28Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.Christ was killed in the body, by men.

This just shows how the Penal Sub model totally misses the real meaning of the Cross and turns the injustice and physical pains and murder into a side show that doesn’t really belong. That is why Protestants don’t understand the Crucifix in churches and don’t pay any attention to the Passion (from the garden to the actual crucifixion). The “real meaning” of the Cross is God the Father damning God the Son in a just legal exchange, all of which was invisible to the naked eye (including the Gospel writers).
Which view do you think has the most Biblical evidence and makes the most theological sense? There should be no question.

The biblical statement “I will smite” the Shepherd still does not get explained away by your explanation. You seem to say that God the Father did not “smite” His Son Jesus in any manner, but the statement “I will smite” indicates the Father did smite His Son.
You can not just dismiss the meaning of “I will smite”. It is written in the Bible, as Jesus said.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

The biblical statement “I will smite” the Shepherd still does not get explained away by your explanation. You seem to say that God the Father did not “smite” His Son Jesus in any manner, but the statement “I will smite” indicates the Father did smite His Son.
You can not just dismiss the meaning of “I will smite”. It is written in the Bible, as Jesus said.

But you are not using the NT as your main guide.
Where and how did this smite occur?
I say what we plainly see listed in the Gospel accounts: The physical murder of Jesus.

If the ‘real meaning’ of the cross was much more than the physical death of Jesus, then we would certainly expect to see the ‘real meaning’ depicted, rather than it being something that happened invisibly (even to eyes of the Gospel writers). At that point you are simply begging the question.

 

[brkn1]

But you are not using the NT as your main guide.
Where and how did this smite occur?
I say what we plainly see listed in the Gospel accounts: The physical murder of Jesus.

If the ‘real meaning’ of the cross was much more than the physical death of Jesus, then we would certainly expect to see the ‘real meaning’ depicted, rather than it being something that happened invisibly (even to eyes of the Gospel writers). At that point you are simply begging the question.

When I quoted those verses in Matthew and Mark, I was using the New Testament. Jesus said it. It was prophecy from the Old Testament that was being fulfilled by the New Testament. Did I mention that Jesus (NT) said it? It contradicts your statement that God never did anything “smiteful” (punishing in wrath) against Jesus.

There is much that we do not know about what happened. It is quite an assumption that “we would certainly expect to see ‘real meaning’ depicted” for everything that happened during the Crucifixion.

Are you saying that I am “begging the question” by my insistence that “I will smite” means that God the Father is the One smiting Jesus?
You just can’t get around the biblical words: “I will smite”!

 

[With_Questions]

There is such thing as objectively good works, like caring for your family. If an unbeliever cares for his family, he is not sinning at all and is doing a good work. However, it is only good on the natural level.

So I take it that we agree that the good works that an unbeliever performs are as a filthy garment (relatively speaking). They are only naturally good. They are of no use in making the unbeliever righteous in the sight of God.

A believer has grace in their soul, and that raises naturally good works to a super-naturally (above human nature) pleasing work in God’s sight. Only supernaturally good works contribute towards God’s Kingdom and thus are the only ones rewarded with supernatural gifts like eternal life.

Whoa!! Are you actually saying that eternal life is a reward for good works?? If that is what you are saying, and if that is actually what Catholics believe, then we have big issues here.

I don’t know whether that is in this thread, but this is a biggie for me.

This is a critically important issue and distinction to make because it relates directly to the fall in the garden, which Protestants see very different than Catholics do. In Protestantism human nature became corrupt, and like a contaminated water source made everything tainted with sin. In Catholicism there was a super-added grace added to (human) nature, which was stripped away by Adam’s disobedience, leaving only human nature, which on its own cannot produce supernaturally good works.

Although I might technically understand the difference here, I am having difficulty understanding is the substance of the difference. If Catholics truly believe that there is none righteous, not even one (Romans 3:10) and that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23), it almost sounds like different wording for almost the same concept.

In both cases you are left with natural human nature that can not please God.

Given the differences seem fine, I am not sure whether either proposition is more or less provable from Scripture. They seem to be different theories that are out there.

This is correct.

Note this was the response that Catholics do believe that God gave Jesus up to be crucified on the cross.

Now it seems to me that an undue amount of bandwidth in this thread is devoted to whether the Father was actively punishing the son as He was dying on the cross.

Today I was thinking about Scriptures quoted in this thread such as Matthew 26:31 and Isaiah 53:10 (I will smite the Shepherd but the Lord was pleased to crush Him).

My mind went back to the Old Testament Scriptures which are filled with warning about God punishing His people for disobedience. This does not necessarily mean that God rained fire down from heaven against His people. It usually meant that God withdrew His protection from His people and let the Assyrians, Philistines, Amalekites, Caananites and whatever else Israel had for neighbors accomplish His will.

Still, even though God was only operating in a passive sense by allowing human agents to do the punishing, since God is sovereign, he could say “I will punish” ( example Leviticus 26:14-33).

I had the thought that why wouldn’t the same logic be used with these Scriptures. That just by giving Jesus over for crucifixion the father was smiting the Shepherd and the Lord was crushing Him. This possibility at least seems credible.

I talk about this in my article in Appendix 1.

I addressed this so many times I will simply point you to the post where I directly addressed it, Post55 and Post59.

After having read this, I am still having difficulty making the leap from “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf” to “He *did not *become sin on our behalf” and from “He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross” to “He *did not *bear our sins in His body on the cross”.

I know in one sense the most literal interpretation is impossible. That is because sin is (depending on context) either an activity or state. It is not a physical entity. Jesus was not physically transformed to an object of the chemical composition “sin”.

And I realize that in your posts, you primarily were interested in dealing with the “God was pouring out His wrath on Jesus” issue. Still, the two possibilities are not mutually exclusive. It is still possible for Jesus “to be sin” and “bear our sins on His body” and God not actively pour out His wrath on Jesus. The issue here is in what sense. That must be addressed.

Still, it says what it says.

Yes Jesus was our sin and guilt offering. Notice that the OT never describes OT sacrifices in a penal-sub sense, never does God pour out his wrath on the animal so He wont have to do it on the sinner.

OK. Good. That is an area of common agreement. It is important in doing such an analysis to highlight the areas of agreement.

We have two, this one and that the good works of an unbeliever do nothing to make him right with God.

I will start the next section.

 

[brkn1]

Still, even though God was only operating in a passive sense by allowing human agents to do the punishing, since God is sovereign, he could say “I will punish” ( example Leviticus 26:14-33).

I had the thought that why wouldn’t the same logic be used with these Scriptures. That just by giving Jesus over for crucifixion the father was smiting the Shepherd and the Lord was crushing Him. This possibility at least seems credible.

The problem with the idea of the Father smiting the Son, only in a “passive” sense, is that Jesus was obeying the Father as Jesus went to the Cross. That requirement of willing obedience does not speak of a “passive” role for the Father in smiting the Shepherd.

The type that points to the roles in sacrifice would be Abraham’s willingness to slay his own son. It could then be said that Abraham showed a greater sacrifice by his being willing to do the actual sacrifice of his own son, if the Father was not also willing to do the same.