Off the top of my head I would look at the Catholic Encyclopedia on
newadvent.org, and check out the article on Justification there. Also check out the debates between Robert Sungenis and Matt Slick or Sungenis vs James White. But here’s my two cents:
I’m a former Protestant and have debated this issue a lot with my brother (who is still a devout Calvinist Protestant). I’ve also had this discussion with other knowledgeable Protestants.
Basically, both of us agree that human nature on its own, apart from Gods grace, is incapable of doing meritorious good works before God. Our own works, due to our fallen nature, will only “merit” us damnation. Both sides agree upon that.
We also both agree that only those who are righteous are saved.
The question then becomes, “how are we credited as righteous”?
To the Protestants, the righteousness of Christ is imputed (credited to the account) of the believer-- even though they objectively remain sinful. So when God “looks” at the person, He “sees” Jesus’ righteousness in their place. Likewise, our sins are imputed to Jesus, who then takes our punishment on the cross. So imputation and penal substitution are both connected.
The imputation is simply a
legal declaration. God declares a person as Just, even though
they’re really not. God
punishes Jesus in our place, even though he’s really innocent.
I believe the Council of Trent called this a “legal fiction.” God is declaring something to be true that isn’t true.
Yet they still believe in regeneration, which** does** change a person’s nature. Yet it’s the imputation that saves the person, and the regeneration is secondary. Also, it seems that the regeneration is only partial-- since any Protestant I’ve come across would agree perfection is impossible in this life, yet all would agree we’ll be perfect in Heaven. (In fact, the regeneration also seems to be quite optional: since we’re saved by faith alone in this imputation, and not by any works performed afterwards.)
So even if you’re regenerated, you’re still very sinful; and the righteousness that God “sees” in you is actually the righteousness of Christ imputed to you (credited to your account).
I watched a really good documentary exposing this contradiction of the Protestant beliefs of imputed righteousness and regeneration. The group is sedevacantist,
so you have to beware of some things– but their argument against the Protestants imputation and regeneration is pretty solid:
youtube.com/watch?v=L14UNjaZJm8
The Catholic church views it differently. We don’t see it as a forensic
legal declaration of Christ’s righteousness to us. Instead, we say that God actually CHANGES the person. That’s why it’s “infused.” By our own nature we’re incapable of doing any merit and saving ourselves. God’s grace comes into our lives, and our free will can either cooperate with or reject those graces. The grace is then infused into our souls and changes us. He declares us righteous because He makes us righteous, not because of some forensic legal declaration. God can’t lie-- He can’t declare something as righteous that really isn’t.
I would say the Bible verse that encapsulates infused righteousness to me is John 15:1-8. On our own we are incapable. Yet God brings us into His vine. He empowers us to do good works. He prunes us so that we can bear more fruit. He removes every branch that bears no fruit and casts it into the fire.
When I’ve discussed this issue with those who promote this imputation concept, I give them Luke 1 and ask him how this is possible under Imputed Righteousness?:
Luke 1:5-6 “In the days of King Herod of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly order of Abijah. His wife was a descendant of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. Both of them were righteous before God, living blamelessly according to all the commandments and regulations of the Lord.”
Notice that it says Zechariah lived righteously and blamelessly before God. It says he even performed the good works.
Imputed righteousness says this is impossible. This would have been the perfect time for Luke to point out that Zechariah was very sinful and only righteous by the forensic declaration of Christ’s works to Zechariah’s account. But he doesn’t. He says that Zechariah did all these works and lived blamelessly.
Yet we agree that Zechariah couldn’t do this by his own nature.
Therefore, the goodness of Zechariah came through infusion. God’s grace gave him the ability to do those good works, and Zechariah cooperated with those graces.
