Pauline language in Romans, isn't it pointing toward imputation?

[gurneyhalleck1]

I know we’ve all discussed Paul’s Letter to the Romans at length in CAF on plenty of occasions but as I continue to read it, I still don’t see a satisfactory argument from the Catholic point of view disproving the imputation language (the more Lutheran interpretation) in Romans?

Towards the end of Chapter 3, Paul sounds very Protestant. Then beginning in Chapter 4 he uses the accounting language of a tent-maker for his time. And he as well as the 32nd Psalm that he quotes both have imputation sentiment, not the infusion of grace that Catholicism teaches…

Paul says:

"Indeed, if Abraham was justified on the basis of his works, he has reason to boast; but this was not so in the sight of God. For what does the scripture say? "Abraham beleved God, and it was credited to him as righteousness. A worker’s wage is credited not as a gift, but as something due. But when one does not work, yet believed in the one who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness. So also David declares the blessedness of the person to whom God** credits righteousness **apart from works:
“Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord does not record.”

I fail to see how the Catholic position can be maintained with this language? Catholics argue in CAF that God cannot declare someone righteous when they’re still in sin and that it basically puts God into the position of being a liar. They argue that God makes us righteous through infusion, changing the inner being of someone and infusing it with grace. The Lutherans and other Protestants argue for what we see above—covering, giving credit where credit is not due based on works and acts but rather the principle of faith. How can we interpret the Catholic position in light of this obvious credit, faith, accounting language?

In Chapter 3 toward the end with verse 27 Paul says, “What occasion is there then for boasting? It is ruled out. On what principle, that of works? No, rather on the principle of faith.”

How is works factored into this equation? It seems that boasting is attached to works and that faith is the mode of salvation, not works? We are credited with something we don’t deserve. Throw on top of that Paul’s statement in Galatians that the Law was nailed to the Cross along with its legal claims and it sounds as if we are given credit we don’t deserve and Christ is being sacrificed in our place.

Look at all this, how do we justify works into what seems to be a simple equation? How do we also factor in indulgences, merit from the Treasury, purgatory, etc?

 

[TriuneUnity]

I know we’ve all discussed Paul’s Letter to the Romans at length in CAF on plenty of occasions but as I continue to read it, I still don’t see a satisfactory argument from the Catholic point of view disproving the imputation language (the more Lutheran interpretation) in Romans?

Towards the end of Chapter 3, Paul sounds very Protestant. Then beginning in Chapter 4 he uses the accounting language of a tent-maker for his time. And he as well as the 32nd Psalm that he quotes both have imputation sentiment, not the infusion of grace that Catholicism teaches…

Paul says:

"Indeed, if Abraham was justified on the basis of his works, he has reason to boast; but this was not so in the sight of God. For what does the scripture say? "Abraham beleved God, and it was credited to him as righteousness. A worker’s wage is credited not as a gift, but as something due. But when one does not work, yet believed in the one who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness. So also David declares the blessedness of the person to whom God** credits righteousness **apart from works:
“Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord does not record.”

I fail to see how the Catholic position can be maintained with this language? Catholics argue in CAF that God cannot declare someone righteous when they’re still in sin and that it basically puts God into the position of being a liar. They argue that God makes us righteous through infusion, changing the inner being of someone and infusing it with grace. The Lutherans and other Protestants argue for what we see above—covering, giving credit where credit is not due based on works and acts but rather the principle of faith. How can we interpret the Catholic position in light of this obvious credit, faith, accounting language?

In Chapter 3 toward the end with verse 27 Paul says, “What occasion is there then for boasting? It is ruled out. On what principle, that of works? No, rather on the principle of faith.”

How is works factored into this equation? It seems that boasting is attached to works and that faith is the mode of salvation, not works? We are credited with something we don’t deserve. Throw on top of that Paul’s statement in Galatians that the Law was nailed to the Cross along with its legal claims and it sounds as if we are given credit we don’t deserve and Christ is being sacrificed in our place.

Look at all this, how do we justify works into what seems to be a simple equation? How do we also factor in indulgences, merit from the Treasury, purgatory, etc?

Excellent observations, gurney.

The only thing I would add, that makes the Catholic (well, not really the exclusively Catholic, but any infusion) view untenable is this one simple statement by Paul in Rom. 4:5: “him who justifies the ungodly.” This is precisely what Catholics argue against by saying that God only justifies in view of the person’s internal moral character. Given the infusion view, it would be impossible for God to justify the ungodly. Only imputation can make sense of such a passage.

 

[Dokimas]

I know we’ve all discussed Paul’s Letter to the Romans at length in CAF on plenty of occasions but as I continue to read it, I still don’t see a satisfactory argument from the Catholic point of view disproving the imputation language (the more Lutheran interpretation) in Romans?

Towards the end of Chapter 3, Paul sounds very Protestant. Then beginning in Chapter 4 he uses the accounting language of a tent-maker for his time. And he as well as the 32nd Psalm that he quotes both have imputation sentiment, not the infusion of grace that Catholicism teaches…

Paul says:

"Indeed, if Abraham was justified on the basis of his works, he has reason to boast; but this was not so in the sight of God. For what does the scripture say? "Abraham beleved God, and it was credited to him as righteousness. A worker’s wage is credited not as a gift, but as something due. But when one does not work, yet believed in the one who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness. So also David declares the blessedness of the person to whom God** credits righteousness **apart from works:
“Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord does not record.”

I fail to see how the Catholic position can be maintained with this language? Catholics argue in CAF that God cannot declare someone righteous when they’re still in sin and that it basically puts God into the position of being a liar. They argue that God makes us righteous through infusion, changing the inner being of someone and infusing it with grace. The Lutherans and other Protestants argue for what we see above—covering, giving credit where credit is not due based on works and acts but rather the principle of faith. How can we interpret the Catholic position in light of this obvious credit, faith, accounting language?

In Chapter 3 toward the end with verse 27 Paul says, “What occasion is there then for boasting? It is ruled out. On what principle, that of works? No, rather on the principle of faith.”

How is works factored into this equation? It seems that boasting is attached to works and that faith is the mode of salvation, not works? We are credited with something we don’t deserve. Throw on top of that Paul’s statement in Galatians that the Law was nailed to the Cross along with its legal claims and it sounds as if we are given credit we don’t deserve and Christ is being sacrificed in our place.

Look at all this, how do we justify works into what seems to be a simple equation? How do we also factor in indulgences, merit from the Treasury, purgatory, etc?

This is a tricky subject and is a cart only, horse only, cart first or horse first discussion, IMO.

Eph 2:8-10 puts the horse first followed by the cart: savation first, works out of loving obedience last. I believe Paul and James would be in agreement even though a superficial reading makes it seem James puts works as faith.​

As for Abraham, how did he show faith? Wasn’t it by obedience? He believed God and responded by that with actions.​

God told Abraham to go to a place He did not reveal to Abe. Abe believed God and went (eventually). God told Abraham to sacrifice his son and by faith he was obediently ready (knife in hand) to kill his son believing God would raise his son Isaac from the dead.

At least the above is how I make sense of this.

 

[Dokimas]

Just wondering if Gurneyhalleck1 knows, in like of the baseball picture in at the beginning of the post, that the Lakers and Celts are basketball teams?

Go Celtics.

 

[Priscilla_Ann]

I know we’ve all discussed Paul’s Letter to the Romans at length in CAF on plenty of occasions but as I continue to read it, I still don’t see a satisfactory argument from the Catholic point of view disproving the imputation language (the more Lutheran interpretation) in Romans?

Towards the end of Chapter 3, Paul sounds very Protestant. Then beginning in Chapter 4 he uses the accounting language of a tent-maker for his time. And he as well as the 32nd Psalm that he quotes both have imputation sentiment, not the infusion of grace that Catholicism teaches…

Paul says:

"Indeed, if Abraham was justified on the basis of his works, he has reason to boast; but this was not so in the sight of God. For what does the scripture say? "Abraham beleved God, and it was credited to him as righteousness. A worker’s wage is credited not as a gift, but as something due. But when one does not work, yet believed in the one who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness. So also David declares the blessedness of the person to whom God** credits righteousness **apart from works:
“Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord does not record.”

I fail to see how the Catholic position can be maintained with this language? Catholics argue in CAF that God cannot declare someone righteous when they’re still in sin and that it basically puts God into the position of being a liar. They argue that God makes us righteous through infusion, changing the inner being of someone and infusing it with grace. The Lutherans and other Protestants argue for what we see above—covering, giving credit where credit is not due based on works and acts but rather the principle of faith. How can we interpret the Catholic position in light of this obvious credit, faith, accounting language?

In Chapter 3 toward the end with verse 27 Paul says, “What occasion is there then for boasting? It is ruled out. On what principle, that of works? No, rather on the principle of faith.”

How is works factored into this equation? It seems that boasting is attached to works and that faith is the mode of salvation, not works? We are credited with something we don’t deserve. Throw on top of that Paul’s statement in Galatians that the Law was nailed to the Cross along with its legal claims and it sounds as if we are given credit we don’t deserve and Christ is being sacrificed in our place.

Look at all this, how do we justify works into what seems to be a simple equation? How do we also factor in indulgences, merit from the Treasury, purgatory, etc?

Excellent post! When I was a Catholic, I could never reconcile the Catholic position with what I was reading in Romans. This was one of the many reasons why I left Catholicism – there simply is no way to believe what Paul wrote in Romans and also believe in the Catholic teachings on purgatory, indulgences, the treasury of merit, etc.

 

[Dokimas]

Just wondering if Gurneyhalleck1 knows, in like of the baseball picture in at the beginning of the post, that the Lakers and Celts are basketball teams?

Go Celtics.

Oops: like should be light.

 

[BryanM27]

What I see in this thread is what I often see in forums and hear in discussions about faith. What is happening hear is that you have found a couple of verses that support your position and are viewing them as a person of the 21st century. I do this too, so I promise I’m not judging. Just offering what little help I can.

First of all, place yourself in the culture of the time. I can’t help you much with that since I know little about it, but that’s where I start when I question something.

Secondly, consider the entire bible. Just because you find something somewhere that seems contradictory to another point does not make either of those verses false. If it did, how would we reconcile Gen 1:26-28 with Gen 2:4-7 and 2:21-22?

 

[TriuneUnity]

Secondly, consider the entire bible. Just because you find something somewhere that seems contradictory to another point does not make either of those verses false. If it did, how would we reconcile Gen 1:26-28 with Gen 2:4-7 and 2:21-22?

By realizing that the first account is an overview, and the second is a microcosm.

I agree with you that we cannot view Romans in isolation from the rest of Scripture. Which is why there is also the rest of his epistles, the gospels, and the others. They all harmonize quite nicely with his teaching in Rom. 1-8.

 

[BryanM27]

By realizing that the first account is an overview, and the second is a microcosm.

I agree with you that we cannot view Romans in isolation from the rest of Scripture. Which is why there is also the rest of his epistles, the gospels, and the others. They all harmonize quite nicely with his teaching in Rom. 1-8.

They are two different stories. Read them in their entirety. Notice the difference in the order. Adam and Eve is a second account of creation, not a microcosm of the first.

 

[TriuneUnity]

They are two different stories. Read them in their entirety. Notice the difference in the order. Adam and Eve is a second account of creation, not a microcosm of the first.

It’s not a different account. What differences are you referring to? It is a zoom in on the sixth day of creation when man was created.

 

[BryanM27]

It’s not a different account. What differences are you referring to? It is a zoom in on the sixth day of creation when man was created.

Gen 1:11 - God creates plants
Gen 1:20-25 - God creates animals
Gen 1:26-29 - God creates man and woman together and gives them dominion over creation.

Compare that sequence of events with:

Gen 2:4-5 - “In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up - for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till the ground.”

So we’ve gone from six days down to one, and in the process undid everything from the first chapter.

Gen 2:7 - God forms man
Gen 2:8-17 - God creates plants and places the man in Eden
Gen 2:18-20 - God creates animals so that man will not be alone, but man finds no equal
Gen 2:21-22 - God creates woman

 

[TriuneUnity]

Gen 1:11 - God creates plants
Gen 1:20-25 - God creates animals
Gen 1:26-29 - God creates man and woman together and gives them dominion over creation.

Compare that sequence of events with:

Gen 2:4-5 - “In the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up - for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no one to till the ground.”

So we’ve gone from six days down to one, and in the process undid everything from the first chapter.

The second chapter does not say that there is ONE day to creation. You seem to miss the fact that there is nothing about the creation of the earth, heavens, stars, etc. Indicating that they had already been formed. This presupposes the first five days of creation have already occurred. You’re missing that this is zeroing in on day six of the creation account in Gen 1.

Gen 2:7 - God forms man
Gen 2:8-17 - God creates plants and places the man in Eden

No… God did not create plants at this time. He created the Garden of Eden. The narrative continues with descriptions of creation events. Adam was placed in the garden to cultivate it. In contrast to Genesis 1, there are no indications that the text is referring to global creation.

Gen 2:18-20 - God creates animals so that man will not be alone, but man finds no equal
Gen 2:21-22 - God creates woman

God brought to Adam the animals He had already created for him to name. Since a suitable companion was not found for Adam, God created Eve.

Look at verse 19; Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man. That “had” in v. 19 is past tense, indicating the animals were already present.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Are you seriously insinuating that I don’t know the Lakers are a basketball team? Are you seriously insulting me to that level, Dokimas? Give me a break! I’m a Giants fan for BASEBALL…Lakers for basketball.

Lakers in six games W

Just wondering if Gurneyhalleck1 knows, in like of the baseball picture in at the beginning of the post, that the Lakers and Celts are basketball teams?

Go Celtics.

 

[BryanM27]

The second chapter does not say that there is ONE day to creation. You seem to miss the fact that there is nothing about the creation of the earth, heavens, stars, etc. Indicating that they had already been formed. This presupposes the first five days of creation have already occurred. You’re missing that this is zeroing in on day six of the creation account in Gen 1.

No… God did not create plants at this time. He created the Garden of Eden. The narrative continues with descriptions of creation events. Adam was placed in the garden to cultivate it. In contrast to Genesis 1, there are no indications that the text is referring to global creation.

God brought to Adam the animals He had already created for him to name. Since a suitable companion was not found for Adam, God created Eve.

Look at verse 19; Now out of the ground the Lord God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man. That “had” in v. 19 is past tense, indicating the animals were already present.

Actually simply saying no plants were there places the creation of man BEFORE the sixth day. It places the creation of man on the third day at the latest.

Using your translation (mine does not include “had” in verse 19) we can then suppose that woman was created on the sixth day. They are now separated, rather than being created together.

Since we are using different translations, I suggest we drop this line of argument here. It will be almost impossible for either of us to prove our point to the other.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Actually simply saying no plants were there places the creation of man BEFORE the sixth day. It places the creation of man on the third day at the latest.

Using your translation (mine does not include “had” in verse 19) we can then suppose that woman was created on the sixth day. They are now separated, rather than being created together.

Since we are using different translations, I suggest we drop this line of argument here. It will be almost impossible for either of us to prove our point to the other.

Speaking of derailing threads

 

[Chris_S_1]

Excellent observations, gurney.

The only thing I would add, that makes the Catholic (well, not really the exclusively Catholic, but any infusion) view untenable is this one simple statement by Paul in Rom. 4:5: “him who justifies the ungodly.” This is precisely what Catholics argue against by saying that God only justifies in view of the person’s internal moral character. Given the infusion view, it would be impossible for God to justify the ungodly. Only imputation can make sense of such a passage.

This would only be a valid argument if we saw justification as a one time event. It is quite obvious, that for one to be justified, one must have been at first ungodly. This initial moment of justification is what we would call Baptism. But when justification comes to completion as we are admitted into heaven, we are no longer ungodly, due to the infusion of grace throughout our lifetime.

gurneyhalleck1:

Towards the end of Chapter 3, Paul sounds very Protestant. Then beginning in Chapter 4 he uses the accounting language of a tent-maker for his time. And he as well as the 32nd Psalm that he quotes both have imputation sentiment, not the infusion of grace that Catholicism teaches…

Psalm 32:2

Blessed is the man whose sin the LORD does not count against him** and in whose spirit is no deceit.**

On the contrary, I see support for the Catholic understanding in Psalm 32.

gurneyhalleck1, if you want a very well-researched response you you exact question on imputation, I recommend checking out this link. Then click on the third link, “Justification Article”. It’s quite long, and your browser may require you to download the webpage before viewing. If you want you can skip to chapters 3, 4, and 5, where he talks about Justification and Imputation, but the preceding chapters are a nice setup for them. He does a thorough analysis of the Greek of Romans 4 and analyzes the Old Testament passages that are being referenced as well. All in all a very good read!

Chris

 

[guanophore]

I know we’ve all discussed Paul’s Letter to the Romans at length in CAF on plenty of occasions but as I continue to read it, I still don’t see a satisfactory argument from the Catholic point of view disproving the imputation language (the more Lutheran interpretation) in Romans?

What makes you think the Catholic version does not include imputation? Romans is a Catholic book, written by a catholic for Catholics. There is nothing in it that is not Catholic.

Towards the end of Chapter 3, Paul sounds very Protestant. Then beginning in Chapter 4 he uses the accounting language of a tent-maker for his time. And he as well as the 32nd Psalm that he quotes both have imputation sentiment, not the infusion of grace that Catholicism teaches…

I guess I can’t see your difficulty. The difference is that those who have embraced the heresies of Calvin believe that when God “credits” our account, there really is nothing in it - it is only a declaration of credit. Whereas, the Apostles taught that the credit that is accounted to us is actual.

I fail to see how the Catholic position can be maintained with this language? Catholics argue in CAF that God cannot declare someone righteous when they’re still in sin and that it basically puts God into the position of being a liar.

No. The Catholic Church has always taught that baptism washes away all sins, original, and personal. The newly baptized is a new creation, and his Spirit is poured into us (infused). We are justified (accounted righteous) in His sight.

They argue that God makes us righteous through infusion, changing the inner being of someone and infusing it with grace.  The Lutherans and other Protestants argue for what we see above---covering, giving credit where credit is not due based on works and acts but rather the principle of faith.  How can we interpret the Catholic position in light of this obvious credit, faith, accounting language?

I recommend the Joint Declaration on Justification to clarify that Lutherans and Catholics agree on how we are justified.

In Chapter 3 toward the end with verse 27 Paul says, “What occasion is there then for boasting? It is ruled out. On what principle, that of works? No, rather on the principle of faith.”

How is works factored into this equation?

Salvation can be seen in several parts. It begins with justification, where we are cleansed of our sins and put in right relationship with God. This is followed by sanctification, during which we are conformed to His image, based on the grace received in our baptism, maintained in the sacramental life, we work out our salvation in fear and trembling. Finally, there is glorification, which does not happen in this life, but the next.

It seems that boasting is attached to works and that faith is the mode of salvation, not works? We are credited with something we don’t deserve. Throw on top of that Paul’s statement in Galatians that the Law was nailed to the Cross along with its legal claims and it sounds as if we are given credit we don’t deserve and Christ is being sacrificed in our place.

Look at all this, how do we justify works into what seems to be a simple equation? How do we also factor in indulgences, merit from the Treasury, purgatory, etc?

None of our works are of any benefit if we are not in right relationship with God. Only when we are justified before Him - made righteous by grace through faith - in a state of grace can our works have a place in the perfection of our character and give honor to Him. For a person who is not in a state of grace, no indulgences will be of any use.

 

[guanophore]

Excellent observations, gurney.

The only thing I would add, that makes the Catholic (well, not really the exclusively Catholic, but any infusion) view untenable is this one simple statement by Paul in Rom. 4:5: “him who justifies the ungodly.” This is precisely what Catholics argue against by saying that God only justifies in view of the person’s internal moral character.

This is just a misunderstanding of the catholic teaching. Justification takes an ungoldly person who is a slave of sin, and places them in a state of grace (see link above on justification). Once a person is accounted righteous, one can grow in righteousness by obedience.

Given the infusion view, it would be impossible for God to justify the ungodly. Only imputation can make sense of such a passage.

Imputation and infusion go together. When God accounts us righteous, he places his spirit within us, regenerating us, circumcises our hearts, and gives us the desire to walk in obedience to Him.

When credit is imputed, the grace actually goes into the account. God does not declare the dung just covered. He cleans the soul thoroughly.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

This is a very weak argument. Talk about anachronism. The term “Catholic” didn’t even exist in Paul’s time. It existed more in the era of Ignatius of Antioch. And to say that there is nothing in Roman that is not Catholic is questionable. Paul talks about justification through faith, righteousness being imputed, our sins “covered,” and not taken away and grace infused. His writings speak nothing of a treasury of merit, purgatory and extra temporal sins to be atoned for after being forgiven. He speaks nothing of indulgences or degrees of sin. He tells us that Abraham was “credited” as righteous on account of his faith, not his actions. That doesn’t sound Catholic to me. Just as you call Paul a Catholic, many Orthodox in here will call Paul and Orthodox and Lutherans will say Paul was the first Lutheran.

What makes you think the Catholic version does not include imputation? Romans is a Catholic book, written by a catholic for Catholics. There is nothing in it that is not Catholic.

Don’t you mean Luther? Luther taught about imputation and gave us the Protestant view of Romans before Calvin came on the scene. And what do you have to prove that there is “anything in it” as far as our spiritual account goes? Paul tells us that all are sinners, not one is not a sinner gone far astray? Romans 3:9-20. The point is that Paul tells us we are credited as righteous by God, period. We are given credit we do not deserve, beyond the Law, given a status we ourselves haven’t earned or attained.
I guess I can’t see your difficulty. The difference is that those who have embraced the heresies of Calvin believe that when God “credits” our account, there really is nothing in it - it is only a declaration of credit. Whereas, the Apostles taught that the credit that is accounted to us is actual.

Most Protestants, including Lutherans and Anglicans, have taught that baptism is regenerative and produces sanctification. I never said baptism doesn’t?
No. The Catholic Church has always taught that baptism washes away all sins, original, and personal. The newly baptized is a new creation, and his Spirit is poured into us (infused). We are justified (accounted righteous) in His sight.

I have read it before but thanks for the link!
I recommend the Joint Declaration on Justification to clarify that Lutherans and Catholics agree on how we are justified.

No argument really from me here. Sanctification comes from justification indeed. But our sanctification does not merit us heaven. If we have not been sanctified enough, we are not rejected by God. We are made righteous, justified in the blood of the Cross, and from that we are sanctified. We are already imputed as righteous despite our unworthiness. In thanksgiving and response to the grace we’ve been given, in our faith and in our grace we grow in sanctity.
Salvation can be seen in several parts. It begins with justification, where we are cleansed of our sins and put in right relationship with God. This is followed by sanctification, during which we are conformed to His image, based on the grace received in our baptism, maintained in the sacramental life, we work out our salvation in fear and trembling. Finally, there is glorification, which does not happen in this life, but the next.

Again I won’t argue your point. You’re correct that works are no benefit if we don’t have the relationship or love or acceptance of the Cross, an internalized realization and appreciation for the sublime Passion and death on the Cross our Lord earned for us that we can never imitate or live up to. Our works stem from grace and are God-given and are a result of the imputation of grace. We follow Christ and grow near to Him. But it’s not a measuring stick for our salvation. Justification is the measuring stick.
None of our works are of any benefit if we are not in right relationship with God. Only when we are justified before Him - made righteous by grace through faith - in a state of grace can our works have a place in the perfection of our character and give honor to Him. For a person who is not in a state of grace, no indulgences will be of any use.

God bless, Guan…

 

[guanophore]

This is a very weak argument. Talk about anachronism. The term “Catholic” didn’t even exist in Paul’s time. It existed more in the era of Ignatius of Antioch. And to say that there is nothing in Roman that is not Catholic is questionable.

Then why did Paul’s buddy Luke use the term kath holos to describe the Church in Acts 9:41? The books of the NT were written by Catholics, for the faithful (catholics). It is not a weak arguement. The Catholic Church produced the NT.

What is in Romans that you think is not Catholic? I will accept that our separated brethren interpret the contents differently, but Paul’s theology is Catholic because He is Catholic.

Paul talks about justification through faith, righteousness being imputed, our sins “covered,” and not taken away and grace infused.

Righteous is imputed, and are sins are covered. This is done because the work of Christ is credited to us. But it is not just a doctoring of the books to make it look like a credit exists that really does not. His merits are, in actuality, applied to our account. We are not just declared righteous, but MADE righteous.

His writings speak nothing of a treasury of merit, purgatory and extra temporal sins to be atoned for after being forgiven.

Actually, they do.

He speaks nothing of indulgences or degrees of sin.

We do not derive all of our theology from only the writings of Paul. Paul does speak of indulgences (though this term is a later Latin reference, the concept is there) and there are most definitely degrees of sin.

He tells us that Abraham was “credited” as righteous on account of his faith, not his actions.

Actually, both concepts are in scripture, the justification by faith alone, and being justified by one’s actions.

That doesn't sound Catholic to me.  Just as you call Paul a Catholic, many Orthodox in here will call Paul and Orthodox and Lutherans will say Paul was the first Lutheran.

But we know that the Catholic church was the only one for 1000 years. The Orthodox and the Lutheran communions agree on this point, which you will see if you read the link I posted above.