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

[TriuneUnity]

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.

Paul never says anything in the text about initial justification. This term is eisegetically placed into Paul’s epistle to the Romans. I agree that the grace of justification is given through Baptism. I also agree that justification is not necessarily a one time event. A person can reject the faith and lose justification. However, one is either justified fully or not justified at all. The idea of being progressively innocent is a foreign concept.

 

[TriuneUnity]

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.

Which means God only justifies the godly. Again… there’s no way around this contradiction between Roman Catholicism and Paul.

 

[BryanM27]

Then why did Paul’s buddy Luke use the term kath holos to describe the Church in Acts 9:41?

He used that term to describe the universality of the church. That’s what “catholic” means. When we pray the Nicean Creed at mass we are not professing belief one Catholic church as an institution, but rather a belief in a universal church.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I just looked up Acts 9:41. There is no mention of the term “catholic” there? Are you saying that “holy ones” is supposed to be considered the same as the universal church?
***He gave her his hand and raised her up, and when he had called the holy ones and the widows he presented her alive.***The term “catholic” was not used in writing until Ignatius of Antioch. You can read that fact anywhere. Ecclesia is the term used for the church in the NT and it is a term in reference to local congregations, not some church that is worldwide. The term catholic didn’t exist yet. Heck, in the NT the term Christians didn’t exist until those at antioch were called christians in Acts 11:26. You are correct about Luke being Paul’s “buddy” however. Not exactly the term I would’ve chosen but essentially correct.
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.

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.

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.

Actually, they do.

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.

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

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.

 

[Hesychios]

… The idea of being progressively innocent is a foreign concept.

What about progressively holy?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Chris,

Thanks for your charitable posts and your link. I’m reading it right now. You’re right; it is a long one…but I’m taking it all in.

Nice to see another California poster. Where are you exactly in CA?

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.

Psalm 32:2

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

 

[benidict]

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.

always has seemed like two accounts to me two triune. i could very well be wrong, and i do not have the expertise you have in these matters. could he be more refering to what we call " blends?" where two stories are interwoven, and can be read seperatly. such as the story of the flood? Peace

 

[BryanM27]

always has seemed like two accounts to me two triune. i could very well be wrong, and i do not have the expertise you have in these matters. could he be more refering to what we call " blends?" where two stories are interwoven, and can be read seperatly. such as the story of the flood? Peace

What I was referring to is not a blend. There are two separate stories of creation. The second story is actually older than the first, and both stories have different points of emphasis.

 

[Dokimas]

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

See that cheezy smiley face after my comment.? I was just teasing. Sorry it wasn’t obvious. That’s the risk of teasing in this type of interchange — misunderstandings.

 

[Dokimas]

He used that term to describe the universality of the church. That’s what “catholic” means. When we pray the Nicean Creed at mass we are not professing belief one Catholic church as an institution, but rather a belief in a universal church.

Good point.

 

[BryanM27]

Good point.

I get one every now and then lol

 

[Chris_S_1]

TriuneUnity:

Paul never says anything in the text about initial justification. This term is eisegetically placed into Paul’s epistle to the Romans. I agree that the grace of justification is given through Baptism. I also agree that justification is not necessarily a one time event. A person can reject the faith and lose justification. However, one is either justified fully or not justified at all. The idea of being progressively innocent is a foreign concept.

TriuneUnity:

Which means God only justifies the godly. Again… there’s no way around this contradiction between Roman Catholicism and Paul.

You seem to think that there is a contradiction because you are imputing (pardon the pun) your concept of justification upon us and concluding that it contradicts infusion. However, it is proper in the Catholic framework to say that God only justifies the ungodly AND God only justifies the godly. All those who are baptized (= justified in the Catholic framework) were ungodly beforehand. Also, those admitted at last into heaven (= justified in the Catholic framework) are godly. Since, in Catholic theology, only the baptized can be admitted into heaven, it is thus proper to say that God only justifies the ungodly and God only justifies the godly.

Now, I know you disagree with the Catholic framework regarding justification,and that is your right. But the point I was trying to make is that while you have shown how infusion contradicts your own framework, you have not shown how it contradict ours.

Our problem here is not the infusion, but it is actually the understanding of what justification is. I will keep arguing that infusion makes the most sense, because it fits the Catholic theology of justification. You will keep arguing for imputation, because it is the best fit for Lutheran theology. So normally imputation/infusion debates get absolutely nowhere because both sides are actually using proper logic and reasoning, but with conflicting premises that get overlooked. This would probably be an argument best left to the other million threads regarding the process (or lack thereof) of justification.

Anyway, I am quite possible mistaken, as the Catholic Church has signed a Joint Doctrine of Justification with the LWF. I don’t know if it was accepted by WELS. Perhaps TriuneUnity can provide us some insight.

P.S. Small note on semantics. Catholics actually DO believe in justification by imputation. The real question is whether God imputes it to one who is not righteous, or to one who is actually righteous. So it would be more accurate to say Catholics believe in “imputation due to infusion”. (But just saying “infusion” is easier).

 

[guanophore]

Paul never says anything in the text about initial justification. This term is eisegetically placed into Paul’s epistle to the Romans. I agree that the grace of justification is given through Baptism. I also agree that justification is not necessarily a one time event. A person can reject the faith and lose justification. However, one is either justified fully or not justified at all. The idea of being progressively innocent is a foreign concept.

I agree that Paul does not use the term “initial”. However, he speaks about justification as an event that occurs, and that point is the beginning of our walk with God. He also writes about growing in grace. I think a more appropriate rendering would be growing in sanctification. We become the holiness He has declared us to be.

 

[guanophore]

Which means God only justifies the godly. Again… there’s no way around this contradiction between Roman Catholicism and Paul.

I am sorry, I can’t follow your reasoning here. There is no need to justify the godly. Those who are righteous do not need any imputation of grace.

I think the only contradiction is in your head.

Maybe you can explain to me how these people, who require grace be imputed to them in order to be right with God, are godly already. I just don’t get it.

The Apostles taught that we are all dead in sin by default. We are born into Adam, and therefore, not in right relationship with God (godly).

 

[guanophore]

He used that term to describe the universality of the church. That’s what “catholic” means. When we pray the Nicean Creed at mass we are not professing belief one Catholic church as an institution, but rather a belief in a universal church.

The universal Church cannot be separated from the authority appointed over it by Christ. Gurney was saying that the term did not exist in Paul’s day, and clearly, scripture demonstrates that it was.

 

[guanophore]

I just looked up Acts 9:41. There is no mention of the term “catholic” there? Are you saying that “holy ones” is supposed to be considered the same as the universal church?

Sorry for the typo gurney. I meant Acts 9:31. Since the second half of the first century, the term universal (kath holos) has been used to describe the Church. Paul was clear that the Church was the same everywhere (universal).

T

he term “catholic” was not used in writing until Ignatius of Antioch. You can read that fact anywhere.

We don’t know this, gurney. Many early documents did not survive. What we do know is that by Ignatius, it was a common term to describe the universal Church - the same as the one Luke used.

Ecclesia is the term used for the church in the NT and it is a term in reference to local congregations, not some church that is worldwide. The term catholic didn't exist yet.

I am not sure why it is important for you to believe this, but it is not true.

There is nothing in the NT that is not Catholic. It was written by, for, and about Catholics.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

No problem, it happens to the best of us. You are correct that the verbage used here is ἐκκλησία καθ’ ὅλης which seems to indicate your line of thinking on the term. Thanks for hte reference.

guanophore:
Sorry for the typo gurney. I meant Acts 9:31. Since the second half of the first century, the term universal (kath holos) has been used to describe the Church. Paul was clear that the Church was the same everywhere (universal).

T

We don’t know this, gurney. Many early documents did not survive. What we do know is that by Ignatius, it was a common term to describe the universal Church - the same as the one Luke used.

I am not sure why it is important for you to believe this, but it is not true.

There is nothing in the NT that is not Catholic. It was written by, for, and about Catholics.
The early church believed that each local ecclesiastical church contained the entirety of Christ, pure and simple. There was not yet one world Church run by one man or one group. Each church had its own bishop who was Christ to his flock as Polycarp and Ignatius point out to us. A bishop had complete power over his church. Each parish was a microcosm of the unversal church. I don’t see what’s so convtroversial about that?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I still maintain that the Pauline language is compelling in the direction of Luther’s thinking. We are told that the Law is death. The Law shows us our sin. The Law is nailed to the Cross with Christ and along with it the legal claims of it against us (Galatians). Paul takes great pains in Romans 3 and 4 to discuss the futility of trying to find salvation through works but rather by faith. And when we look at James, touted by Catholics to be the Achilles Heel against the Protestant theology of Romans, we see this passage preceeding the famous pro-works passages of James:

For whoever keeps the whole Law, but falls short in one particular part of it, has become guilty in respect to ALL of it

So what James is saying is that trying to live up to the Law but falling short in any of the smallest parts of it one is judged and destroyed by it. We as human beings fall short of living the Law on a daily basis. Jesus tells us that if we even look at a woman with lust in our hearts that it is the same as adultery. This just illustrates James’ point here, that even the smallest infraction of the Law is doom. Paul says the same thing. So if this is the case, then why are we trying to attach works as part of the salvation equation?

The Pauline/Lutheran approach has a measuring stick of faith against the Law’s decree of death on us. We can measure our salvation in terms of faith, hope, and sticking to the resolve to love Christ in faith. But with the Catholic approach, we are to attach our own personal works of goodness with the faith that has nullified the Law and yet keep living in the Law trying to follow it as the Jews did and somehow in a mixture of faith and works that only God knows, we’ll be judged and might, “might” be saved. How is that reconcilable with Romans and Galatians?

What I see in CAF frequently is Catholics deflecting the argument away from Romans and Galatians and saying, “what about James?” or pointing out a statement by Our Lord like the tree and its fruit. Instead of moving away, let’s just stay on Romans and Galatians and this statement in James 2:10 and make sense of it through a Catholic lens. How can the Catholic position fit with Romans, Galatians and James 2:10? Can anyone give me some (name removed by moderator)ut and explain, provide insight here without changing the subject or moving on to some other epistle or gospel?

 

[guanophore]

I still maintain that the Pauline language is compelling in the direction of Luther’s thinking. We are told that the Law is death. The Law shows us our sin. The Law is nailed to the Cross with Christ and along with it the legal claims of it against us (Galatians). Paul takes great pains in Romans 3 and 4 to discuss the futility of trying to find salvation through works but rather by faith. And when we look at James, touted by Catholics to be the Achilles Heel against the Protestant theology of Romans, we see this passage preceeding the famous pro-works passages of James:

For whoever keeps the whole Law, but falls short in one particular part of it, has become guilty in respect to ALL of it

So what James is saying is that trying to live up to the Law but falling short in any of the smallest parts of it one is judged and destroyed by it. We as human beings fall short of living the Law on a daily basis. Jesus tells us that if we even look at a woman with lust in our hearts that it is the same as adultery. This just illustrates James’ point here, that even the smallest infraction of the Law is doom. Paul says the same thing. So if this is the case, then why are we trying to attach works as part of the salvation equation?

“We” are not “attaching works” to salvation. We are commanded to bear fruit that befits repentance, and to work out our salvation with fear and trembling. We are saved by grace through faith so that we can produce the works that were prepared for us. Our actions are part and parcel of being justified before God. The same grace that justifies us is that which produces the fruits of righteousness.

The Pauline/Lutheran approach has a measuring stick of faith against the Law's decree of death on us. We can measure our salvation in terms of faith, hope, and sticking to the resolve to love Christ in faith.  But with the Catholic approach, we are to attach our own personal works of goodness with the faith that has nullified the Law and yet keep living in the Law trying to follow it as the Jews did and somehow in a mixture of faith and works that only God knows, we'll be judged and might, "might" be saved.  How is that reconcilable with Romans and Galatians?

I can’t. I don’t understand what part of Catholic teaching you are referring to here. There is no such thing as “personal works of goodness”. Our works are as filthy rags before Him. Perhaps you can show me where Catholic Teaching says that we are to "attach our own personal works of goodness’ and I can respond. I have never read anything like this in Catholicism.

What I see in CAF frequently is Catholics deflecting the argument away from Romans and Galatians and saying, “what about James?” or pointing out a statement by Our Lord like the tree and its fruit. Instead of moving away, let’s just stay on Romans and Galatians and this statement in James 2:10 and make sense of it through a Catholic lens. How can the Catholic position fit with Romans, Galatians and James 2:10? Can anyone give me some (name removed by moderator)ut and explain, provide insight here without changing the subject or moving on to some other epistle or gospel?

No, not without some foundation. It sounds to me like you have misunderstood the Catholic faith!

There is no dichotomy in the Scriptures, and no dichotomy between the Scripture and the Church teaching. They all come from the same Source, and must be in unity. If it seems they are not, then it is our perceptions that are askew.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Paul makes it clear that works do not play a part in salvation. That’s the issue. Paul tells us that works only lead to “boasting” and that the Law only condemns us. You say “we are saved by grace through faith” and that’s true. But the producing of works does not in itself save us. The Catholic equation includes a formula of faith and works somehow pleasing God or not pleasing Him. Justification comes before sanctification. That’s correct. But is the sanctification the measuring stick for our salvation? If we don’t grow enough in holiness we are to have the satisfaction of our sins burned away in Purgatory and the remaining sanctification to take place in the afterlife because it all hinges on the proper amount of sanctification to be saved. Paul doesn’t speak of this? Obviously, as Luther and many of the Reformers taught, a person who commits no good works and lives a debauched life is more likely to NOT have faith so that person could lose his/her salvation completely but are our works, in the end, the rubric? Or is it faith? Romans, Galatians, and the Pauline language doesn’t point to your works + faith equation.

“We” are not “attaching works” to salvation. We are commanded to bear fruit that befits repentance, and to work out our salvation with fear and trembling. We are saved by grace through faith so that we can produce the works that were prepared for us. Our actions are part and parcel of being justified before God. The same grace that justifies us is that which produces the fruits of righteousness.

**Catholicism, of course, doesn’t teach that our works are done independent of God’s graces and will. I know that full well. But our works are the rubric, the evidence, the essential element that must be present according to Catholicism, sanctification evident, for us to be saved.

Paul tells us that of course we shouldn’t go on sinning despite our justification through faith. Rather we should live the life of growing in holiness and in faithfulness to the Gospel. But is Paul saying that God will look at our good works and decide on that if we are worthy of eternal salvation? Where does Paul use the terms “initial justification” that Catholicism employs? There is no dichotomy in the Scriptures, true. But you have concluded that there is no dichotomy based on the emphasis on works. Protestants believe there is no dichotomy based on the essence of faith. A Protestant will eliminate the dichotomy by viewing James through the lens of working in concert with the faith-alone stance nurtered by Paul. A Catholic like yourself will ensure no dichotomy based on James and the more works-driven language while trying to reconcile Paul to that.

The language of Romans and Galatians as well as even James 2:10 shows a Law-based Judaic model. People tried to live within the Law seeing it as salvific and a yardstick to measure righeousness. Paul throws that out with the garbage. James 2:10 tells us that the Law must be 100% obeyed, 100% or it might as well all be for nothing. It’s all or nothing, period. Paul’s approach is the same, no dichotomy. The Law is nailed dead on the Cross with Christ. It’s claims against us are dead and through our faith we are renewed and rejuvinated and justified. Sanctification follows because Paul tells us it should. Luther did as well in his commentary on Romans. We are not to live a libertine lifestyle but grow in holiness. But will our level of sanctification be the final rubric/yardstick or will our faith be? Please don’t insinuate that I don’t understand Catholicism or the theology of the Church. It’s insulting. I would never assume as much about you whom I feel to be a bright and learned person. I can disagree with you but assumption of ignorance is not on the table for me, May God bless you!**
I can’t. I don’t understand what part of Catholic teaching you are referring to here. There is no such thing as “personal works of goodness”. Our works are as filthy rags before Him. Perhaps you can show me where Catholic Teaching says that we are to "attach our own personal works of goodness’ and I can respond. I have never read anything like this in Catholicism. No, not without some foundation. It sounds to me like you have misunderstood the Catholic faith!

There is no dichotomy in the Scriptures, and no dichotomy between the Scripture and the Church teaching. They all come from the same Source, and must be in unity. If it seems they are not, then it is our perceptions that are askew.