Reconciling Romans 2:13 with the rest of New Testament

[Johan]

I believe Christ died for my sin.

And what does that mean to you, more exactly? That He died to carry your sins onto the cross, or that He died in order to deal with your sin later on?

Galatians 5:2 KJV
Stand fast therefore in the liberty with which Christ has made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

That “yoke of bondage” was legalism, i.e., the teaching that we need to keep the Law in order to be saved. Yet, I get the impression that this is more or less exactly what Catholicism teaches (albeit with regard to a heavily reduced Law). If we go down that route, we have been severed from Christ (Gal. 5:4) who is our Savior.

And I make Christ Himself a liar because He said this:
John 5:14b BSB
“See, you have been made well. Stop sinning, or something worse may happen to you. ”

Was that the message that Jesus and the apostles were preaching? “If you want to get saved, stop sinning?” No, the apostles pointed at Christ.

He then brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved - you and your household.” (Acts 16:30-31)

Now, when John writes …

Everyone who resides in him does not sin; everyone who sins has neither seen him nor known him. (1 John 3:6)

… he does not refer to a potential future, but to our present standing in Christ. If we abide in Him we are not sinning. Our garment of righteousness has been made white in His blood.

 

[Johan]

Actually, what you assert is false and does not represent the Catholic position on the atonement. We believe that Christ suffered for us but not as us.

Forgive me for saying this, but this sounds to me like splitting hairs. We agree that Christ was not punished for His own sins, yet the Scriptures testify that

… the punishment that brought us peace was on him … (Isa. 53:5)

Punishment for what? The Bible even states that “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us” (2 Cor. 5:21) and that “He himself bore our sins in his body on the cross” (1 Pet. 2:24). So He certainly did not die detached from our predicament of sin, but with our very sins on His shoulders.

The Scriptures had foretold this divine plan of salvation through the putting to death of “the righteous one, my Servant” as a mystery of universal redemption, that is, as the ransom that would free men from the slavery of sin.

Yet, you do not believe that all people will be freed from the slavery of sin and saved as a result. This is the essential difference between Catholic and Reformed soteriology: we believe that His death is truly salvific and not merely meritorious. In the words of the Baptist preacher Charles Spurgeon:

He did not die to make men salvable–He died to save them. He did not die that their sin might be put away by some effort of their own–He died to put it away.

 

[Cathoholic]

SyCarl . . . .

The duty to pursue righteousness is not part of justification . . .

Then you MUST issue a correction. Here it is . . .

The OPTION to pursue righteousness is not part of justification . . .

SyCarl . . .

The renewal of the inner man takes place in regeneration and sanctification in sanctification.

The renewal of inner man takes place SyCarl, when the renewal inner man occurs. When we are baptized. When we become partakers of the Divine nature (and that doesn’t sound “renewing” to you huh?). When we are infused with supernatural faith, hope, and love. When we are regenerated. When we have a new heart sprinkled (or poured, or immersed) in us. When we are placed in Jesus and He in us in a special way. When we are placed in The Vine (again Jesus) and He in us in a special way. When our souls ontologically are changed forever in the Sacrament of Baptism. When we put on the “circumcision of Christ”–baptism. The renewal of inner man takes place SyCarl, when we are born anew, or we are renewed or regenerated.

I could give several more quotes from Chrysostom but I will limit it to one.

And all of them I would affirm.

And I could give several more quotes from St. John Chrysostom too but I don’t think it would matter to you here.

St. John Chrysostom does not teach justification by faith ALONE. At least in the sense of divorcing faith from works. He just doesn’t.

I already showed you one example of why St. John Chrysostom does not do that.

No ancient Church Fathers taught justification by faith ALONE in the sense you are attempting to get them to say.

It just isn’t going to work SyCarl.

 

[Cathoholic]

SyCarl . . .

We know Abraham obeyed because of his faith . . .

And if THAT was what you said SyCarl, I would not take issue with it.

But you said or at least implied . . . .

We know Abraham obeyed because of his faith ALONE . . .

Now admitedly I may be misreading you so I want to give you the invitation and opportunity to just say it.

Just say . . .

We know Abraham obeyed NOT because of his faith ALONE

And I will be happy to admit I read your items wrong.

.

.

You know SyCarl.

You were the one quoting St. John Chrysostom talking about how CHARITY is the “mother of good deeds”.

Now you are attempting to pretend FAITH is the “mother of good deeds”.

I think you should go back and re-read (and affirm ALL of) your own sources.

 

[lagerald24]

Hi Johan,

You quoted Isaiah 53:5, saying,

… the punishment that brought us peace was on him … (Isa. 53:5)

So, I went and read the whole chapter and found out a few things that I would like to comment on. First, given the verses before and after verse 5 and considering the context as a whole, it seems to me a far stretch to derive the doctrine of Penal Substitutionary Atonement from this chapter of Isaiah. Now, let me explain myself.

In verses 2-4, we read:

2 And he shall grow up as a tender plant before him, and as a root out of a thirsty ground: there is no beauty in him, nor comeliness: and we have seen him, and there was no sightliness, that we should be desirous of him.

3 Despised, and the most abject of men, a man of sorrows, and acquainted with infirmity: and his look was as it were hidden and despised, whereupon we esteemed him not.

4 Surely he hath borne our infirmities and carried our sorrows: and we have thought him as it were a leper, and as one struck by God and afflicted.

This passage seems to be expressing that Our Lord, when He was made incarnate, experienced the solidarity of our fallen world with us fallen creatures. When Isaiah speaks of Him bearing our infirmities and carrying our sorrows, the context clearly is not indicating an imputation of sin but rather, a solidarity and shared experience of the fallen human condition with its weakness and suffering. He bore our infirmities not in the sense that God punished Him for what we did, but in the sense that He grieved over them all, in solidarity with us.

When verse 5 speaks of a punishment, I think that translation can often give a false impression, making God out to be a Judge who legally punishes Christ rather than the loving Father who chastises His beloved Son. Indeed, the Douay Rheims, the KJV, the NASB, and the RSV translate the Hebrew מוּסָר to mean chastisement rather than punishment. See Strong’s Dictionary here: Strong's #4148 - מוּסָר - Old Testament Hebrew Lexical Dictionary - StudyLight.org and the lexicon here: Isaiah 53:5 Lexicon: But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed.

The more accurate translation (i.e. ‘chastisement’) draws on the true meaning of the passage, namely, that Christ suffered the consequences of sin (i.e. suffering, grief, death) by entering into solidarity with us, entering into our fallen world, and allowing Himself to suffer in it with us, for us, even by our hands at His death.

 

[lagerald24]

Also, 1st Peter 2:19-24 clearly has this chapter from Isaiah in mind when he writes:

19 For this is thankworthy, if for conscience towards God, a man endure sorrows, suffering wrongfully.

20 For what glory is it, if committing sin, and being buffeted for it, you endure? But if doing well you suffer patiently; this is thankworthy before God.

21 For unto this are you called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving you an example that you should follow his steps.

22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth.

23 Who, when he was reviled, did not revile: when he suffered, he threatened not: but delivered himself to him that judged him unjustly.

24 Who his own self bore our sins in his body upon the tree: that we, being dead to sins, should live to justice: by whose stripes you were healed.

So, rather than selectively citing a few verses to make a point, I offer the whole context of both Isaiah 53 and 1st Peter 2. These passages do not indicate that Christ suffered the Father’s wrath but rather that He suffered persecution at the hands of wicked men in a meritorious way with true charity. 1st Peter 2 is not talking about Psub atonement but rather, the true and holy example of suffering Christ gave us.

In regards to 1st Peter 2:24, I want to point out a few things. First, given the context of the whole chapter, verse 24 illustrates the fact that Our Lord, though blameless, nevertheless offered the atoning sacrifice on the cross for our sins. However, (as this excellent article explains: NICK'S CATHOLIC BLOG: The Biblical teaching on "bearing sin" - More problems with Penal Substitution) the doctrine of Psub atonement with the dual imputations of our sins onto Christ and then His righteousness onto us is clearly not indicated by Peter in this verse. The context, I say once more, shows this to be true, given that it deals with the meritorious suffering of our Lord out of love for us, having solidarity with us as true God and true man.

Also, you brought up 2nd Cor. 5:21. This article offers some insightful commentary on the reading of the passage you suggest: NICK'S CATHOLIC BLOG: The third most important passage in Protestantism (2 Corinthians 5:21) Keep in mind that several translations of Scripture translate the word ‘sin’ as ‘sin offering’. Also, the early Fathers, namely Augustine, did not read this verse with the later lens of John Calvin but saw that the phrase ‘made sin’ really was drawing on the aspect of being ‘made a sin sacrifice’.

Yet, you do not believe that all people will be freed from the slavery of sin and saved as a result.

That’s right.

we believe that His death is truly salvific and not merely meritorious.

And I would agree. I don’t see them as being opposed to one another. We believe that Christ’s death is superabundant for the sins of the whole world (see 1st John 2:2, 1st Timothy 2:4, 2nd Peter 3:9 for examples). His death is objectively of infinite value. However, the fruits and merits of His death must be applied subjectively to each individual person.

 

[lagerald24]

He did not die to make men salvable–He died to save them.

Again, no Catholic would dispute that.

He did not die that their sin might be put away by some effort of their own–He died to put it away.

Clearly, Spurgeon didn’t understand Catholic doctrine. He did, though, do an excellent job of knocking down a straw man. See our Catechism for more details: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c3a2.htm

Thanks for the response Johan!

 

[C.Longinus]

And what does that mean to you, more exactly? That He died to carry your sins onto the cross, or that He died in order to deal with your sin later on?

His death is how I obtain forgiveness of sin, but if I don’t accept it, it has no efficiency for me.

That “yoke of bondage” was legalism, i.e., the teaching that we need to keep the Law in order to be saved. Yet, I get the impression that this is more or less exactly what Catholicism teaches (albeit with regard to a heavily reduced Law). If we go down that route, we have been severed from Christ (Gal. 5:4) who is our Savior.

Jesus says: “If you love me you will keep My commandments.” It’s not legalistic to follow that train of thought. 1 Corinthians 7:19 says as much.

Was that the message that Jesus and the apostles were preaching? “If you want to get saved, stop sinning?” No, the apostles pointed at Christ.

The Apostles emphasized repentance as well. How can one turn to Christ without turning away from sin?

He then brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved - you and your household.” (Acts 16:30-31)

You forgot something:
“Then Paul and Silas spoke the word of the Lord to him and to everyone in his house. At that hour of the night, the jailer took them and washed their wounds. And without delay, he and all his household were baptized.”

Now, when John writes …

Everyone who resides in him does not sin; everyone who sins has neither seen him nor known him. (1 John 3:6)

“If we abide in Him” but we can choose, NOT to abide in Him. That’s what you’re trying to ignore.

 

[fhansen]

Now, are you one of those who say that good works condemn the man doing them? I know this is a true Protestant position, because the Coiuncil of Trent specifically condemns that teaching:

COUNCIL OF TRENT VI, CANON VII.-If any one saith, that all works done before Justification, in whatsoever way they be done, are truly sins, or merit the hatred of God; or that the more earnestly one strives to dispose himself for grace, the more grievously he sins : let him be anathema.

This is true. And it also needs to be said that we cannot earn our justification, we cannot justify ourselves, which is what being “under the law” attempts to accomplish. Only God can do that. So Trent also teaches:

"none of those things that precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification."

Canon 1.
If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law,[110] without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema.

Canon 3.
If anyone says that without the predisposing inspiration of the Holy Ghost[111] and without His help, man can believe, hope, love or be repentant as he ought,[112] so that the grace of justification may be bestowed upon him, let him be anathema.

Canon 4.
If anyone says that man’s free will moved and aroused by God, by assenting to God’s call and action, in no way cooperates toward disposing and preparing itself to obtain the grace of justification, that it cannot refuse its assent if it wishes, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive, let him be anathema.

I love the way Trent balances both sides, God’s and man’s wills working together. We can’t possibly be saved without Him, but we still are obliged to do our part. And that is how Rom 2:13 is reconciled with the rest. The missing part in our being obedient is Christ: God, Himself, the God Adam dismissed by his act of disobedience.

 

[lagerald24]

Was that the message that Jesus and the apostles were preaching? “If you want to get saved, stop sinning?” No, the apostles pointed at Christ

I really don’t see why anyone would put a sharp either/or distinction between following Our Lord and ceasing to sin. Discipleship entails loving God which means, as Christ says in the Gospels, keeping the commandments. Through the adoption in the Spirit and in the new life of grace, we fulfill the commandments, having charity shed abroad in our hearts as Paul says in Romans 5:5. The bare letter of the Mosaic Law could never perfectly justify us, (i.e. put us in a right relationship with God). Once we receive the gift of grace, we are able to live according to a new life of righteousness by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Grace as the author of Hebrews puts it. Again, I stress, repentance is an absolute necessary part of salvation and no man is truly justified who is not repentant of his sins. But, as we all can agree, salvation is always God’s work and even our actions of cooperation are part of His grace working in us to will aright. This is the thrust of Philippians 2:12-13.

So, I hope you know, Johan, that we Catholics are not Pelagians nor are we semi-Pelagians. Just read our Catechism and the decrees of Orange and Trent to see this basic fact. But, saying that a person can lose their salvation IS NOT a Pelagian heresy. It is a heavily Scriptural doctrine that was accepted by all Christians and the early fathers and even Martin Luther himself.

Take Romans 11:22 for instance: “Consider the kindness and severity of God—severity toward those who fell, and kindness toward you, provided you remain in his kindness; if you do not, you too will be cut off.” Indeed, in Galatians 5:4, Paul talks about people who have “fallen from grace”. When reading Scripture, we must take the whole of it in when considering these things.

In Galatians 6:9, Paul encourages us: “Let us not grow weary of doing good; if we do not relax our efforts, in due time we shall reap our harvest.”

Finally, Hebrews 10:29 warns: “How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?” In the context of this passage, the author of Hebrews had been comparing the punishment for grave, mortal sin in the Old Covenant to the punishment for grave, mortal sin in the New Covenant. The latter punishment is far more severe because the sinner has been given the greater gift and nevertheless spurns it, falling from grace.

So, in final consideration, we must not highlight certain passages in Scripture to the ignorance of others. It is never either/or but is almost always both/and. God is sovereign and is the Lord of our lives and the Giver of every good gift especially salvation but it is not Scriptural to take this fact and then assert that as a consequence either we lack free will or that we cannot fall from grace and lose salvation.

 

[fhansen]

Was that the message that Jesus and the apostles were preaching? “If you want to get saved, stop sinning?” No, the apostles pointed at Christ

Exactly. To separate righteousness from being righteous is…just plain wrong. The “apostles pointed to Christ” because He’s the means-the only means-to the authentic righteousness or justice God’s always intended for man. We must stop trying to do it on our own; we “must decrease so that He may increase” (John 3:30). Because, “Apart from Me you can do nothing.” (John 15:5)

 

[Johan]

This passage seems to be expressing that Our Lord, when He was made incarnate, experienced the solidarity of our fallen world with us fallen creatures. When Isaiah speaks of Him bearing our infirmities and carrying our sorrows, the context clearly is not indicating an imputation of sin but rather, a solidarity and shared experience of the fallen human condition with its weakness and suffering.

Although the context of Isaiah 53:5 can be said to speak in general terms of His solidarity with His people, there is no doubt that the verse itself references His cross. The suffering servant being “pierced for our transgressions” and “crushed for our iniquities” so that “by his wounds we are healed” is clearly a prophecy of the crucifixion of Christ. There is also no doubt that the apostle Peter read Isaiah 53 in light of and with reference to the cross:

“He himself bore our sins” in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; “by his wounds you have been healed.” (1 Pet. 2:24)

The last part of that verse is a quote from Isaiah 53:5. He did not merely carry our infirmities, but our sins (τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν), on the cross. This is the language of atonement; we find the same motif expressed by the author of Hebrews:

… so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him. (Heb. 9:28)

Both verses use the combination of ἀναφέρω (“take up as a burden”, BDAG) and ἁμαρτία (“sin”) to express the notion that our sins were carried by Christ onto the cross and taken away.

 

[Johan]

The more accurate translation (i.e. ‘chastisement’) draws on the true meaning of the passage, namely, that Christ suffered the consequences of sin (i.e. suffering, grief, death) by entering into solidarity with us, entering into our fallen world, and allowing Himself to suffer in it with us, for us, even by our hands at His death.

I have to wonder why you think that the translation you fancy is “more accurate” than the other. Are you a scholar or a translator yourself? Since Isaiah 53:5 is a reference to the cross of Christ (as confirmed by the apostle Peter), it would be too “weak” to describe it in terms of mere “disciplining”. Crucifixion was a method of capital punishment reserved for rebels against the Roman authority, considered so ignominious that Roman citizens would not be subjected to it. In the prophetic writings, God’s מוּסָר also involves punishing His people for their sins:

All your allies have forgotten you; they care nothing for you. I have struck you as an enemy would and punished you as would the cruel, because your guilt is so great and your sins so many. (Jer. 30:14)

It is correct that מוּסָר does not mean punishment in a legal sense, but it definitely covers the punishment that a parent would deliver to a misbehaving child (and the misbehaving child in Isaiah 53 is Israel). The punishment or chastisement of Israel also involved the death of certain individuals that were cut off from the people. This is the notion inherent in Isaiah 53: the chastisement that involved death befell Christ rather than us. You seem to appeal to emotion by contrasting God as “judge” with God as “the loving Father”. Those qualities are not mutually exclusive. In Isaiah 53:10 we read:

… the LORD desired to crush him and make him ill …

and in John 10:17:

This is why the Father loves me - because I lay down my life, so that I may take it back again.

God loved His Son, but nonetheless made Him drink the cup of suffering and death for our sake.

The more accurate translation (i.e. ‘chastisement’) draws on the true meaning of the passage, namely, that Christ suffered the consequences of sin (i.e. suffering, grief, death) by entering into solidarity with us, entering into our fallen world, and allowing Himself to suffer in it with us, for us, even by our hands at His death.

Another key verse, 2 Cor. 5:21, shows that Christ did not merely suffer “in solidarity” with us, but that God made Him sin for us (ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν). He was identified with our sinfulness by carrying our sins in His body and so received the wages of sin, which is death.

 

[Johan]

So, rather than selectively citing a few verses to make a point, I offer the whole context of both Isaiah 53 and 1st Peter 2. These passages do not indicate that Christ suffered the Father’s wrath but rather that He suffered persecution at the hands of wicked men in a meritorious way with true charity. 1st Peter 2 is not talking about Psub atonement but rather, the true and holy example of suffering Christ gave us.

Unless the context is crucial for the understanding of a verse, this strategy is known as “playing the context card”. I agree that the context of 1 Peter 2:24 contains an admonishment to withstand the suffering that inevitably befalls the people of God. That observation does not contradict the fact that Peter is using the language of sacrifice and atonement in verse 24 to explicate the significance of His death. The verb translated as “bore” (ἀνήνεγκεν, lexical form ἀναφέρω) has strong connotations of sacrifice and is used in that sense in the Epistle to the Hebrews:

Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer [ἀναφέρειν] sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered [ἀνενέγκας] himself. (Heb. 7:27)

Likewise:

… so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin [ἀνενεγκεῖν ἁμαρτίας], but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him. (Heb. 9:28)

The verbal link between Hebrews 9:28 and 1 Peter 2:24 is hardly disputable. This relationship is reinforced by Peter’s own usage of ἀναφέρω in 2:5 where he writes:

… you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices [ἀνενέγκαι πνευματικὰς θυσίας] acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

It is true that Peter does not go so far as to state that Jesus was punished by God, but he nonetheless portrays His death as sacrificial and atoning. And by quoting Isaiah 53:5 all loose ends are tied up. The punishment that was delivered through the cross did not have the appearance of an atoning sacrifice, but nonetheless was.

 

[EndTimes]

This semantic-argument focus upon “law” merely seeks for an uncrossed T .
Paul doesn’t contradict anything.
We are called to Obey God’s Teachings.
That’s as simple as it can be…
From e.g., Pentecost onward, the Promises of God’s Spirit via Jesus’ Prayer at the Last Supper - aka Man reconciled with God - comes into play… … The Old Covenant is fulfilled. . Now via Jesus’ Cross, We are to seek Salvation via Faith in Jesus - and Worship God in Spirit. The Mosaic law had never led anyone to Salvation.

HEBREWS — Jesus Superior to Moses
1Therefore, brothers in the family of God, who share a heavenly calling, think of the Apostle and High Priest of the religion we profess, Or: of him whom we confess as God’s Envoy and High Priest. 2 [ Lv.12.7. ] who was faithful to God who appointed him. Moses also was faithful in God’s household; 3and Jesus, of whom I speak, has been deemed worthy of greater honour than Moses, as the founder of a house enjoys more honour than his household. 4For every house has its founder; and the founder of all is God. 5Moses, then, was faithful as a servitor in God’s whole household; his task was to bear witness to the words that God would speak; 6but Christ is faithful as a son, set over his household. And we are that household of his, if only we are fearless and keep our hope high.
A Rest for the People of God - Ps.95.7-11

7’TODAY’, THEREFORE, as the Holy Spirit says—

‘Today if you hear his voice,
8 [ Ex.17.7, Lv.20.2. ] Do not grow stubborn as in those days of rebellion,
at that time of testing in the desert,
9where your forefathers tried me and tested me,
and saw Or: though they saw … the things I did for forty years.
10And so, I was indignant with that generation
and I said. Their hearts are for ever astray,
they would not discern my ways;
11 [ Lv.14.21-23. ] as I vowed in my anger, they shall never enter my rest.’
12See to it, brothers, that no one among you has the wicked, faithless heart of a deserter from the living God; 13but day by day, while that word ‘Today’ still sounds in your ears, encourage one another, so that no one of you is made stubborn by the wiles of sin. 14For we have become Christ’s partners Or: have been given a share in Christ. if only we keep our original confidence firm to the end.
15 [ Ps.95.7-8. ] When Scripture says, ‘Today if you hear his voice, do not grow stubborn as in those days of rebellion’, 16who, I ask, were those who heard and rebelled? All those, surely, whom Moses had led out of Egypt. 17 [ Lv.14.29. ] And with whom was God indignant for forty years? With those, surely, who had sinned, whose bodies lay where they fell in the desert. 18 [ Lv.14.22-23. ] And to whom did he vow that they should not enter his rest, if not to those who had refused to believe? 19We perceive that it was unbelief which prevented their entering.

 

[Johan]

To separate righteousness from being righteous is…just plain wrong.

Well, that is precisely what Paul does when he first writes that there is no one righteous (Rom. 3:10) and later on asserts that God justifies the ungodly (Rom. 4:5). When we are justified by faith, our sins are no longer imputed to us. We stand before God as blameless. At the same time, we cannot boast of sinlessness. This is the superficial contradiction inherent in the Gospel. The Christian individual is simul justus et peccator.

 

[fhansen]

Well, that is precisely what Paul does when he first writes that there is no one righteous (Rom. 3:10) and later on asserts that God justifies the ungodly (Rom. 4:5).

Fortunately His intent isn’t to leave us that way. We’re forgiven, and cleansed and made new creations with the Spirit of God indwelling; we’re justified: the ungodly are made just. So that we’re enabled to perform the works God’s prepared for us in advance, so that we’ll do “for the least of these” instead of otherwise, so that we might be made the beings God created us to be, so that justice is finally restored to God’s creation instead of suddenly being ignored for some reason.

Jesus came when the time was ripe to finally make us right; God didn’t create sinners. We enter communion with God through faith in response to grace. We’re saved by faith, via faith, through and on the basis of faith. This is a partnership that man was made for, that in itself constitutes justice or right order for us. Then God does the work as we continue to cooperate. That’s the essence of the New Covenant, “I will place my law in their minds and write it on their hearts.” “Apart from Me you can do nothing.”

To separate righteousness from righteousness is to remain as we were, nothing changed, giving satan a great big smile. “To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger.” Rom 2:7-8

So the Church wisely teaches:

Canon 1.
If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law,[110] without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema.

Canon 3.
If anyone says that without the predisposing inspiration of the Holy Ghost[111] and without His help, man can believe, hope, love or be repentant as he ought,[112] so that the grace of justification may be bestowed upon him, let him be anathema.

Canon 11.
If anyone says that men are justified either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost,[116] and remains in them, or also that the grace by which we are justified is only the good will of God, let him be anathema.

Canon 20.
If anyone says that a man who is justified and however perfect is not bound to observe the commandments of God and the Church, but only to believe,[122] as if the Gospel were a bare and absolute promise of eternal life without the condition of observing the commandments, let him be anathema.

Canon 23.
If anyone says that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace,[124] and that therefore he that falls and sins was never truly justified; or on the contrary, that he can during his whole life avoid all sins, even those that are venial, except by a special privilege from God, as the Church holds in regard to the Blessed Virgin, let him be anathema.

 

[lagerald24]

Thanks for the well-thought out reply, brother. I’d like to address some of the things you brought up and also take some more time to further address the differences between the Catholic and Reformed Protestant doctrines concerning the atonement of Our Lord. Also, I hope we can talk about the idea of imputed righteousness versus infused righteousness because both of these concepts are highly tied into our respective ideas about the atonement.

First of all, I’d just like to point out that the Catholic tradition, since the very early times, has seen the 52nd and 53rd chapters of Isaiah as prophesying the suffering and death of Christ for our sins. This is not at dispute at all. I am not denying the fact that Isaiah is speaking of Christ suffering for our sins as part of God’s Redemptive plan for humanity nor am I asserting that Isaiah is not speaking about Our Lord’s suffering on the cross. He clearly is speaking about Christ’s suffering on behalf of man. The part where you and I would disagree, though, would be in regards to Penal Substitutionary Atonement. In order to benefit this discussion, I will offer some definitions for this doctrine of the atonement.

Bryan Cross sums up the different positions on the atonement at the beginning of this blog post: Catholic and Reformed Conceptions of the Atonement | Called to Communion

Also, popular Reformed apologist John MacArthur says the following about PSA: “To [Jesus] was imputed the guilt of their sins, and He was suffering the punishment for those sins on their behalf. And the very essence of that punishment was the outpouring of God’s wrath against sinners. In some mysterious way during those awful hours on the cross, the Father poured out the full measure of His wrath against sin, and the recipient of that wrath was God’s own beloved Son. In this lies the true meaning of the cross.”

Now, having somewhat of a working definition of PSA, I will now explain why I do not believe that Isaiah teaches this doctrine in his treatment of the suffering servant. First, verse four explains the popular idea in especially Old Testament Scripture that suffering and affliction were the consequences and punishments of a sinful action which we know is not always the case (as we see with Job). Also, this verse is cited in Matthew 8:17 where we read about Christ driving out demons and curing the sick in fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy, clearly not referencing an imputation of sin or guilt of sin. More in mind is the idea of vicarious suffering, suffering for another. Also, verse 4 prophesies the event in which the Jews consider Christ to be suffering God’s displeasure on account of the fact that God wouldn’t save Him (Matthew 27:40-43).

 

[lagerald24]

Anyway, now we come to the key verse five. You say:

The suffering servant being “pierced for our transgressions” and “crushed for our iniquities” so that “by his wounds we are healed” is clearly a prophecy of the crucifixion of Christ.

And I say: Agreed! When Isaiah speaks of Him being pierced for our sins, he obviously is prophesying the crucifixion of Our Lord. Same goes for “crushed for our iniquity” which references Christ’s beating and abuse at the hands of His torturers. As I said earlier, the term ‘punishment’ used here is more accurately translated as ‘chastisement’. Christ’s suffering on our behalf is indeed infinitely meritorious and is superabundant in grace for the sins of the whole world. Catholics also have no problem with viewing Christ as our substitute, the one Mediator between God and man as we read in 1st Timothy 2:5.

Bryan Cross offers some great insight into this reality: “He really did bear the curse, by bearing in His body the suffering and dissolution of death, and by bearing in His spirit the desolation that is the absence of spiritual consolation. By taking these upon Himself, freely, in self-sacrificial love, Christ offered something more pleasing to the Father than all our sins are displeasing. And in that way Christ merited for us the grace by which our sins are forgiven, we are restored to friendship with God, and we are saved from the punishment of hell.”

Cross goes on to explain: “Christ took on all human sin not by becoming intrinsically guilty (and thus deserving of punishment), or by imputation (and thus being falsely accused by an omniscient Being), but by (1) allowing Himself to suffer the effects of the curse, and (2) by seeing all the sin of all men for what it is in all its evil, and in solidarity with us (as one sharing our nature), with the grief of contrition freely and lovingly offering Himself as a perfect sacrifice for it.”

So, to end this particular analysis for now, I’d just like to point out something. We believe that Christ, the God Made Man Incarnate, was both fully human and fully Divine. And as such, He was able to be the Mediator between God and us humans and also the substitute for us, suffering on our behalf and on account of our sins.

 

[De_Maria]

fhansen:

To separate righteousness from being righteous is…just plain wrong.

Well, that is precisely what Paul does when he first writes that there is no one righteous (Rom. 3:10) and later on asserts that God justifies the ungodly (Rom. 4:5). When we are justified by faith, our sins are no longer imputed to us.

Because it’s been forgiven and washed away by the power of the Holy Spirit. Not because it is somehow covered over. We are renewed and regenerated. Not repainted.

We stand before God as blameless. At the same time, we cannot boast of sinlessness.

Not because He has not made us sinless. But because we didn’t make ourselves sinless. He washes our souls. We didn’t do it ourselves.

This is the superficial contradiction inherent in the Gospel. The Christian individual is simul justus et peccator.

It’s the superficial contradiction inherent in Protestant teaching. The fact is that you don’t believe that you are regenerated and born again when you are justified. For Protestants, those are just catch phrases without meaning. They sound cool. But, you have taken the power out of the Gospel.

Jesus Christ taught that we are born again from above. Scripture repeatedly describes that we are washed of our sins and regenerated to a new and eternal life. At the moment we are justified, we are in a pristine state of “no sin” whatsoever. Yes, we remain “prone to commit sin”. Concupisence remains. But until we commit another sin, we are righteous because God has made us righteous.

Here’s the catch. God only does that for those who keep the Law. As Rom 2:13 says. Doers of the Law are justified.