Simul Peccator et Justus

[AbideWithMe]

What thread?

Now, now, settle down all and give Charlotte more time to spin an “INTERESTING TOPIC!” web.

 

[SyroMalankara]

So…Simultaneously a sinner and just before God. Is that something Catholic accept?

Is there agreement on Simul between the Catholics and Lutherans? Is there common ground?

And NO LUTHER BASHING. There is way too much of that already. Let the Lutherans explain it and the Catholics as well, without polemic overdrive and posturing and long stupid quotes that contribute nothing to the discussion. Let the weight of the argument be telling, not who is telling the argument. Short posts, please, in honor of Forum rules.

Luther simply renamed the term “saved” and used “just” then added some other theological constructs that Catholics cannot accept. Catholics clearly don’t believe in once saved, always saved - we believe we are saved, being saved and are going to be saved.

ligonier.org/blog/simul-justus-et-peccator/

The link above attempts to summarize Luther’s view:

But at the heart of the gospel is a double-imputation. My sin is imputed to Jesus. His righteousness is imputed to me. And in this two-fold transaction we see that God, Who does not negotiate sin, Who doesn’t compromise His own integrity with our salvation, but rather punishes sin fully and really after it has been imputed to Jesus, retains His own righteousness, and so He is both just and the justifier, as the apostle tells us here. So my sin goes to Jesus, His righteousness comes to me in the sight of God.

For Catholics, it is nonsense to say “my sin goes to Jesus”. It is also nonsense to a Catholic to say God doesn’t return the saved man substantially to being fully human - that is sinless like Adam prior to the fall in substance. The Lutheran expression “dung heap covered by snow” would be completed rejected by Catholics. It seems - correct me if I’m wrong - that to Luther, to be “fully human” is to be fallen and in sin. To Catholics, to be fully human means to be restored to Adam’s pre-fall state, that is, human nature is naturally holy.

 

[KjetilK]

The “Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification” signed between some Roman Catholic scholars and liberal, ecumenical Lutheran bodies neither mentions this concept nor the concept of imputed righteousness.

Of course they don’t. Why would Lutherans teach something Lutheranism haven’t ever taught? The Reformed (Calvinist) doctrine of imputed righteousness is contrary to Lutheran teaching, per Confessio Augustana. It is correct that the confession does use the Latin verb imputat (third-person singular present active indicative of imputō), in reference to justification: Hanc fidem imputat Deus pro iustitia coram ipso, “this faith God imputes for justification in his own sight.” The German text says: Denn diesen glauben will Gott fuer Gerechtigkeit vor ihm halten und zurechnen, “for this faith God will account for righteousness in his own sight.”

Note that the confession nowhere states that righteousness is imputed. What is imputede is faith, not righteousness. And that is contrary to Reformed teaching, per the Westminster Confession of Faith. In its article or chapter on Justification (XI), it states: “Those whom God effectually calls, He also freely justifies; not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.”

The Reformed doctrine, then, states that our justification comes through the imputation of “the obedience and satisfaction of Christ” (i.e. the righteousness of Christ), while Lutherans teach that faith is imputed (contrary to the explicit words of the Westminster Confession of Faith).

The question we ought to ask, is this: What does it mean that faith is imputed? What does it mean to impute?

Take Romans 4:5, which is a recurring verse in these debates: “And to one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned [imputed] for righteousness.”

Note that St. Paul doesn’t say that righteousness is imputed (reckoned or counted, which are better translations), or that the ungodly man himself is ‘counted.’ What is “reckoned [counted/imputed] for righteousness” is his faith.

But what does it mean to ‘reckon’ or ‘count’? To ‘count’ presupposed the reality of the thing counted. I prefer translating it as ‘reckon,’ but they means the same. To ‘reckon,’ ‘count’ or ‘impute’ does not constitute ‘fiction.’ If I deposit $100 into an empty bank account, I reckon that I have $100 in that bank account. But that reckoning is in no way a ‘fiction.’ I reckon that I have $100 because I do indeed have $100. That reckoning is based on my knowledge. I might be ignorant. Maybe I thought I deposited $100, but instead deposited $50. Than I would be wrong in my reckoning. Reckoning is always based upon knowledge. But God is all-knowing.

So, when Paul (and Lutherans) say that faith is “imputed/reckoned/counted for righteousness/justification,” it means that this faith is reckoned to be sufficient. It is NOT that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us, but that our faith is imputed for justification. That means that our faith, our trust, is regarded as sufficient. But the faith which is thus imputed is not any old faith, but an active faith. In Galatians, St. Paul states unambigiously that the faith which “is of any avail” is “faith working through love” (Gal 5:6). That itself doesn’t necessarily mean that one must act — that would rule out people who cannot act — but it states that you also need love to be saved, the love of God “poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit” (Rom 5:5, cf. vv.1-11). This love must be lived out according to each person’s ability.

Sorry for breaking the rule on long posts.

 

[Tomyris]

Of course they don’t. Why would Lutherans teach something Lutheranism haven’t ever taught? The Reformed (Calvinist) doctrine of imputed
Sorry for breaking the rule on long posts.

Thanks. It was interesting.

I am not sure why, though, critiquing Calvinism seems to be what the thread is turning to, on a thread where Catholic-Lutheran differences regarding a Latin phrase have been requested.

How can this difference in Catholic-Lutheran thought ever be reconciled?

 

[KjetilK]

Thanks. It was interesting.

I am not sure why, though, critiquing Calvinism seems to be what the thread is turning to, on a thread where Catholic-Lutheran differences regarding a Latin phrase have been requested.

How can this difference in Catholic-Lutheran thought ever be reconciled?

Well, simul iustus et peccator is not a phrase you will find explicitly in the confessions adhered to by every Lutheran Church, i.e. the three ecumenical creeds, Confessio Augustana, and Luther’s Small Catechism.

There is, of course, no doubt that Luther personally taught and believed it, but since it cannot be found in these confessions, and since I haven’t ever seen a convincing scriptural argument for it, I do not see it as a problem. It is a personal belief of many Lutherans, but it is not Lutheran dogma.

 

[Indifferently]

Of course they don’t. Why would Lutherans teach something Lutheranism haven’t ever taught? The Reformed (Calvinist) doctrine of imputed righteousness is contrary to Lutheran teaching, per Confessio Augustana. It is correct that the confession does use the Latin verb imputat (third-person singular present active indicative of imputō), in reference to justification: Hanc fidem imputat Deus pro iustitia coram ipso, “this faith God imputes for justification in his own sight.” The German text says: Denn diesen glauben will Gott fuer Gerechtigkeit vor ihm halten und zurechnen, “for this faith God will account for righteousness in his own sight.”

Note that the confession nowhere states that righteousness is imputed. What is imputede is faith, not righteousness. And that is contrary to Reformed teaching, per the Westminster Confession of Faith. In its article or chapter on Justification (XI), it states: “Those whom God effectually calls, He also freely justifies; not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.”

The Reformed doctrine, then, states that our justification comes through the imputation of “the obedience and satisfaction of Christ” (i.e. the righteousness of Christ), while Lutherans teach that faith is imputed (contrary to the explicit words of the Westminster Confession of Faith).

The question we ought to ask, is this: What does it mean that faith is imputed? What does it mean to impute?

Take Romans 4:5, which is a recurring verse in these debates: “And to one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned [imputed] for righteousness.”

Note that St. Paul doesn’t say that righteousness is imputed (reckoned or counted, which are better translations), or that the ungodly man himself is ‘counted.’ What is “reckoned [counted/imputed] for righteousness” is his faith.

But what does it mean to ‘reckon’ or ‘count’? To ‘count’ presupposed the reality of the thing counted. I prefer translating it as ‘reckon,’ but they means the same. To ‘reckon,’ ‘count’ or ‘impute’ does not constitute ‘fiction.’ If I deposit $100 into an empty bank account, I reckon that I have $100 in that bank account. But that reckoning is in no way a ‘fiction.’ I reckon that I have $100 because I do indeed have $100. That reckoning is based on my knowledge. I might be ignorant. Maybe I thought I deposited $100, but instead deposited $50. Than I would be wrong in my reckoning. Reckoning is always based upon knowledge. But God is all-knowing.

So, when Paul (and Lutherans) say that faith is “imputed/reckoned/counted for righteousness/justification,” it means that this faith is reckoned to be sufficient. It is NOT that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us, but that our faith is imputed for justification. That means that our faith, our trust, is regarded as sufficient. But the faith which is thus imputed is not any old faith, but an active faith. In Galatians, St. Paul states unambigiously that the faith which “is of any avail” is “faith working through love” (Gal 5:6). That itself doesn’t necessarily mean that one must act — that would rule out people who cannot act — but it states that you also need love to be saved, the love of God “poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit” (Rom 5:5, cf. vv.1-11). This love must be lived out according to each person’s ability.

Sorry for breaking the rule on long posts.

That’s some of the worst revisionism I’ve ever seen on this board. To claim that Luther and Lutheranism do not teach imputed righteousness is utterly false. Faith is the instrument of justification in both Reformed and Lutheran theology, and what is imputed in both is not the faith, but the righteousness of Christ, both his active and passive obedience, is credited to the believer. The Church of England’s Article XI teaches the self-same doctrine, predates the WCF by about a century, and is based on the Lutheran confessions.

 

[KjetilK]

That’s some of the worst revisionism I’ve ever seen on this board.

Since when is it revisionistic to point out what the texts of the confessions actually say?

To claim that Luther and Lutheranism do not teach imputed righteousness is utterly false.

That is not what the confession says.

Faith is the instrument of justification in both Reformed and Lutheran theology, and what is imputed in both is not the faith, but the righteousness of Christ, both his active and passive obedience, is credited to the believer.

, article IVConfessio Augustana:
Also they teach that men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for Christ’s sake, through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor, and that their sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake, who, by His death, has made satisfaction for our sins. This faith God imputes for righteousness in His sight. Rom. 3 and 4.

Romans 4:5:
And to one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned/imputed for righteousness.

That is what the texts say.

The Church of England’s Article XI teaches the self-same doctrine, predates the WCF by about a century, and is based on the Lutheran confessions.

Well, it isn’t what Confessio Augustana teaches. The claim was that Lutheranism teaches that the righteousness of Christ is imputed/reckoned onto the believer. That is not Lutheranism. And, as has been pointed out to you several times before, the 39 articles are not binding. And if they were, so what? What does that have to do with what constitutes Lutheran teaching?

You can keep pretending Lutheranism and Calvinism is the same. That doesn’t make it true.

 

[Tomyris]

Well, simul iustus et peccator is not a phrase you will find explicitly in the confessions adhered to by every Lutheran Church, i.e. the three ecumenical creeds, Confessio Augustana, and Luther’s Small Catechism.

There is, of course, no doubt that Luther personally taught and believed it, but since it cannot be found in these confessions, and since I haven’t ever seen a convincing scriptural argument for it, I do not see it as a problem. It is a personal belief of many Lutherans, but it is not Lutheran dogma.

A most interesting statement.

 

[rcwitness]

Originally Posted by KjetilK View Post
Well, simul iustus et peccator is not a phrase you will find explicitly in the confessions adhered to by every Lutheran Church, i.e. the three ecumenical creeds, Confessio Augustana, and Luther’s Small Catechism.

There is, of course, no doubt that Luther personally taught and believed it, but since it cannot be found in these confessions, and since I haven’t ever seen a convincing scriptural argument for it, I do not see it as a problem. It is a personal belief of many Lutherans, but it is not Lutheran dogma.

Well, im sure some passage from something St Paul wrote could be used.

But I respect your post here.