Do Catholics Deny Imputation?

[thecolorsblend]

The problem being who decides what the infallible authority is?

In my case, I believe God decided it. I understand that this is likely to be a point of disagreement between us but I look to the Catholic Church for that authority.

 

[thecolorsblend]

We can examine this simply by asking the question:

Are the wages of sin death?

I understand that you're attempting a dialectic here. Presumably it's one intended to get me to arrive at the PSA theory of atonement. Apart from not being especially interested in taking part in such a dialectic, I must reiterate that Afra asked a simple question, the answer to which is either "yes" or "no". I believe he even provided "true" or "false" variants. You may answer those with either "yes" or "no"/"true" or "false" when you wish.

 

[redleghunter]

I understand that you're attempting a dialectic here. Presumably it's one intended to get me to arrive at the PSA theory of atonement. Apart from not being especially interested in taking part in such a dialectic, I must reiterate that Afra asked a simple question, the answer to which is either "yes" or "no". I believe he even provided "true" or "false" variants. You may answer those with either "yes" or "no"/"true" or "false" when you wish.

If you answer the question I won’t ask you specifically to answer anymore.

But given I like ya, the answer is yes. So I have spared you having to kill electrons.

On the answering the questions from the other poster. I have. By the Law it is unjust for an innocent man to die for a crime he did not commit.

 

[gordonhooker]

In my case, I believe God decided it. I understand that this is likely to be a point of disagreement between us but I look to the Catholic Church for that authority.

I like that at least you are honest brother....

 

[thecolorsblend]

If you answer the question I won’t ask you specifically to answer anymore.

But given I like ya, the answer is yes. So I have spared you having to kill electrons.

On the answering the questions from the other poster. I have. By the Law it is unjust for an innocent man to die for a crime he did not commit.

@Afra did you see this? You're up.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Yes, I disagree. The situation below corresponds exactly to the situation that you describe above:

John rapes Susan and then murders her. Steven is totally innocent of rape and murder, but loves John greatly. John is put on a criminal trial for murder and rape, and is found to be guilty of murder and rape. Because Steven loves John, he agrees to go to jail for 30 years instead of John. The judge agrees to let John go free without any punishment, and puts Steven in jail for 30 years.

Is that justice?

Lets say that Susan is your daughter. How would you feel about the judge letting the man who raped and murdered your daughter go free, while putting an innocent man in jail for it instead?

Do you think that it was just for the judge to put Steven in jail for 30 years, and allow the man who raped your daughter to go free? Would you or anyone call that judge a just judge? Or would you call him a terrible judge?

I think he would be a terrible judge, personally. And I would say that the judge has not acted justly. I would say that the judge has done a horrendous thing by punishing the innocent man and allowing the guilty man to go free, even if the innocent man agreed to it.

I will try to respond to the rest of your post when I have a chance.

How would you feel about the Judge letting an adulterer go who had committed adultery with your spouse? Or a murderer who handed over your brethren to death? Is that justice?

No, that is not justice. But how can this mercy be justified? Based upon your criteria for rejecting a scapegoat, that of how the offended feels, and that the guilty must be punished, then such mercy cannot be justified? Yet God, who Himself is the most supremely offended, justifies His mercy by laying the uniquity of the guilty upon a scapegoat, and making atonement with the most precious sacrifice, that of His own Son, with His sinless shed blood.

And thereby declaring the guilty who believes in this scapegoat Savior to be just. Thanks be to God.

Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. (Romans 3:25-26)

To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; (Ephesians 1:6-7)

For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. (2 Corinthians 5:21)

 

[Afra]

@Afra did you see this? You're up.

I did not ask Him whether it is unjust, under the Law (by this I assume he means the Mosaic Law) for an innocent man to die for a crime he did not commit. When he answers one of the questions that I actually asked him I will be glad to discuss it.

The reason why I refuse is because I asked him one very simple question that I and others have given a clear answer to. He responded by attempting to change the meaning of my question, and by asking me multiple different questions, each of which I gave a clear answer to. Then when I asked him again to answer my question he responded in the same manner.

Since I went out of my way to give clear and straightforward answers to his questions, without attempting to alter their meaning in any way, I expect the same in return. I am not interested in having a discussion with someone who expects me to answer his questions but will not answer mine.

@PeaceByJesus answered my question so we can discuss it.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Self deleted post.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Nevermind. ..

 

[Man on Fire]

What is righteousness?

• For a righteous man may fall seven times And rise again,But the wicked shall fall by calamity. Proverbs 24:16

Righteousness may be seen as someone who triumphs through struggle. Someone who resists temptation may be seen as righteous. Someone who just doesn't quit at whatever he does, and has passion may be righteous. Jesus was tempted by all the same temptation man has had. (Hebrews 4:14-16)
Jesus endured suffering and tribulations. He bore the cross. Christians are to bare their cross.

The "Pursuit of Happiness" with Will Smith is a movie. Will Smith's character went through many trials and tribulations. In a way, we may say the character was Righteous.

• But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. (Isaiah 64:6)

It doesn't really matter how great a man thinks he is or what he has achieved in life. Unless it was done through the Spirit of God it doesn't matter. Who is man serving? Himself? Something else? God Almighty?

When Christians are baptized, are they really righteous? Given they are really servants of God, they show their Faith by their deeds.

Article: Kingdom Righteousness = Sexual Purity – – Matthew 5:27-30 – Kingdom Streams

 

[Afra]

How would you feel about the Judge letting an adulterer go who had committed adultery with your spouse? Or a murderer who handed over your brethren to death? Is that justice?

No, that is not justice. But how can this mercy be justified? Based upon your criteria for rejecting a scapegoat, that of how the offended feels, and that the guilty must be punished, then such mercy cannot be justified? Yet God, who Himself is the most supremely offended, justifies His mercy by laying the uniquity of the guilty upon a scapegoat, and making atonement with the most precious sacrifice, that of His own Son, with His sinless shed blood.

And thereby declaring the guilty who believes in this scapegoat Savior to be just. Thanks be to God.

Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. (Romans 3:25-26)

To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted in the beloved. In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; (Ephesians 1:6-7)

For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. (2 Corinthians 5:21)

Sorry not to respond. I have decided to leave this site. It is not a good use of my time. Good luck.

 

[redleghunter]

I did not ask Him whether it is unjust, under the Law (by this I assume he means the Mosaic Law) for an innocent man to die for a crime he did not commit. When he answers one of the questions that I actually asked him I will be glad to discuss it.

The reason why I refuse is because I asked him one very simple question that I and others have given a clear answer to. He responded by attempting to change the meaning of my question, and by asking me multiple different questions, each of which I gave a clear answer to. Then when I asked him again to answer my question he responded in the same manner.

Since I went out of my way to give clear and straightforward answers to his questions, without attempting to alter their meaning in any way, I expect the same in return. I am not interested in having a discussion with someone who expects me to answer his questions but will not answer mine.

@PeaceByJesus answered my question so we can discuss it.

Again I did answer the questions and I believe TCB identified that I did so. But that’s fine. I’ll just observe your conversation with PBJ.

 

[redleghunter]

God doesn't set us free in the same way as we would let a criminal go without prison or punishment. HE pays the price for our sin then sets us free from the bondage of sin, so that as freedmen we can choose Godly lives, and in order that be done more perfectly, we are given a new heart (born in love) and a new Spirit, His Holy Spirit.

Indeed the bondage of the will.

So your scenario is different than God's. Just my thoughts.

Agree. Why we must always consider what we know and God has communicated to us what that truly entails.

The question is, seeing as how we were under the death sentence prior to salvation, is how does God look upon us in heaven, for what we did do - and that is easy, He sees Christ. The righteousness we are clothed in, is HIS.

Amen.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Isaiah 55:8-9

Setting criminals free is unjust because you lock criminals up, away from society, to protect society itself - not punish the criminal so much as to protect society while you give the criminal reason, caused by fear, to stop doing what led him to be set in prison to begin with. In the case of death penalties it's because the sin so severe that society will always be in danger so long as you live.

While you likely do not realize it, what you are expressing is the reasoning behind Catholic rejection of capital punishment (CP), and thus the fallacious premise that in our advanced world CP is no longer justifiable (but placing the burden upon taxpayers for years and even decades of imprisonment, and dealing with multiple appeals, is justifiable).

However, in the word of God CP is not simply or necessarily in order to protect society from criminals, but because the doing of the evil is to be recompensed proportionate to the offense.

Thus even before the giving of the Law we read, "Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man." (Genesis 9:6)

And we also have "the avenger of blood," which slew a person guilty of premeditated murder. (Deuteronomy 19:12)

The reason for CP in the Law is not because Israel could not have created a prison system, for they had a city of refuge to protect those who were guilty of unintentional homicide. But the conspicuous absence of prison system under Law is consistent with the principal of recompense. A thief was to pay back what he stole, but one had to pay for the unjust shedding of blood with his own blood. Which is not the only capital offense, and which saved the commonwealth from placing the burden of a vast prison system upon the people, the victims.

Yet the state can also show Christian mercy, and guilt itself requires 2 or 3 eye witnesses, and with false witnesses incurring the punishment their false testimony was meant to achieve.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Deleted.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

I wasn't making an argument either for or against capital punishment at all in my post.

I was discussing why, from the perspective of whether or not Jesus dying in our stead was just, it was an act of justice by shedding some light on some of what salvation is in truth (attempting not to be overly verbose and putting it together simply, as sometimes we break it apart so much we forget what it looks like together in its simplicity)

Was this thread about CP? I'm confused - for real.. why I was corrected. Perhaps there is something I missed.

I was just responding to your statement that "In the case of death penalties it's because the sin so severe that society will always be in danger so long as you live," and the principal behind it. Which relates to the subject of the atonement, and imputation.

If the purpose of CP is not so much to punish the criminal as it is to protect society then why are the lost sentenced to varying degrees of punishment into the eternal Lake of Fire? It is not to protect those in the Heavenly city. And therefore Christ did not merely transform sinners so that they would not be a threat to others - and indeed, conversion does not ensure that they will not be - but He actually took having the iniquity of us all laid upon Him, and making the perfect atonement on the cross thru His sinless shed blood. Thanks be to God.

Christ took the blame for us all, even though like the scapegoat of the OT He Himself did nothing wrong, and for those who "believe on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." (Romans 4:5) For Abrahamic faith is "imputed/reckoned [logizomai] to him for righteousness." (Romans 4:22)

Likewise reckon [logizomai] ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 6:11)

Therefore the basis for punishment for crimes relates to the atonement, and to imputation. To go on at length;

In contrast to being reckoned as righteous by heart-purifying faith, (Acts 15:9) and thereby accepted in the believed, in Catholic theology the sinner is justified by actually becoming righteous in the "washing of regeneration," by "infused charity" via the very act of sacramental baptism which act itself effects regeneration. And which means that the newly baptized can directly go to be with God if they died immediately, before their unholy sinful nature, which is all too alive despite being reckoned as crucified with Christ, manifests itself.

Which means, in Catholic theology, that either souls in this life become actually good enough to be with God, or commencing at death they must endure Purgatory until "the purging fire shall have cleansed the stains with which his soul was infested;" (Catholic Encyclopedia>Purgatory) for "Every trace of attachment to evil must be eliminated, every imperfection of the soul corrected;" (John Paul II, Audiences, 1999) being "purged of all selfishness and bad habits and character faults;" (Catholic professor Peter Kreeft, Because God Is Real: Sixteen Questions, One Answer, p. 224) and attained up to "the level of spiritual excellence needed to experience the full-force presence of God." (Jimmy Akin, How to Explain Purgatory to Protestants)

Which is aptly described as "salvation by grace thru works," meaning that by the grace of God one actually becomes good enough to be with God.

But if regeneration justifies one by actually making one good to be with God, then Abraham must have suddenly become born again when "He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God," (Romans 4:20) trusting God to do what he cold not (but who thus acted out his faith in characteristic obedience). Likewise the contrite criminal of Luke 23, who with penitent heart cast all His faith in the righteous King of the Jews to save him as a guilty sinner, and who thus went that day to forever be with the Lord.

And wherever Scripture clearly speak of the next conscious reality for believers then it is with the Lord, (Lk. 23:43 [cf. 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 2:7]; Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17) Note in the latter case all believers were assured that if the Lord returned, which they expected in their lifetime, so would they “ever be with the Lord,” though they were still undergoing growth in grace, as was Paul. (Phil. 3:7f)

And the next transformative experience that is manifestly taught is that of being like Christ in the resurrection. (1Jn. 3:2; Rm. 8:23; 1Co 15:53,54; 2Co. 2-4) At which time is the judgment seat of Christ, which is the only suffering after this life, which does not begin at death, but awaits the Lord's return, (1 Corinthians 4:5; 2 Timothy. 4:1,8; Revelation 11:18; Matthew 25:31-46; 1 Peter 1:7; 5:4) and is the suffering of the loss of rewards (and the Lord's displeasure) due to the manner of material one built the church with, which one is saved despite the loss of such, not because of. (1 Corinthians 3:8ff)

 

[thecolorsblend]

Am I missing something here? Hazelelponi's little label simply says "non-denom". Is there a reason you keep mentioning Catholic teachings in reference to Hazelelponi?

All due respect to Hazelelponi but I wouldn't expect him (her?) to defend doctrines which he (she?) doesn't believe in.

Which means, in Catholic theology, that either souls in this life become actually good enough to be with God, until "the purging fire shall have cleansed the stains with which his soul was infested;" (Catholic Encyclopedia>Purgatory) for "Every trace of attachment to evil must be eliminated, every imperfection of the soul corrected;" (John Paul II, Audiences, 1999) being "purged of all selfishness and bad habits and character faults;" (Catholic professor Peter Kreeft, Because God Is Real: Sixteen Questions, One Answer, p. 224) and attained up to "the level of spiritual excellence needed to experience the full-force presence of God." (Jimmy Akin, How to Explain Purgatory to Protestants)

Which is aptly described as "salvation by grace thru works," meaning that by the grace of God one actually becomes good enough to be with God.

Wow, you quoted the Catholic Encyclopedia but you still mischaracterized the purpose of Purgatory.

This is particularly unexpected because I am reasonably certain I've corrected you on what Purgatory is (and, more importantly, what Purgatory isn't) in previous discussion.

Why do you continue mischaracterizing it after being corrected on at least one previous occasion?

 

[Hazelelponi]

Deleted

 

[Hazelelponi]

Deleted

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Am I missing something here? Hazelelponi's little label simply says "non-denom". Is there a reason you keep mentioning Catholic teachings in reference to Hazelelponi?

All due respect to Hazelelponi but I wouldn't expect him (her?) to defend doctrines which he (she?) doesn't believe in.

Well yes, seeing as the question of the OP is "Do Catholics deny the doctrine of Christ's imputed righteousness? If so, why?"

And which relates to the the basis for the atonement, and justification thereby, in which rather than punishment for sin being in order to protect society, as Hazelelponi opined Capital punishment was for, it is primarily as a recompense for the evil, and thus a satisfactory atonement was required.

By which the believing sinner is declared righteousness, versus actually becoming rightouenss enough to be with God, as per Catholic theology, versus reformation imputation.

Wow, you quoted the Catholic Encyclopedia but you still mischaracterized the purpose of Purgatory.

This is particularly unexpected because I am reasonably certain I've corrected you on what Purgatory is (and, more importantly, what Purgatory isn't) in previous discussion.

Why do you continue mischaracterizing it after being corrected on at least one previous occasion?

Well who knows what you may have wrote, and how you think i mischaracterized the purpose of Purgatory, unless you care to link to it or reiterate your objection! A mere memory of something apart from where, when, and substantiation should not be the basis for your charge. So produce your evidence.