Parallels and divergences, Calvin, Luther, and Saint Augustine

Xeno.of.athens · Sunday at 1:20 PM

Clare73 said:
However, Scripture presents the imputation of Adam's sin Ro 5:17-19, 14-16) to all those of Adam as the pattern (Ro 5:14) for the imputation of Christ's righteousness (Ro 5:18-19, 3:21, 4:5, 13, 9:30, 10:6, Gal 3:16, Php 3:9) to all those of Christ.

As a matter of interest, in the Legacy Standard Bible (and virtually all other recent Protestant translations) it looks like "impute" or "imputed" or "imputation" are not present in the New Testament. So, why do you insist on it so strongly?

You'd do better with words like:

"credited" or "accredited"
"reckoned" or "counted"
"attributed" or "charged"

I did a search... The search results (from biblw.org, a protestant source) reveal that there's a theological distinction in Catholic teaching between "imputed" versus "infused" righteousness, where "the image of God imputing righteousness suggests a legal or commercial context where God either legally declares us righteous or credits righteousness to our commercial accounts."

So, it looks like I'd need to be a Protestant to be on your side here. I am not a Protestant, so ...

Why do you object to ideas like infused righteousness; is there something offensive about Christians becoming righteous through God's grace?

If you look at The Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraphs 1989 through 1992 I think you'll discover that ... "The Catechism emphasises that Catholic teaching on justification involves actual interior transformation, not merely external declaration. The Council of Trent taught that through baptism believers "are made innocent, immaculate, pure, harmless, and beloved of God." The Catechism of the Catholic Church concurs: "Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man" (1989).

It is evident that there is a difference between conservative Protestant teaching and Catholic teaching on this matter but why specifically are you fighting against the idea of infused righteousness? Isn't it true that "Reformed Christians" really do believe that a saved person is not only "legally" righteous but also "morally" righteous in heaven, isn't that the same end result as "infused" righteousness? In heaven Catholics are as righteous as Christ, I say this without intending anything blasphemous.

For me the matter is not decided solely on what verses interpreted from a Protestant point of view teach, I make my decisions in the light of the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Clare73 · Sunday at 2:48 PM

fhansen said:
And this is an important distinction. Rom 5:18-19 makes it clear that, due to Adam's disobedience, all became literally, actually sinners,

Ro 5:18-19 make clear that all those of Adam are charged with Adam's guilt (one trespass condemned all those of Adam),
just as all those of Christ are credited with Christ's righteousness (one act of righteousness redeemed all those of Christ).
Yes, imputation of Adams sin is to charge with Adam's guilt, just as
imputation of righteousness is to credit with Christ's righteousness, through faith (Ro 1:17, 3:21, 4:3, 5, 13, 9:30, 10:6, Php 3:9).

Actual righteousness is through obedience in the Holy Spirit; i.e., sanctification.

fhansen said:
unrighteous, not merely declared to be unrighteous. By the same token, following the same pattern, the verses tell us that, by Jesus act of obedience, man becomes literally, actually righteous, not merely declared to be righteous.

Clare73 · Sunday at 2:53 PM

Xeno.of.athens said:
As a matter of interest, in the Legacy Standard Bible (and virtually all other recent Protestant translations) it looks like "impute" or "imputed" or "imputation" are not present in the New Testament. So, why do you insist on it so strongly?
You'd do better with words like:

"credited" or "accredited"
"reckoned" or "counted"
"attributed" or "charged"

Those are the meaning of the word "imputed" (ellogao) and "reckon" (logizomai).

Xeno.of.athens said:
I did a search... The search results (from biblw.org, a protestant source) reveal that there's a theological distinction in Catholic teaching between "imputed" versus "infused" righteousness, where "the image of God imputing righteousness suggests a legal or commercial context where God either legally declares us righteous or credits righteousness to our commercial accounts."

"Imputed" (ellogao) is the Biblical notion, while "infused" is man's notion.
Their meanings are not the same.

fhansen · Sunday at 2:54 PM

Clare73 said:
Ro 5:18-19 make clear that all those of Adam are charged with Adam's guilt (one trespass condemned all those of Adam),

No, it makes it clear that they became or were made sinners (hamartōloi katestathēsan) because of his trespass. And likewise by Jesus' obedience they will be made righteous. (dikaioi katastathēsontai). and this conforms with Rom 5:17, Rom 6, and the rest of Romans:

"For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!"

See, anyone can use an interlinear but, as with the bible, one has to use it rightly.

Clare73 · Sunday at 3:01 PM

fhansen said:
No, it makes it clear that they became sinners because of his trespass.

They were "constituted" (made) sinners (Ro 5:19) by the imputation of Adam's sin (Ro 5:17-19, 12-16).

fhansen · Sunday at 3:19 PM

Clare73 said:
They were "constituted" (made) sinners (Ro 5:19) by the imputation of Adam's sin (Ro 5:17-19, 12-16).

Yes, they were made sinners, and Jesus makes us righteous. Again, Rom 5:17:
"For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!"

That's what Paul was excited about in Rom 7:25:
"Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!"

This is already outlined in Rom 6:
"But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you have come to obey from your heart the pattern of teaching that has now claimed your allegiance. You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness."

"What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life." Rom 6:17-18, 21-22

And that's why there's no condemnation in Christ:
"Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death. For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit." Rom 8:1-4

Clare73 · Sunday at 3:52 PM

fhansen said:
No, it makes it clear that they became or were made sinners (hamartōloi katestathēsan) because of his trespass. And likewise by Jesus' obedience they will be made righteous. (dikaioi katastathēsontai). and this conforms with Rom 5:17, Rom 6, and the rest of Romans:

"For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!"

See, anyone can use an interlinear but, as with the bible, one has to use it rightly.

Ro 5:18-19 make clear that all those of Adam are charged with Adam's guilt (one trespass condemned all those of Adam),
just as all those of Christ are credited with Christ's righteousness (one act of righteousness redeemed all those of Christ).
Yes, imputation of Adams sin is to charge with Adam's guilt, just as
imputation of righteousness is to credit with Christ's righteousness, through faith (Ro 1:17, 3:21, 4:3, 5, 13, 9:30, 10:6, Php 3:9).

Righteousness of Christ is credited to our account, it is a gift, not our own actual righteousness.

Fervent · Sunday at 3:56 PM

fhansen said:
Yes, they were made sinners, and Jesus makes us righteous. Again, Rom 5:17:
"For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!"

That's what Paul was excited about in Rom 7:25:
"Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!"

This is already outlined in Rom 6:
"But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you have come to obey from your heart the pattern of teaching that has now claimed your allegiance. You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness."

"What benefit did you reap at that time from the things you are now ashamed of? Those things result in death! But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life." Rom 6:17-18, 21-22

And that's why there's no condemnation in Christ:
"Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death. For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit." Rom 8:1-4

The thing about Calvinists is the one thing they don't want in their salvation is a part of it. They are at great pains to avoid any hint of participation, so the sin is from Adam and the righteousness is Christ's and Christ's alone. They simply have nothing to do with it whatsoever.

fhansen · Sunday at 4:05 PM

Clare73 said:
Ro 5:18-19 make clear that all those of Adam are charged with Adam's guilt (one trespass condemned all those of Adam),
just as all those of Christ are credited with Christ's righteousness (one act of righteousness redeemed all those of Christ).

Nope, not what it says. Either way, yes, the righteousness of Christ is a gift, but of real righteousness:
"not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith." Phil 3:9

Because:
"...now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe." Rom 3:21-22

Why?:
"...in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit." Rom 8:4

How does is this requirement met? How does this work? By the Spirit Christ gives us, as just stated in 8:4 above:
"Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live. For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God." Rom 8:12-14

Xeno.of.athens · Sunday at 4:25 PM

Clare73 said:
Their meanings are not the same.

But when you are in heaven will I be there too; you believing in imputation and I with infusion?

fhansen · Sunday at 4:54 PM

Xeno.of.athens said:
But when you are in heaven will I be there too; you believing in imputation and I with infusion?

Maybe you'll be infused into heaven while Claire will be imputed to be there.

Forgive me...

fhansen · Sunday at 7:24 PM

Fervent said:
At least part of the issue is Augustine's aggressive personality and a habit of extreme rhetoric, particularly when he was writing in opposition to what he perceived others were saying. In his polemical literature against Pelagius, he emphasized the very things that Luther and Calvin took to the extreme. While he likely did not himself believe the thngs that the Reformers came to believe he taught, there is ample room for misunderstanding in his writing especially in regards to his views of God's sovereignty that underly the logical system that Calvin and Luther relied upon. In part, this was likely a result of his Manichean period as there remained in his writing traces of the animosity towards the flesh, though his extreme repudiation of dualism also likely led him to his unbalanced view of Divine sovereignty. Unlike many of the church fathers there is comparitively little incarnational reflection in Augustine, only a reflection deeply rooted in philosophy.

Yes, to understand Augustine properly and fully we must realize that, when he's defending against Pelgianism, for example, he's myopically focusing on and emphasizing the essential nature of grace, similar to Paul in his battle against legalism. But Augustine still won't fit the Calvinist mold concerning the will of man when his theology is unfolded. So, late in life, writing to a friend, we have an example that gives balance to his position in "On Grace and Free Will". It begins in chap 1 thusly:

"With reference to those persons who so preach and defend man's free will, as boldly to deny, and endeavour to do away with, the grace of God which calls us to Him, and delivers us from our evil deserts, and by which we obtain the good deserts which lead to everlasting life: we have already said a good deal in discussion, and committed it to writing, so far as the Lord has vouchsafed to enable us. But since there are some persons who so defend God's grace as to deny man's free will, or who suppose that free will is denied when grace is defended, I have determined to write somewhat on this point to your Love, my brother Valentinus, and the rest of you, who are serving God together under the impulse of a mutual love."

Here's a link:

CHURCH FATHERS: On Grace and Free Will (St. Augustine)

Featuring the Church Fathers, Catholic Encyclopedia, Summa Theologica and more.

www.newadvent.org

Fervent · Sunday at 7:52 PM

fhansen said:
"With reference to those persons who so preach and defend man's free will, as boldly to deny, and endeavour to do away with, the grace of God which calls us to Him, and delivers us from our evil deserts, and by which we obtain the good deserts which lead to everlasting life: we have already said a good deal in discussion, and committed it to writing, so far as the Lord has vouchsafed to enable us. But since there are some persons who so defend God's grace as to deny man's free will, or who suppose that free will is denied when grace is defended, I have determined to write somewhat on this point to your Love, my brother Valentinus, and the rest of you, who are serving God together under the impulse of a mutual love."

Yes, Augustine himself likely never went quite to the lengths of Calvin and Luther. Yet he still developed a largely philosophical understanding of sovereignty that involves a sort of meticulous control when taken to the logical conclusion, though it was Luther and Calvin's narrow artificial categories and a general lack of a sense of mystery that led to them developing their systems, particularly Calvin. While Augustine himself likely did not dismiss such a sense of mystery and his philosophical explorations were more tentative the seeds of Luther and Calvin in regard to Divine sovereignty that requires the negation of free will are present within Augustine's writings, even if to understand his own perspective requires a greater degree of nuance than the way they developed ideas present within his writing.

Clare73 · Monday at 11:12 AM

fhansen said:
Nope, not what it says. Either way, yes, the righteousness of Christ is a gift, but of real righteousness:

That's what imputed righteousness means.

fhansen · Monday at 11:21 AM

Clare73 said:
That's what imputed righteousness means.

Ok, but not to everyone who holds the doctrine. Often it's said to merely mean forensically declared to be righteous, by the vicarious appropriation of Christ's righteousness that covers our unrighteousness.

If you, however, consider justification to be the true justifying of a person, that the person becomes a new creation as a result, with a new heart and spirit, with righteousness now given him, then you'd be in line with the historic Christian faith.

Clare73 · Tuesday at 11:03 AM

fhansen said:
Ok, but not to everyone who holds the doctrine. Often it's said to merely mean forensically declared to be righteous, by the vicarious appropriation of Christ's righteousness that covers our unrighteousness.

Biblically:
Justification = declared to be sinless, forgiven. . .which is not righteosness.
Imputed righteousness = righteousness credited/reckoned to one's account in God's system of justice.

fhansen · Tuesday at 12:01 PM

Clare73 said:
Biblically:
Justification = declared to be sinless, forgiven. . .which is not righteosness.
Imputed righteousness = righteousness credited/reckoned to one's account in God's system of justice.

Alright, so is this imputed righteousness strictly a declaration also, of righteousness in this case whereby we still remain a sinner while clothed in the appearance of Christ's righteousness, "simul iustus et peccator", or is this a righteouseness personally received by us such that we may now be and act righteously ourselves?

Clare73 · Tuesday at 2:23 PM

fhansen said:
Alright, so is this imputed righteousness strictly a declaration also, of righteousness in this case whereby we still remain a sinner while clothed in the appearance of Christ's righteousness, "simul iustus et peccator", or is this a righteouseness personally received by us such that we may now be and act righteously ourselves?

It is not actual, inherent righteousness, but is reckoned/accounted as such in God's justice system, (Ro 5:18-19), it being
patterned on (Ro 5:14) the imputation of Adam's sin (Ro 5:17-19, 12-16).

Fervent · Tuesday at 2:34 PM

fhansen said:
Alright, so is this imputed righteousness strictly a declaration also, of righteousness in this case whereby we still remain a sinner while clothed in the appearance of Christ's righteousness, "simul iustus et peccator", or is this a righteouseness personally received by us such that we may now be and act righteously ourselves?

Apparently God is dealing in nothing more than legal fictions...not new creation. He's not making all things new, just shuffling around his books....like a crooked accountant.

Clare73 · 2025-07-17T14:52:24-0500

fhansen said:
Alright, so is this imputed righteousness strictly a declaration also, of righteousness in this case whereby we still remain a sinner while clothed in the appearance of Christ's righteousness, "simul iustus et peccator", or is this a righteouseness personally received by us such that we may now be and act righteously ourselves?

Justification (declaration) and righteousness (imputed) are two different things.

Justification (declaration of "not guilty," sentence of acquittal, pronouncement of sin's remission) is the result of salvation (remission of sin through faith in Jesus Christ). It is not righteousness, it is merely declaration of sinlessness.

To be reckoned/counted as righteous, the righteousness of Christ is imputed/reckoned (Ro 5:18-19, 1:7, 3:21, 4:5, Php 3:9) to the now sinless believer.

Parallels and divergences, Calvin, Luther, and Saint Augustine

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

Blood-bought

Blood-bought

Oldbie

Blood-bought

Oldbie

Blood-bought

Well-Known Member

Oldbie

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

Oldbie

Oldbie

Well-Known Member

Blood-bought

Oldbie

Blood-bought

Oldbie

Blood-bought

Well-Known Member

Blood-bought

Similar threads