Sorry about the long delay . . . time is not always on my side when it comes to posting on internet forums.
I guess I see a problem between what you wrote here . . .
And what you have said later here . . .
And here . . .
In the above quotes, we are attaining a righteousness not our own. In either case, at some point a lie must be told and we must be declared righteous and made righteous.[1] I might be able to agree that the protestant view has taken some teeth out of justification in its attempt to chop up everything having to do with salvation into clearly definable pieces. I see a definite blend between justification and sanctification. [2] However, I see no scriptural evidence for the view that we can lose our justification and have it granted back. [3] I definitely see no scriptural support for the doctrine of confession as the means by which justification is retained, and I definitely see no evidence for the priest being the mediator of that grace.[4] Ive read the catechism once a long time ago, so my recollection might be hazy, but I do remember thinking the scripture cited therein for the support of these doctrines seemed highly loose and circumstantial. But, I digress . . .
[1] I dont follow your reasoning at all. Declaring someone righteous who is not righteous is a lie. Declaring someone who is righteous to be righteous is truth. Imagine if this was a bank account we were dealing with here, declaring someone who is in debt to be "debt free" is a lie, having funds put into that account erasing the debt makes that person actually debt free and that is not a lie.
[2] It depends on what you mean by "blend". If you have sanctification occurring at the same time as justification then you have fallen into heresy from a classical Protestant perspective.
[3] In Gal 5:4 paul says those Christians who betray Christ, in this case by turning to the system of the Law, have "fallen from grace and been severed from Christ". There cant be a more clear example of losing justification/salvation. It is assumed they can repent otherwise Paul wouldnt encourage repentance.
What is even stronger proof is when David fell into grave sin and had to repent. In Rom 4 Paul says this was a moment of justification, yet David was not converting in that Psalm, but rather he was already a believer and was repenting. That right there is strong proof that justification was lost and restored.
[4] That is a distant side issue because if the "reformers" were wrong about what occurs at justification then Protestantism is not the path to go and Catholicism is the only option left. Of course Catholics would point to passages like Jn 20:21ff for evidence for confession, but I dont want to get too far off topic.
Actually, it has more to do with both the word and the context.
Rom 4:5-8
The faith is counted as righteousness doesnt seem to me to indicate an internal change but a declaration. that has nothing to do with internal righteousness but with his faith. It is counted as his righteousness, pretty much dimpling that there is no righteousness there. Especially with the addition of the concepts of sins being covered.
I agree, context is very important, and looking at the actual context shows that Abraham was living a righteous life and David was repenting in that Psalm. The context gives no hint that these men were considered to be other than what the state of their souls revealed.
Here is what David said in Ps 32:
1 Blessed is he
whose transgressions are forgiven,
whose sins are covered. 2 Blessed is the man
whose sin the LORD does not count against him
and in whose spirit is no deceit.
3 When I kept silent,
my bones wasted away
through my groaning all day long.
4 For day and night
your hand was heavy upon me;
my strength was sapped
as in the heat of summer.
Selah
5 Then I acknowledged my sin to you
and did not cover up my iniquity.
I said, "I will confess
my transgressions to the LORD "
and you forgave
the guilt of my sin.
Selah
There certainly was an internal change in David's soul here. Further, the term "reckon" appears in this verse and it does not mean "impute" but rather to declare what the actual status is. David repented and by definition was not guilty any longer and would not be considered guilty.
Also, the way the word for justify is used elsewhere seems to indicate the protestant use, especially as it has been applied in the Septuagint, indicates a judicial stance. In the case of Old Testament use, it is always, as far as I have seen, been a judicial declaration.
Here are two times it is used in the OT:
Deut 25: 1"If there is a dispute between men and they go to court, and the judges decide their case, and they justify the righteous and condemn the wicked
Prov 17: 5He who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous, Both of them alike are an abomination to the LORD.
First of all, Prov 17 is not strictly in a judicial context, but rather in a purely moral one.
What is really devastating though for the Protestant use of justify is that in these OT passages God explicitly condemns the Protestant idea of declaring someone to be righteous who is in fact guilty.
Second of all, in the New Testament "justify" is clearly used in a non judicial context and in fact where an internal transformation is the clear meaning. For example 1 Cor 6:10-11 and Titus 3:4-7, no hint of imputation there.
I do not doubt that an internal change takes place, nor do I think any protestant would debate that, becoming the temple of the Holy Spirit is becoming the temple of the Holy Spirit.
Protestants do believe sanctification occurs, but they believe it occurs after Justification, after God has called something righteous which He knows is unrighteous. That is an unacceptable foot to start off on (Mat 23:25-28).
But the struggles that Paul relates in Romans 7 and 8 seem to cast large doubt on the concept of internal righteousness. In fact, what does it mean to have righteousness infused in the first place? It seems to say that righteousness is infused, and yet that infusion has no due impact on the inner state. I still have conceptual dissidence with the fact of our sinning combined with the assertion of our being made actually righteous. If the being still has an ontological tendency, then that ontology is still stained and it still becomes a lie and a legal declaration. It seems the only difference, then, is that Protestants believe that the declaration is eternal while Catholics believe that it is up until this point.
You must admit a Christian has the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, once you admit that you have admitted the essence of infused grace. And once you admit that you have to admit the soul is righteous in a very real sense. You are still able to sin because of your fallen nature, an effect of the fall that tempts you, but this is not the same as your soul being unrighteous. If the Holy Spirit indwells your soul is righteous. It is a battle between the flesh (fallen nature) and the spirit (soul).
Rom 8: 9However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. 10If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness. 11But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you. 12So then, brethren, we are under obligation, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh-- 13for if you are living according to the flesh, you must die; but if by the Spirit you are putting to death the deeds of the body, you will live.
Gal 6:7Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap. 8For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. 9Let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we will reap if we do not grow weary.
Salvation goes way way beyond the courtroom, the Protestant reformers incorrectly limited it to a courtroom decree, but the fact is salvation was first and formost about becoming Adopted Sons by getting the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
After looking at a word search, I can see your point. The word is never used toward something that isnt true. However, the word is always used to denote a mental accounting, a certain naming of something saying this is how it is. In Romans 6, for instance, we are dead to sin as a state in Christ, but, at the same time, we still sin. We mentally consider ourselves as dead to sin because we are, yet, this truth is lived imperfectly as seen in Romans 7 and 8. It seems, after looking at the verses, it is the understanding of justification that would impact how we consider this word in context. But, again, if I take the catholic concept, I am left with dissidence. A mental accounting of a state imperfectly lived because sanctification is a cooperative element with the Holy Spirit makes more sense then saying we are made actually righteous, yet we have this tendency that is somehow not dealt with when I am internally made righteous. . .
If you accept that the word is rarely used to mean impute then you must in all honesty question the very foundation of your Protestant soteriology. Adam was originally created righteous and he was able to sin, just as we can be righteous and still be able to sin. Being righteous or having the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit doesnt mean you cant sin in the future. In fact the key here is to envision this as us first becoming Adopted sons and then growing up in this role from children to adults. The more good you do now, the less you will be tempted to sin and the the more righteous you become.
Our fallen natures dont effect the status of our soul, though our fallen natures contribute to our being tempted and our bodies contribute to whether we grow in God's love through obedience or not.
As for the Genesis/Abraham thing, I dont see where you see three justifications . . . I only see one.
I see the term "justified" used in regards to Abraham in reference to three different times in his life:
-Gal 3:8 (Gen 12:1-4; Heb 11:8)
-Rom 4:2-3 (Gen 15:5-6)
-James 2:21 (Gen 22:10-12)
I have discussed this issue many times and the fact is the Protestant position cannot provide an explanation for these passages the way the Catholic position can. The fact nobody on these forums will address these verses with me should be a red flag to you right there.
I have had to beg and beg for Protestants to give me a better explanation for these passages than what the Catholic position provides and all that has happened is Protestants ignore my requests, they wont even address these three verses. We are dealing with the Truth here, which is nothing to run from or dance around.
I am a protestant and I think I can agree with all three of the statements put forth by Otto here
As I understand it, the touch of grace imputes the legal standing of righteousness and generates spiritual life to a spiritually dead soul (regeneration).
Spiritual faith is a living thing which means it has appetite (desire) and motion (works).
Those works justify our salvation before men. God needs no justification for His own acts, because no one is His judge.
It is not we are made righteous
We are becoming righteous through the power of the Spirit
Here is my take on those three comments. First the only time Paul uses the term "regeneration" is in Titus 3:4-7 and it is undeniably in reference to an internal change in the soul at justification, no hint of imputation there.
Second, faith is living but it can be abused, James in his Epistle was talking to Christians, not unbelievers, but Christians who were not living how Christians should. Many Protestants teach good works are guaranteed, but that is flatly un-Biblical by the very fact we see Christians turning to lives of sin in the Bible.
Lastly, James 2 is not concerned about proving yourself before men but before God, who is the real judge. What men think is of little concern when it comes to God doing the judging. In the case of Abraham which James mentions by quoting Gen 22, the plain fact is there were not only no witnesses around, but God was the one who was waiting the whole time and was the one who said:
10Abraham stretched out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. 11But the angel of the LORD called to him from heaven and said, "Abraham, Abraham!" And he said, "Here I am."
12He said, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me."
... 15Then the angel of the LORD called to Abraham a second time from heaven,
16and said, "By Myself I have sworn, declares the LORD, because you have done this thing and have not withheld your son, your only son,17indeed I will greatly bless you, and I will greatly multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your seed shall possess the gate of their enemies.
The idea that Abraham was "justified by works" in the sense he was proving himself before men not only fails the Biblical evidence on the situation, but it goes directly against. James talks about how the Christian brothers need to clean up their act because he mentions being judged in his Epistle, but it is always God doing the judging.
I am glad you took the time to respond, I appreciate the fact a few Protestants are willing to examine the case I am presenting.
