Catholic vs. Protestant: Justification

[LittleLambofJesus]

As an aside, anybody start that NT Wright thread yet?

I have heard of him on some other boards but never read anything on him.
Is he Catholic or Protestant?

 

[Catholic Christian]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FylBAlQMxH0

 

[DArceri]

I ask them that if we are saved by faith alone, why does 1 Cor 13:13 say that love is greater than faith? Shouldn’t it be the other way around?

Catholics and many protestants believe that faith is something we can do in our OWN strength. The reason that love is greater than faith is because TRUE LOVE, BORN INSIDE US, IS NOT COMING FROM US. If we have been crucified by Christ, and it is no longer us who live, but Christ who LIVES IN US, ....THEN THE LOVE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS 'CHRIST'S LOVE' ....(FOR CHRIST IS LOVE). THUS, TRUE FAITH CAN ONLY BE BORN FROM GOD.....

IOW ....'FAITH ALONE' can only mean one thing....God revealing himself to us and thus living inside us. And if God is living inside us, A DESIRE TO PLEASE GOD COMES POURING OUT (IE. GOOD WORKS).


"Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven."

Catholics we believe that we are saved by God’s grace alone. We can do nothing, apart from God’s grace, to receive the free gift of salvation.

We also believe, however, that we have to respond to God’s grace.

What's wrong with these two statements??? IS IT JUST ME or does this sound like double speak?

Listen, why didn't you finish up???? You forgot to end it by saying, Catholics must respond by DOING SACRAMENTS TO REMAIN IN GOD'S GRACE.

 

[fated]

Catholics and many protestants believe that faith is something we can do in our OWN strength. The reason that love is greater than faith is because TRUE LOVE, BORN INSIDE US, IS NOT COMING FROM US. If we have been crucified by Christ, and it is no longer us who live, but Christ who LIVES IN US, ....THEN THE LOVE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IS 'CHRIST'S LOVE' ....(FOR CHRIST IS LOVE). THUS, TRUE FAITH CAN ONLY BE BORN FROM GOD.....

IOW ....'FAITH ALONE' can only mean one thing....God revealing himself to us and thus living inside us. And if God is living inside us, A DESIRE TO PLEASE GOD COMES POURING OUT (IE. GOOD WORKS).


"Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven."


What's wrong with these two statements??? IS IT JUST ME or does this sound like double speak?

Listen, why didn't you finish up???? You forgot to end it by saying, Catholics must respond by DOING SACRAMENTS TO REMAIN IN GOD'S GRACE.

The greatest of these is "Charity" technically, which means works. Thus, we have to exercise our faith by reaching out (works) or up (prayer) with our love.

And, there's no double speak there, shall I say "ignoramus, faith without works is dead." Because not everyone who cries "Lord, Lord" will enter the Kingdom...

You can't truncate the Scripture and expect me to bend to your interpretation...

Catholics are expected to attend Mass and the Sacraments as necessary and possible. They are instruments of grace.

 

[Rick Otto]

The switch of speaking from one side of the mouth to other is affected by using the words, "also however".

 

[fated]

The switch of speaking from one side of the mouth to other is affected by using the words, "also however".

What does it say?

I'm saved, let's keep edifying the Church and go to Mass! (good works)

Not:

I'm saved lets look at porn and touch! (?good works?)

 

[DArceri]

The greatest of these is "Charity" technically, which means works.

WELL.......ISN'T IT God working in your heart that produces charity? Again, all credit is given to God.....

Catholics are expected to attend Mass and the Sacraments as necessary and possible. They are instruments of grace.

I know that is a Catholic expectation...

 

[fated]

WELL.......ISN'T IT God working in your heart that produces charity? Again, all credit is given to God.....
I know...

Easy soldier... The Catholic doctrine uses ALL the Scripture...

 

[Silenus]

I think you missed what I was getting at when I was commenting on your "blend" comment. For Protestants sanctification (a continuing process) starts immediately after justification (a single event at one specific moment) is complete. Sanctification does not occur during justification according to classical Protestant theology.

I was really just expressing my suspicion that, when we chop up salvation into its parts, we will separate things that go together. I do believe that justification is a single event as defined traditionally. If it is defined as NT Wright uses it, then it is both a single event and an ongoing process.

In 5:2 Paul says if you fall into that sin, "Christ will be of no value to you". Combine this with "severed from Christ and fallen from grace" the proper interpretation is a loss of salvation. The context is salvation, not being removed from the community. Excommunication by definition means you have committed a sin grave enough that puts you out of the Body and thus your salvation very much is on the line.

No, he says . . .

Gal 5:2-4
(2) Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you.
(3) I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law.
(4) You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.

If I accept circumcision, Christ will be of no value, if I depend on the law for my justification and salvation, then I must keep it and am not having faith in Christ. To interpret this as talking about a loss of salvation, and not talked about what it seems to me to be plainly talking about, relying on the law and circumcism, is complicated by the next two verses . . .

Gal 5:5-6
(5) For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness.
(6) For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.

If I have been made righteous through justification as an ontological reality, why am I eagerly waiting for it?

As for the two verses you quoted, I don’t see any indication that they are about losing salvation. Using those two verses to argue to the loss of salvation is one of those examples of using scripture to argue circumstantially for something that is not in the context.

The context of Paul's reference to David's repentance in Rom 4:5-6 was clearly justification, I have never come across any Protestant who said otherwise. When Jesus forgives our sins it is a change in the status of your soul

Well, I’ll look up Calvin and the Westminster confession to see, but I still think it is clearly talking about our state of blessing because we are justified, not the means of justification.

I have been in this discussion multiple times in the past. That verse says nothing about losing salvation, the context is explicitly clear that is in reference to the "anti-Christs" who reject the divinity and messianic role of Jesus, thus they never were Christians but rather were pretending.

That is NOT the same as Christians who sin, even grave sins, Paul spends a good chunk of his writing yelling at the Galatians and Corinthians for turning to lives of sin

Yes, it is talking about “anti-Christs,” I agree. But he is also saying that one of the ways that we know they were not Christians is because they left. Why would this not also apply to other people? If we know that they were Christians because they left, why are they a special sub-class of people whom we can see their lack of belief from their departure, but for other Christians, that doesn’t hold true?

Also, the verse, I’m sure you’ve seen it before, that says . . .

Rom 8:29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
Rom 8:30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

I doesn’t say some of those he justified, he glorified. It says those he justified, he glorified. The group of those justified is the same as those glorified. That is also the same group whom he called, predestined, etc. A complete chain is being stated here.

This internal change is what Protestants have historically called sanctification but it doesn’t begin until after justification.

After . . . I’d say it begins with justification. Would a Catholic argue differently?

If you go back into debt that is equivalent to losing your justification, when you grow in love for God that is equivalent to increasing your justification.

Just to clarify, justification is a dynamic state in your view? You can be more justified or less justified? I thought in both views it was a state or appraisal. I wouldn’t think a catholic would believe this if you also think it is something that can be lost.

Sure Righteousness flows from a righteous source, that is what infused grace is all about. As for NT Wright, we should be careful introducing him here because he has a different spin on terms like "justification" that doesn’t concern us who are discussing classical Protestant soteriology and Catholic soteriology.

I’m discussing what I think. I am entertaining his positions right now, so I am bringing them up. I am interested in knowing if I am outside of the bounds of these traditions because I think a person should be self-suspicious when that happens, but I want Wright’s speculations to be part of the discussion. On this issue, right now, I am able to be persuaded. I am air mobile.

Then Sola Scriptura failed its duty, because at this point we are both looking at the same passages and coming to two conflicting interpretations. 1 Cor 6:10-11 and Titus 3:4-7 are clear to me that there is no imputation but rather infusion of grace going on, transforming the soul at justification

I’m not saying that the whole bible is up to interpretation, I’m saying these two verses in no way clearly come down on the side of imputation. They both do talk about the work of the Holy Spirit. The whole interpretation objection to sola scriptora is a red herring, in my opinion. Just look at how much to do there is on what the Catholic church means when it makes dogma and on what documents are dogmatic and ex cathedra and which aren’t, etc, etc. Or that fact that every catholic I know who takes the select smart religion quiz comes up protestant.

[3] Righteous doesn’t mean you cant sin, it means you can and you chose not to sin. Adam and the Fallen Angels were not created unrighteous, but they were able to sin and make themselves unrighteous.

[4] Im not a theologian, but I understand righteousness to stem from being in a relationship with God and acting properly in that relationship. To be in a relationship with God means you must receive the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit which makes you an adopted child. But this status as an adopted child is not static, you can grow in this relationship and thus become more righteous, or abandon that relationship through sin and become unrighteous (cf Eze 18:24).

Well, that is why I am interested in the work of NT Wright. Because in some sense, the bible talks of righteousness as a statement of nature, in which case only God is righteous. I Pet 3:18, Rom 5:19, rom 3:10, Luke 18:19. However, the verses you quoted clearly say that people can be found righteous, and it is by faith that they are found so. This is why I like the definition of wright as a relationship, as you have also defined it above. But if this is the case, then righteousness in not an ontological state, and therefore, not infused. You can infuse ontological states, but not relationships, as Wright pointed out.

 

[Silenus]

would agree with the major claims like that this is about a relationship, but Im not sure what you or Wright mean by "the whole debate goes away". Also the "it is not about being pure or impure" comment I’m confused upon, it certainly is about being pure.

Because righteousness is not a state that can be infused, it is a statement of relationship. The Holy Spirit makes people more and more righteous in both systems, and it is only the concept of righteousness as an ontological concept that causes conflict. This definition above claims that righteousness is not a statement of ontology but a statement of relationship.

I’m going to only touch on the Adam aspects that I think are wrong, because I am currently considering the Federal Vision view of Adam’s state. Here’s a quote.

So what do we claim to see in our “vision” of the covenant? And why has it caused all this commotion? It would perhaps be more helpful to point out what we don’t see there. What we don’t see in God’s covenantal dealings is the idea of merit. One tradition in the Reformed world has seen Adam failing to merit the blessed state after his probationary testing was over. We believe that Adam was given his blessed surroundings gratis, and, had he continued in that blessed condition, that too would have been the ongoing grace of God. We believe that Adam by his disobedience forfeited what God had promised him, and his continuance in his fellowship with God was certainly conditioned upon his ongoing obedience. But we don’t believe that Adam was charged to earn anything. Grace has a backbone, and there are conditions that are attached to the grace of God. Grace does not cease to be grace simply because we are charged not to despise it. We see the justice and law of God as contained within His gracious character, and as fully consistent with it. His holiness is the sum total of all His attributes, and so when Adam abused the gifts that God had given to him, it was certainly appropriate for the wrath and displeasure of God to be made manifest in the history of the world since that time. But justice is not the context of God’s favor; God’s favor and grace are the context of His justice. If Adam had obeyed God in the Garden, that obedience would itself have been a gift from God—all things are from His hand. Had Adam passed that probationary period of testing, the only appropriate response for him would have been to turn to God and give thanks for his deliverance. This being the case, it cannot be that Adam would have been able to operate as an autonomous agent, laying a claim of raw justice against God. Adam could not have said, “God, I owe You no thanks for this achievement at all. I did this all by myself, but I do thank You for the opportunity You provided to me to demonstrate what I could do without Your help.” In short, we reject the idea that Adam could have functioned autonomously and obediently. All attempted autonomy on the part of creatures is always sinful. Adam could eat the fruit autonomously, but he could not refrain from eating it obediently in an autonomous fashion.

But on this I don’t see how I can agree with this statement you made. . .

[6] Adam was created in union with the Godhead, that is why God acted so intimately with him. He didnt grow in his role however when he sinned, and we are not sure if he was reconciled before death.

If he was in union with the Godhead, then how could he sin? Would you argue that today, before heaven, that our essence is linked with God as Jesus prayed in John 17? If then, how do you define glorification?

Unlike Adam and us we dont have that perfect perspective, we sin because we convince ourselves this or that will make us happy if we do it, knowing but not fully trusting God's way makes us happy. In Heaven there is no such confusion, God's way is so crystal clear that we freely avoid sinning. That is how I understand the Catholic Church to be teaching it.

So we sin because we don’t know enough? This doesn’t seem to be the teaching of scripture. In scripture we deceive ourselves . . . I agree with the Augustinian passé pecare, non passé pecare, etc. Not Aquinas on this one.

But you run into multiple problems if that is your position. First of all it means nobody in Scripture except Abraham and Phinehas (Ps 106:30-31) were ever justified because the term "credited as righteousness" only appears in those two cases, this is implausible, especially given the OT Saints mentioned in Heb 11. Second, your theology will not allow Abraham to be believing and pleasing God in Gen 12-14 if he was not yet justified until Gen 15:6.

[4] Yes, and James says this was a moment of "justification", Abraham was proving himself to none other than God (Gen 22:10-12). If you think Abraham was simply proving his faith in Gen 22, you must say the same about Gen 15:6, in neither case did Arbaham get justified because he obviously believed as early as Gen 12. What is more troublesom is that you believe sanctification occurs immediately after justification, yet Abraham is never said to be being "sanctified" in Gen 15 or Gen 22, a place where it would logically have to be mentioned by Paul or James.

[5] Thats just it though, Abraham certainly was growing in his relationship with God as he continued to obey, you wouldnt argue his relationship remained static from Gen 12 to Gen 22. The best explanation is that he grew in righteousness.

I’m not saying that the only place that someone is justified is when it uses those words. I am saying is that there is no indication that Abraham was justified three separate occasions and that, somewhere, he lost his righteousness so he needed to be justified again. That is where there are problems. The Hebrews 11 links justification to faith, and so does all the verses you mentioned. James never says this was the moment of justification. James says that his act was an action stemming from his faith and that his faith makes him righteous, not his act. As for it saying he is sanctified, I’m not sure how that impacts anything. Yes Abraham was growing is his relationship to God, but never stopped being justified before God.

 

[Catholic Christian]

Easy soldier... The Catholic doctrine uses ALL the Scripture...

correct

 

[Catholic Christian]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FylBAlQMxH0

No one liked my 60 secong lesson?

 

[Rick Otto]

What does it say?

I'm saved, let's keep edifying the Church and go to Mass! (good works)

Not:

I'm saved lets look at porn and touch! (?good works?)

I've read the stats on celebates' legal extracurricular activities.

We also believe, however, that we have to respond to God’s grace.

But you require the work as the duty of obedience, when good works are the labors of loving gratitude.

 

[Catholic Christian]

....But you require the work as the duty of obedience, when good works are the labors of loving gratitude.

I would say that our works are a response to God's grace. He gives us the grace to do good, but it is an act of the will to RESPOND to that grace and actually do the good work.

 

[jenlovesgod]

I just want to start by saying that I am no expert...I do not know every verse in the Bible, so I really hope that some of you don't tear me apart like I have seen in other threads...but I just wanted to jot down my ideas.

If salvation "is a process" that makes it sound like what we do controls if we are saved or not. Like if we do enough good deeds then God is like "Okay, you met the quota I'll let you in." What if you made it to the pearly gates and God was like, "Nope, sorry, there was one time that you were supposed to help an old lady cross the street and you just walked on by, you should have been paying more attention and seen her. Now you must go to hell and burn."

I do not think that our works save us. I think that believeing in Jesus saves us. I used to think that you HAD to repent when you sinned or you would not be saved, but what if you lead a good Christian life...no make that, what if you were a Pastor and you did everything you were supposed to and you did good works your whole life and you repented when you sinned and you were nearly perfect but one day you were driving and accidentaly sinned and then all of the sudden got hit by a car and died instantly with no chance to repent. Would you go to hell? I hope not or none of us has a chance!

Then that video said something about the Bible never says it is just one act of faith, but that brought to my mind the guy on the cross next to Jesus. He was never baptised, he probably didn't do a lot of good things in his life, but it sounded to me like he was going to heaven.

And one thing I've always wondered about Catholics is what if you have a still born child? Is he going to hell because he was never baptised? What if you wake up on the morning your baby is supposed to be baptised and he died of sids, is he going to hell because you never had a chance to baptize him? Or what if you're like my husband and became a believer later in life and (fortunately this never happened to my husband) and die before you get a chance to become baptised, since these sort of things tend to take a lot of planning? It just seems to me like not very many people would make it to heaven.

I mean why did Jesus die? It sounds like it is nearly impossible for us to get to heaven simply by believing in Jesus, so it almost seems pointless? I don't know about anyone else but I know for sure that I could never get myself into heaven no matter what I did...I would never be perfect enough. So I believe that because I believe that Jesus died to take my place then no matter what I do God sees me through Jesus and sees me as perfect and that is the reason why I am going to heaven. But because I believe in Jesus I don't want to sin and I do want to do good things, but that is not why I'll make it to heaven, it is just how believing has changed my heart to want to do what is right and good.

 

[jenlovesgod]

I have definately not read about what is and is not permitted for celebates to do, but I was just curious...is it a sin to look at porn and touch?

 

[Rick Otto]

Thanks, Jenn.
Romans 4:5: But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

 

[Catholic Dude]

Silenus, Im halfway done with my resposne to your latest comments, Ill try to post them asap.

 

[fated]

I just want to start by saying that I am no expert...I do not know every verse in the Bible, so I really hope that some of you don't tear me apart like I have seen in other threads...but I just wanted to jot down my ideas.

If salvation "is a process" that makes it sound like what we do controls if we are saved or not. Like if we do enough good deeds then God is like "Okay, you met the quota I'll let you in." What if you made it to the pearly gates and God was like, "Nope, sorry, there was one time that you were supposed to help an old lady cross the street and you just walked on by, you should have been paying more attention and seen her. Now you must go to hell and burn."

I do not think that our works save us. I think that believeing in Jesus saves us. I used to think that you HAD to repent when you sinned or you would not be saved, but what if you lead a good Christian life...no make that, what if you were a Pastor and you did everything you were supposed to and you did good works your whole life and you repented when you sinned and you were nearly perfect but one day you were driving and accidentaly sinned and then all of the sudden got hit by a car and died instantly with no chance to repent. Would you go to hell? I hope not or none of us has a chance!

Then that video said something about the Bible never says it is just one act of faith, but that brought to my mind the guy on the cross next to Jesus. He was never baptised, he probably didn't do a lot of good things in his life, but it sounded to me like he was going to heaven.

And one thing I've always wondered about Catholics is what if you have a still born child? Is he going to hell because he was never baptised? What if you wake up on the morning your baby is supposed to be baptised and he died of sids, is he going to hell because you never had a chance to baptize him? Or what if you're like my husband and became a believer later in life and (fortunately this never happened to my husband) and die before you get a chance to become baptised, since these sort of things tend to take a lot of planning? It just seems to me like not very many people would make it to heaven.

I mean why did Jesus die? It sounds like it is nearly impossible for us to get to heaven simply by believing in Jesus, so it almost seems pointless? I don't know about anyone else but I know for sure that I could never get myself into heaven no matter what I did...I would never be perfect enough. So I believe that because I believe that Jesus died to take my place then no matter what I do God sees me through Jesus and sees me as perfect and that is the reason why I am going to heaven. But because I believe in Jesus I don't want to sin and I do want to do good things, but that is not why I'll make it to heaven, it is just how believing has changed my heart to want to do what is right and good.

The Pope has recently addressed the area of theology that encompasses also stillborn children. The Church had a theory of Limbo, which, I suppose one could conclude to be the pinnacle of non-baptized salvation, that is the natural limit of joy and peace experience. This has fallen out of favor, because we are called to hope and believe for a Baptism of desire for those "who would have desired to be Baptized." Does that necessarily mean every stillborn child? No. Does that necessarily mean not every stillborn child? No.

 

[Catholic Dude]

No, he says . . .
Gal 5:2-4
(2) Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you.
(3) I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law.
(4) You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.

If I accept circumcision, Christ will be of no value, if I depend on the law for my justification and salvation, then I must keep it and am not having faith in Christ. To interpret this as talking about a loss of salvation, and not talked about what it seems to me to be plainly talking about, relying on the law and circumcism, is complicated by the next two verses . . .

What on earth could "Christ will be of no value to you" mean apart from losing salvation? Same for phrases like "fallen from grace" and "severed from Christ". You are basically making those passage of no meaning. The only time Christ is no value to someone, the only time when someone falls from grace and is severed from Christ is when salvation is lost, if not you would be stuck with the absurd proposition that a Christian can undergo those things without any problems.

Gal 5:5-6
(5) For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness.
(6) For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love.

If I have been made righteous through justification as an ontological reality, why am I eagerly waiting for it?

Verse 5 is talking about the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, so you are righteous at that moment, but as I said this is not a stagnant state, you grow more righteous until the day you are glorified. It goes back to parts like Gal 3:2-3 where they had the Spirit indwelling and leading them to grow in Christ but were turning away.

Gal 5:19-21; Mk 9:43-47

As for the two verses you quoted, I don't see any indication that they are about losing salvation. Using those two verses to argue to the loss of salvation is one of those examples of using scripture to argue circumstantially for something that is not in the context.

Those verses show no indication about losing salvation?...despite the fact the mention being punished with hellfire and losing heaven is mentioned if you engage in those sins?
I cant agree with that kind of exegesis at all, those verses are pretty clear to me.

Well, I'll look up Calvin and the Westminster confession to see, but I still think it is clearly talking about our state of blessing because we are justified, not the means of justification.

The means and the final state are directly related, that passage is to be read as: "Justified is the man who sins are forgiven".

Yes, it is talking about "anti-Christs," I agree. But he is also saying that one of the ways that we know they were not Christians is because they left. Why would this not also apply to other people? If we know that they were Christians because they left, why are they a special sub-class of people whom we can see their lack of belief from their departure, but for other Christians, that doesn't hold true?

It wouldnt apply to other people for two reasons, first of all, that was talking specifically about people who never became Christian. That is not the same as a Christian falling into sin. Second of all, not all who fall into sin leave the Church. The fact is Paul spent a good deal of time yelling at the Corinthians and Galatians for turning to lives of sin. My point is that 1 Jn 2:19 is a passage misused by those who teach salvation cannot be lost.

Also, the verse, I'm sure you've seen it before, that says . . .

Rom 8:29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers.
Rom 8:30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

I doesn't say some of those he justified, he glorified. It says those he justified, he glorified. The group of those justified is the same as those glorified. That is also the same group whom he called, predestined, etc. A complete chain is being stated here.

That passage is specifically talking about those who were predestined to Glory, in other words they were saved and given the gift of perseverance. Not everyone who is saved perseveres (eg Mat 24:12-13). Further nothing in that verse indicates salvation cannot be lost, the gift of perseverance means even if a person falls into sin they will be reconciled before death. There are other clear passages that state a person can fail to persevere and lose salvation (Rom 11:20-22; 14:15, 20).

After . . . I'd say it begins with justification. Would a Catholic argue differently?

Yes we would argue differently because it is the difference between imputed and infused grace at stake. In the Protestant system there is an clear distinction between Justification and Sanctification, they do not occur at the same time (Justification does not depend on Sanctification).

Just to clarify, justification is a dynamic state in your view? You can be more justified or less justified? I thought in both views it was a state or appraisal. I wouldn't think a catholic would believe this if you also think it is something that can be lost.

Yes, Justification is a dynamic state in the Catholic view, your status changes in God's eyes depending on how you act which in turn changes the status of your soul. When the sin is of a grave nature you lose the sanctifying grace in your soul and by definition are unrighteous.

I'm not saying that the whole bible is up to interpretation, I'm saying these two verses in no way clearly come down on the side of imputation. They both do talk about the work of the Holy Spirit. The whole interpretation objection to sola scriptora is a red herring, in my opinion. Just look at how much to do there is on what the Catholic church means when it makes dogma and on what documents are dogmatic and ex cathedra and which aren't, etc, etc. Or that fact that every catholic I know who takes the select smart religion quiz comes up protestant.

They in no way clearly come down on the side of IMPUTATION? I assume you meant "infusion"?
1 Cor 6:11 says "you have been washed, you have been sanctified, you have been justified", this fits the concept of an inner transformation at Justification (which is what Catholics believe) far better than an imputation of an external righteousness as Protestants see it. When it comes to the imputation I see the phrase "Christ's Righteousness" nowhere in scripture, not even the concept.

As for Catholics taking a quiz and coming up rated as a Protestant, I would ask if that quiz included in it the concept of imputation versus infusion because the more I confront Protestants with the dirty diaper being covered versus the dirty diaper being washed analogy many of them opt for the washed model as the Biblical one (without realizing it is the Catholic and not the Protestant model).

Well, that is why I am interested in the work of NT Wright. Because in some sense, the bible talks of righteousness as a statement of nature, in which case only God is righteous. I Pet 3:18, Rom 5:19, rom 3:10, Luke 18:19. However, the verses you quoted clearly say that people can be found righteous, and it is by faith that they are found so. This is why I like the definition of wright as a relationship, as you have also defined it above. But if this is the case, then righteousness in not an ontological state, and therefore, not infused. You can infuse ontological states, but not relationships, as Wright pointed out.

The problem that arises though is that you have to explain why the "love of God poured into our hearts by the Holy Spirit given to us" (Rom 5:5) is necessary. Further, Im not sure why you mentioned Romans 5:19 which clearly contrasts Adam disobedience making us unrighteous with Jesus' obedience resulting in us being "made righteous". Being "made righteous" supports the Catholic view. Places like 1 Jn 1: 9 say clearly "the blood of Christ cleans us of all unrighteousness", which likewise translates into being made righteous. I just came across Heb 12:23 which makes a mention of "the spirits of righteous men made perfect", which likewise supports the idea that a person grew in righteousness in his soul, in fact this looks like a reference to those who made it to Heaven.

Because righteousness is not a state that can be infused, it is a statement of relationship. The Holy Spirit makes people more and more righteous in both systems, and it is only the concept of righteousness as an ontological concept that causes conflict. This definition above claims that righteousness is not a statement of ontology but a statement of relationship.

How can the Spirit make someone "more and more righteous" if righteousness is purely a matter of being in a relationship? That sounds to me like the very irreconcilable conflict we are in right now with Imputation versus Infusion.

I'm going to only touch on the Adam aspects that I think are wrong, because I am currently considering the Federal Vision view of Adam's state. Here's a quote.

We believe that Adam was given his blessed surroundings gratis, and, had he continued in that blessed condition, that too would have been the ongoing grace of God.

Catholics fully agree with you here, in fact Catholic theologians taught this centuries before this "Federal Vision" group (and even the Reformers) even existed.

We believe that Adam by his disobedience forfeited what God had promised him, and his continuance in his fellowship with God was certainly conditioned upon his ongoing obedience. But we don’t believe that Adam was charged to earn anything. Grace has a backbone, and there are conditions that are attached to the grace of God. Grace does not cease to be grace simply because we are charged not to despise it. We see the justice and law of God as contained within His gracious character, and as fully consistent with it. His holiness is the sum total of all His attributes, and so when Adam abused the gifts that God had given to him, it was certainly appropriate for the wrath and displeasure of God to be made manifest in the history of the world since that time. But justice is not the context of God’s favor; God’s favor and grace are the context of His justice. If Adam had obeyed God in the Garden, that obedience would itself have been a gift from God—all things are from His hand. Had Adam passed that probationary period of testing, the only appropriate response for him would have been to turn to God and give thanks for his deliverance. This being the case, it cannot be that Adam would have been able to operate as an autonomous agent, laying a claim of raw justice against God. Adam could not have said, “God, I owe You no thanks for this achievement at all. I did this all by myself, but I do thank You for the opportunity You provided to me to demonstrate what I could do without Your help.” In short, we reject the idea that Adam could have functioned autonomously and obediently. All attempted autonomy on the part of creatures is always sinful. Adam could eat the fruit autonomously, but he could not refrain from eating it obediently in an autonomous fashion.

Catholic theology ALREADY teaches this, this is another example of Protestants "discovering" what the Catholic Church already taught. THIS very concept directly plays into why we are required to do good works to grow in righteousness, but have no claim to strict merit ("I did this all by my self), rather it was the grace of God in us that enabled us from the conception to the completion of any good work. You have to be careful here though because continuing on these lines will cause you to logically reject the need for Christ's imputation, especially the idea that Christ kept the commandments in your place. In the quote above, you yourself are required to keep the commandments, enabled by grace, and in that sense go from the "probationary period" to obtain Heaven.

One interesting thing here to point out is that many Reformed dont believe Adam could have not sinned, and many Reformed mistakenly think Adam could have been "justified by works" as the quote above describes towards the start. The Protestant often condemned phrase "justified by works" has no place in Catholic theology because in Catholic theology there is no room for "I did this myself", but rather the grace in us inspiring and enabling us to do the good works.

But on this I don't see how I can agree with this statement you made. . .

If he was in union with the Godhead, then how could he sin? Would you argue that today, before heaven, that our essence is linked with God as Jesus prayed in John 17? If then, how do you define glorification?

I think we are misreading each other here. You said "Adam never chose to be at unity with the Godhead" which I clarified the fact he was created in unfallen Eden and talked intimately with God. He was at unity in that he was created in a relationship with God, that is precisely how IF he would have CONTINUED in God's friendship he would have "passed the probationary period". A Christian is by definition in union with the Godhead, though we can still sin in this life. This is not to be confused with our perfected state in Heaven, which is glorification. You interpreted "union" to mean glorification, when I meant "union" in reference to being in a relationship with God on earth.

So we sin because we don't know enough? This doesn't seem to be the teaching of scripture. In scripture we deceive ourselves . . . I agree with the Augustinian passé pecare, non passé pecare, etc. Not Aquinas on this one.

Yes we sin because we are not fully enlightened, I dont see how this is in conflict with deceiving ourselves. Deception goes right along with us not knowing enough. When we sin we mistakenly think that that sin will make us happy, in Heaven there is no delusion as to what makes us happy and so we freely chose to love God based on this enlightenment.

(cont)