• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Featured Do Catholics Deny Imputation?

Discussion in 'General Theology' started by Tree of Life, Sep 18, 2018.

  1. PeaceByJesus

    PeaceByJesus Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior

    +2,033
    Christian
    Single
    No, i do not think I disagree with your opinion of salvation, of being filled with the Holy Spirit and how that changes our life on earth, but I do not understand why you cannot see the issue. As said in my post above 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 you 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 righteousness enough to be with God, as per Catholic theology, versus reformation imputation.

    Thus my explanation at length on the differences.
     
  2. Hazelelponi

    Hazelelponi Well-Known Member

    +2,031
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    Deleted
     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2018
  3. PeaceByJesus

    PeaceByJesus Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior

    +2,033
    Christian
    Single
    I think you are over reacting. The issue of contention in my response was not what being Christian is in this life, but as i clearly stated, it was your position on the purpose of punishment, so 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."

    Therefore I addressed the principal behind punishment, as not being merely to protect others, if at all, but that punishment was a recompense for doing evil. Thus Christ paid a price for our forgiveness, being the propitiation for our sins, and enabling the sinner to be counted as righteous, though not perfect in love yet (though growth in that is effected by faith).

    Sorry you did not see this was the issue, and we ended up talking past each other somewhat.
     
  4. Hazelelponi

    Hazelelponi Well-Known Member

    +2,031
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    Deleted.
     
    Last edited: Oct 1, 2018
  5. thecolorsblend

    thecolorsblend If God is your Father, who is your Mother?

    +4,849
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    Ah. Thanks for the clarification.

    I find this to be a reasonable request. However, satisfying it would require me to dig through my posting history. My history is rather extensive though. (A) I'm feeling kind of lazy tonight and (B) it's getting late anyway. So I'll just move forward.

    As an aside, I reiterate my disagreement with this view of Our Lord's sacrifice.

    Theoretically, yes. In actual practice, I'm not sure it's always this simple.

    This quote here posits an either/or proposition but doesn't follow through on the "or" part of it.

    And here we arrive at your mischaracterization of Purgatory.

    The Catholic Church recognizes that man is sinful. The Church and Protestants will generally agree that this mortal must put on immortality. After all, flesh and blood cannot enter Heaven. The act of putting on immortality is necessarily a sinless, purified state.

    The question, then, is how does the purification come about? Sanctification.

    A Christian can be sanctified in life, his attachment to sin as purged as flesh and blood will allow. But, for whatever reason, that process of sanctification may not be completed during a Christian's earthly life. Yet, as per the above, that sanctification must take place because flesh and blood cannot enter Heaven.

    Protestants tend to view Purgatory in terms of justification. That view is so flawed as to be completely incorrect. And, with respect, it doesn't matter if a Protestant disagrees with me that their view of Purgatory as justification is flawed; because it IS flawed. The Catholic Church does not teach the common Protestant characterization of Purgatory is justification.

    Purgatory is a process not of justification, but of sanctification. If a Christian doesn't sanctify himself in life then the Church teaches that God will sanctify him in eternity, by way of Purgatory.

    Arriving in Purgatory is the work of Our Lord. The Christian's salvation is not in question. If he's not saved at death then he's not going to Heaven. But if he arrives at death unprepared to enter Heaven though in God's friendship then Purgatory is the means by which he is purged of attachment to sin so that he can enter Heaven.

    Thus, your characterization of Purgatory as "'salvation by grace thru works,' meaning that by the grace of God one actually becomes good enough to be with God" (whatever that means) is seriously mistaken. As above, it's not a matter of salvation (eg, justification). It's about sanctification. Justification can be already assumed of the souls in Purgatory; what they require is sanctification. And they will receive that sanctification in Purgatory.

    I will give you credit, however, for possessing and articulating a relatively clearer sense of Purgatory than most Protestants exhibit. But your understanding as expressed in the post I quoted is still flawed.
     
  6. PeaceByJesus

    PeaceByJesus Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior

    +2,033
    Christian
    Single
    PeaceByJesus said:

    Christ took the blame for us all, even though like the scapegoat of the OT He Himself did nothing wrong

    How one could deny that the Lord laid upon Christ the iniquity of us all, being the full-fillment of the Lv. 16 scapegoat, as well as the lamb of God, and yet profess belief in the Bible, is beyond me.

    PeaceByJesus said: 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
    I actually show how it is not that simple, but that the newly baptized can directly go to be with God if they died immediately is affirmed by Catholics.

    PeaceByJesus said:
    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).
    ..
    I left out the or," that "that either souls in this life become actually good enough to be with God," or commencing at death they must endure Purgatory until...
    Which it is not, for in reality Catholic justification is on the basis of practical sanctification, which is either achieved in this life or thru postmortem purification commencing at death.
    Wrong and wrong. Flesh and blood not entering Heaven refers to the resurrection, (1 Corinthians 15:50, "we shall be changed, In a moment" v.51, 52) of the corruptible bodies of those who are already with the Lord being raised as glorified physical bodies as Christ's was.

    And explained, Catholic justification is on the basis of practical sanctification [Although the sinner is justified by the justice of Christ, inasmuch as the Redeemer has merited for him the grace of justification (causa meritoria), nevertheless he is formally justified and made holy by his own personal justice and holiness (causa formalis).” - Catholic Encyclopedia>Sanctifying Grace], beginning at baptism via infused charity, but since the incorrigible sinful flesh manifests that this child of Heaven has a lot of Hell in him/she, then they must attain to perfection in this life or the next. Thus both baptism and Purgatory are about justification by attainment of practical sanctification, although Purgatory is also about making expiation of sins they were not sufficiently atoned for on earth.

    However, the Scriptural fact is that believers are not justified by practical sanctification, even though they are set apart by God, nor does baptism render them as that, as instead God justifieth the ungodly by his faith being reckoned for righteousness, (Romans 4:5) and such are to likewise "reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord." (Romans 6:11) They are considered righteousness, and are to consider themselves to be dead to sin, just as "I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us." (Romans 8:18)

    To be sure, the converted are no mere white-washed sinners, but are regenerated, with faith purifying the heart, (Acts 15:9) but perfect sanctification is not the basis for their justification, and the flesh which is "at enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be," (Romans 8:7) still exists (and he that is dead is ceased from sin: 1 Peter 4:1).

    But rather than being practically good to be with God, faith is counted as righteous, and thus the believer is "accepted in the Beloved" and positionally spiritually seated with Him in Heaven, (Ephesians 1:6; 2:6) with immediate access into the holy of holiess by the sinless shed blood of Christ. Hebrews 10:19)

    And rather than postmortem sufferings commencing at death in order to become sanctified enough to be justified as one fit to be with God, 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)
    Which is simply NOT what Scripture plainly teaches, and if you want we can go thru the various texts RCs (the EOs overall reject RC purgatory) attempt to extrapolate Purgatory from.

    The Corinthian believers themselves were told that being absent from the body equated to being present with the Lord, (2 Corinthians 5:8) and if Christ returned in their lifetime then as Paul taught the Thessalonians, "Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord." (1 Thessalonians 4:17)

    Somehow Paul forgot to tell them about their detainment in Purgatory with its punishments, even though he taught of the judgment seat of Christ, and its suffering the loss of rewards (and the grievous displeasure of Christ) for their manner of labor they built the church with. But which awaits the Lord's return, and the loss suffered is not to make them fit for Heaven.
    Salvation is Scripture means being with the Lord, from having direct spiritual access into the holy of holies now, to forever being with the Lord at death or His return, whichever comes first. Which is enabled by being accepted in the Beloved on His account, with faith being counted for righteousness, though with works/holiness (as able) being necessary credentials of faith ("things which accompany salvation" - Hebrew 6:9) , justifying the believer as having justifying faith.

    In contrast to which is a future commencing at death of "fire and torments or 'purifying' punishments” (Indulgentiarum Doctrina; cp. 1. 1967) in order to atone for sins and "the purging fire shall have cleansed the stains with which his soul was infested;" (Catholic Encyclopedia>Purgatory) and the souls be perfected, 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)
    Rather, trying to construe Catholic justification as not being based on practical, actual sanctification/holiness is what is flawed.
     
  7. thecolorsblend

    thecolorsblend If God is your Father, who is your Mother?

    +4,849
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    Putting aside whether or not that's actually true, it's beside the point. "Sola scriptura" is your thing; not ours.

    Those texts are partially where the Church derives her understanding of Purgatory. As in my previous post, you're welcome to agree or disagree with the Church as you see fit. But the fact remains that her interpretation of those scriptures is her's to make. Your viewpoint is not binding upon the Church.

    As to the Eastern Orthodox Church, I know I have mentioned your predilection for Divide And Conquer tactics in another thread. It was on page 10 of that What is "Bible Church" supposed to mean? discussion.

    Eastern Orthodox Christianity is not the subject of discussion here. And yet, once again you are introducing a completely unrelated issue in order to... I don't know what. Change the subject? Create conflict between Catholics and Orthodox? It's hard to say. No matter what, knock it off.
     
  8. PeaceByJesus

    PeaceByJesus Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior

    +2,033
    Christian
    Single
    PeaceByJesus said:
    Which is simply NOT what Scripture plainly teaches,
    Then RCs should not attempt to argue as if her distinctive doctrines could be established from Scripture, rather than the Scripture + Tradition as determined by their church. Meaning that the basis for assurance of such is the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial veracity.
    Nor is hers binding upon me, for what she says simply does not make it true, versus the weight of Scriptural substantiation. But if you want to try the ol "we gave you the Scriptures, thus we are the sure authorities on what it means," then be my guest.
    Divide And Conquer tactics are actually borrowed from Catholics, who routinely lump us evangelical Bible types in with everything from Unitarians to Mormonism in order to discredit what we contend for from Scripture.

    However, invoking the EOs is entirely fitting in the discussion here, for it is the alternative to SS, which you reject, that of the ensured veracity of your church, that is an issue. And thus just who is uniquely the One True Church is an issue.
     
  9. thecolorsblend

    thecolorsblend If God is your Father, who is your Mother?

    +4,849
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    I'm not aware of a Catholic doing so in this thread.

    Notwithstanding, I think now would be a good time to remind you that my participation in these discussions comes from a desire to inform rather than persuade. So your efforts at setting the terms of what a Catholic's participation in this thread "ought to be" is not likely to be successful, at least for this particular Catholic.

    Again, "sola scriptura" is your rule; not ours.

    Nobody has said it should be. If anything, you seem to object to my belief in Purgatory and my explanations for it. At the risk of repeating myself, you're welcome to believe whatever you want. But (A) the Church believes in Purgatory and (B) she has the right to study the scriptures and her own history in devising her teachings.

    Again, we don't believe in "sola scriptura". If you do, that's lovely. But we don't. You may believe whatever you want.

    I do happen to believe that to be true, incidentally. But it's not a hill to die on.

    I notice you don't dispute the D&C technique I called out in my post. You excuse it, you justify it, you try again to change the subject, you try turning it around on me, etc.

    But you don't deny it.

    Fascinating.

    Psst. If I don't intend to change the subject to the Eastern Orthodox Church, I won't take this bait either. Speaking of which...

    No. It really isn't.
     
  10. PeaceByJesus

    PeaceByJesus Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior

    +2,033
    Christian
    Single
    Catholic apologetic is not limited to this thread.
    It is called logic, as whether you admit it or not, you are not merely informing, but debating, and thus your position is subject to challenge in a forum in which opposing positions are posted.
    And some version of sola ecclesia may be your rule; but it is not mine. And the basis for belief pertains to the question of the OP. Thus, whether you like it or not, the validity of each basis can be subject to challenge.
    At the risk of repeating myself, this is a forum, in which opposing positions can be and are posted, and "informing" me of what your church asserts makes such liable to challenge. If you do not want that stop posting provocative claims.

    PeaceByJesus said:

    But if you want to try the ol "we gave you the Scriptures, thus we are the sure authorities on what it means," then be my guest.

    Which polemic leads to death.
    Indeed, it is valid in the context of the claims of ensured ecclesiastical validity. If tradition and ecclesiastical validity are a basis for a belief, and two churches who boythj claim to uniquely be the one true Catholic church are in disagreement, then which one is correct is an issue. And even Paul invoked the opposing beliefs of parties who attacked him, in the interest of Truth. (Acts 23:6-8)
    Yes, it really is.

    But i really see little warrant for more attempts at meaningful exchange with you.
     
Loading...