• 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. Tree of Life

    Tree of Life A Sinner

    +5,255
    United States
    Reformed
    Married
    Yes.
     
  2. Tree of Life

    Tree of Life A Sinner

    +5,255
    United States
    Reformed
    Married
    Alright. Strike the Eusebius quote if you don't like him. How about the other Patristics who said the same thing?
     
  3. FireDragon76

    FireDragon76 Mystery Worshipper Supporter

    +8,969
    United States
    Lutheran
    Legal Union (Other)
    US-Democrat
    That was actually what the Greek church took issue with, in Nikos Kazantakis Last Temptation of Christ. Of course, many evangelicals in the US were more upset by the Mary Magdalene love scene in the Scorsese film, than the inner-conflicted image of Christ portrayed by Kazantakis.

    It's still something I am personally mulling over, because otherwise artistically Kazantakis work is quite powerful. My real issue with Kazantakis is the quasi-pelagianism and world-denying character of salvation presented, with God pitted against the world, and advocating a very ascetical kind of spirituality as a result. Archbishop Rowan Williams had similar issues with Kazantakis work.
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2018
  4. chevyontheriver

    chevyontheriver Well-Known Member Supporter

    +5,080
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-American-Solidarity
    It's a fairly standard Reformed way of explaining it.

    But it has it's problems in that 'sins imputed to Christ' is not exactly supported in Scripture but only by the force of Reformed drive for 'consistency'. That the eternal Son of the Father suffered God's wrath is a bizarre way of looking at the atonement.

    And it also has a problem in that the legal fiction, the crediting of righteousness to us, is lacking the substance of an actual change. It is a covering. Our sins are not counted against us. But it doesn't change anything ontologically. Most Bible reading Christians expect that what is imputed is also actual. The Reformed understanding differs, as your own words clarify. The rest of us expect imputation and infusion of grace together. Only the Reformed folks are Sola Imputa. Stuck in a legal only framework of understanding the Redemption.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  5. chevyontheriver

    chevyontheriver Well-Known Member Supporter

    +5,080
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-American-Solidarity
    It's not that I don't like him. I do like him as a historian. Just that as a theologian he simply doesn't cut it. Patristics is a complicated venture.
     
  6. Tree of Life

    Tree of Life A Sinner

    +5,255
    United States
    Reformed
    Married
    The man Jesus suffered the wrath of the Triune God for sins in order to redeem mankind from the curse of the law. This is what Scripture teaches.

    Do you deny that Jesus bore the guilt of our sins?

    This is a straw man. No Reformed person would say that salvation is only legal. But we would say that justification, as the Bible uses it, is a legal concept. Salvation includes justification and also regeneration and sanctification, which is the inward change you speak about. God regenerates and sanctifies all whom he justifies. So of course these things all come together.

    The Roman error consists in conflating our personal, existential righteousness with our legal status before God. The Bible teaches that we are legally justified in Christ even though we still existentially struggle with sin. Our struggle with sin does not affect our legal status in God's eyes. We are still in a state of grace when we struggle with sin and do not need to be saved all over again.

    It is not a legal fiction because we are united to Christ. We are in Christ and he is in us. His righteousness really does belong to us and speaks for us.
     
  7. chevyontheriver

    chevyontheriver Well-Known Member Supporter

    +5,080
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-American-Solidarity
    I am saying Jesus was tempted. He was. I am saying Jesus did not sin. He didn't. Conclusion is that temptation per se is not sin. Contrary to your complicated distinction between external and internal temptation, wherever that came from. It is simply what you do with temptation that matters, not that one is tempted.
     
  8. Tree of Life

    Tree of Life A Sinner

    +5,255
    United States
    Reformed
    Married
    So you like the Patristics when they agree with you but you don't like them when they don't?
     
  9. Tree of Life

    Tree of Life A Sinner

    +5,255
    United States
    Reformed
    Married
    Did Jesus have concupiscence?
     
  10. chevyontheriver

    chevyontheriver Well-Known Member Supporter

    +5,080
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-American-Solidarity
    That may be what YOU teach. Not Scripture. God's wrath upon Jesus the Eternal Son?
    Do you make Jesus to be sin?
    You have your view and the rest of us have ours. I'm not expecting you to get it. Your explanation of how we can be righteous and still struggle with sin is a Reformation invention. It leaves us in our sins, just covered over nicely. But the Scriptural and Patristic solution is that we are made righteous legally AND actually, a new creation at our baptism, pure as the driven snow all the way down to the bottom of the pile. We still inherit the concupiescence of Adam, but it is not sin in itself, unlike your view.
     
  11. BNR32FAN

    BNR32FAN He’s a Way of life Supporter

    +2,275
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    The problem is that babies have no idea what’s going on in baptism and a huge percentage of people who are baptized as a baby by the Catholic Church don’t experience any life change at all. The same thing happened to me when I was baptized at 5 years old. I had no idea what it meant and absolutely no life change at all. Water baptism isn’t what causes repentance. It’s spiritual baptism that causes true repentance.
     
  12. BNR32FAN

    BNR32FAN He’s a Way of life Supporter

    +2,275
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    What bible verses support imputed righteousness?
     
  13. chevyontheriver

    chevyontheriver Well-Known Member Supporter

    +5,080
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-American-Solidarity
    It's not a proof-texting kind of thing. The fathers span centuries and span several cultures and languages and many schools of thought. You need to know a good deal about these cultures, intellectual patterns, historical dependencies, and who was responding to what controversy. Dabbling in the Fathers is a dangerous thing. Getting good at understanding the Fathers will make you either Orthodox or Catholic. So watch out.
     
  14. Tree of Life

    Tree of Life A Sinner

    +5,255
    United States
    Reformed
    Married
    Galatians 3:13 - Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us -- for it is written 'Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree.'"

    No. God made Jesus to be sin. 2 Corinthians 5:21 - For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
     
  15. chevyontheriver

    chevyontheriver Well-Known Member Supporter

    +5,080
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-American-Solidarity
    That's a great question. You would have to answer that he did not, because you view concupiscence to be sin. For myself, I don't even know, but since concupiscence is only an effect of the sin of Adam and not sin itself, I could go either way. Jesus was tempted, and was like us in everything but sin. So maybe he did. Adam and Eve didn't have it, and were tempted anyway. So maybe he didn't.
     
  16. BNR32FAN

    BNR32FAN He’s a Way of life Supporter

    +2,275
    United States
    Non-Denom
    Married
    What’s wrong with being Orthodox?
     
  17. Tree of Life

    Tree of Life A Sinner

    +5,255
    United States
    Reformed
    Married
    I don't think it's difficult to say that he didn't. Concupiscence is a tendency toward sin and sinful desires. Jesus is God. God does not have a tendency toward sin and has no desires for sin. God always tends toward good.
     
  18. chevyontheriver

    chevyontheriver Well-Known Member Supporter

    +5,080
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-American-Solidarity
    There is a big big step there from the Scriptures you quote here to saying the wrath of God descended upon the Eternal Son of the Father.
     
  19. chevyontheriver

    chevyontheriver Well-Known Member Supporter

    +5,080
    United States
    Catholic
    Married
    US-American-Solidarity
    You seem quite certain and I'm more careful not to jump to a conclusion as you.
     
  20. thecolorsblend

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

    +4,849
    Catholic
    Married
    US-Others
    Babies don’t need to know what’s happening to them with their baptism. The point of baptizing infants is to introduce them into God’s family from the start. And when they’re old enough, they can take the baptismal promise made by their parents upon themselves in Confirmation.
     
Loading...