Do Catholics Deny Imputation?

[redleghunter]

No, it isn't. Orange expressly refutes Reformed theology, here:

Historic Church Documents at Reformed.org

According to the catholic faith we also believe that after grace has been received through baptism, all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul. We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema. We also believe and confess to our benefit that in every good work it is not we who take the initiative and are then assisted through the mercy of God, but God himself first inspires in us both faith in him and love for him without any previous good works of our own that deserve reward, so that we may both faithfully seek the sacrament of baptism, and after baptism be able by his help to do what is pleasing to him. We must therefore most evidently believe that the praiseworthy faith of the thief whom the Lord called to his home in paradise, and of Cornelius the centurion, to whom the angel of the Lord was sent, and of Zacchaeus, who was worthy to receive the Lord himself, was not a natural endowment but a gift of God's kindness.

Actually Orange condemns most of the canons of the future Trent. But not the subject of the thread.

 

[BNR32FAN]

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.

Ok thanks for sharing that.

 

[chevyontheriver]

What’s wrong with being Orthodox?

Not much. They have all of the Sacraments and a substantially intact Tradition. An improvement for most people. And my point was that deeply reading the Fathers will lead you into being either Orthodox or Catholic. I mentioned caution because some people really really don't want to become Catholic. If they read too much of the Fathers they might find that they end up Catholic. It's happened way more times than you might think. So, a forewarning.

 

[redleghunter]

I think you have drifted a bit from that. I'm not the first to ask for a clarification of terms.

Maybe this could clarify. Did Christ take upon Himself our sin?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Not much. They have all of the Sacraments and a substantially intact Tradition. An improvement for most people. And my point was that deeply reading the Fathers will lead you into being either Orthodox or Catholic.

I agree it led me to the Orthodox understanding of the scriptures and in some ways the Roman Catholic. Mostly the things that they both agree on. I am not officially Orthodox I’m nondenominational.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I agree it led me to the Orthodox understanding of the scriptures and in some ways the Roman Catholic. Mostly the things that they both agree on. I am not officially Orthodox I’m nondenominational.

See how 'dangerous' it was even for you? Good deal.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Maybe this could clarify. Did Christ take upon Himself our sin?

We have some who believe the wrath of God descended upon the Son of God, that God hated Himself. So maybe a lot of clarification is in order.

 

[redleghunter]

Eusebius, Eusebius, mmm... is that the same Eusebius that got in trouble for embracing heresy?

Yet John Chrysostom was not.

Chrysostom, Homily on Galatians 3:3 (ACD, vol. 3, p. 108)

The people were liable to punishment since they had not fulfilled the whole Law. Christ satisfied a different curse, the one that says, “Cursed is everyone that is hanged on a tree.” Both the one who is hanged and the one who transgresses the Law are accursed. Christ, who was going to lift that curse, could not properly be made liable to it, yet he had to receive a curse. He received the curse instead of being liable to it, and through this he lifted the curse. Just as, when someone is condemned to death, another innocent person who chooses to die for him releases him from that punishment, so Christ also did.

In reality, the people were subject to another curse, which says, Cursed is every one that continues not in the things that are written in the book of the Law. Deuteronomy 27:26 To this curse, I say, people were subject, for no man had continued in, or was a keeper of, the whole Law; but Christ exchanged this curse for the other, Cursed is every one that hangs on a tree. As then both he who hanged on a tree, and he who transgresses the Law, is cursed, and as it was necessary for him who is about to relieve from a curse himself to be free from it, but to receive another instead of it, therefore Christ took upon Him such another, and thereby relieved us from the curse. It was like an innocent man's undertaking to die for another sentenced to death, and so rescuing him from punishment. For Christ took upon Him not the curse of transgression, but the other curse, in order to remove that of others. For, He had done no violence neither was any deceit in His mouth. Isaiah 53:9;1 Peter 2:22 And as by dying He rescued from death those who were dying, so by taking upon Himself the curse, He delivered them from it.

CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 3 on Galatians (Chrysostom)
​

 

[redleghunter]

We have some who believe the wrath of God descended upon the Son of God, that God hated Himself. So maybe a lot of clarification is in order.

Well you put it in such a negative way. Just posted this above, from John Chrysostom:

Chrysostom, Homily on Galatians 3:3 (ACD, vol. 3, p. 108)

The people were liable to punishment since they had not fulfilled the whole Law. Christ satisfied a different curse, the one that says, “Cursed is everyone that is hanged on a tree.” Both the one who is hanged and the one who transgresses the Law are accursed. Christ, who was going to lift that curse, could not properly be made liable to it, yet he had to receive a curse. He received the curse instead of being liable to it, and through this he lifted the curse. Just as, when someone is condemned to death, another innocent person who chooses to die for him releases him from that punishment, so Christ also did.

In reality, the people were subject to another curse, which says, Cursed is every one that continues not in the things that are written in the book of the Law. Deuteronomy 27:26 To this curse, I say, people were subject, for no man had continued in, or was a keeper of, the whole Law; but Christ exchanged this curse for the other, Cursed is every one that hangs on a tree. As then both he who hanged on a tree, and he who transgresses the Law, is cursed, and as it was necessary for him who is about to relieve from a curse himself to be free from it, but to receive another instead of it, therefore Christ took upon Him such another, and thereby relieved us from the curse. It was like an innocent man's undertaking to die for another sentenced to death, and so rescuing him from punishment. For Christ took upon Him not the curse of transgression, but the other curse, in order to remove that of others. For, He had done no violence neither was any deceit in His mouth. Isaiah 53:9;1 Peter 2:22 And as by dying He rescued from death those who were dying, so by taking upon Himself the curse, He delivered them from it.

CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 3 on Galatians (Chrysostom)
​

 

[redleghunter]

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'.

He did take on our sins no?

2 Corinthians 5: NASB
21For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

That the eternal Son of the Father suffered God's wrath is a bizarre way of looking at the atonement.

Then the due wrath which Paul speaks of in his epistles would need for you to be some inanimate 'wrath.' Or I guess you can personify the Law keeping God out of the wrath department. Yet not all the early fathers were adverse to draw the conclusions the Apostle did in his epistles:

I already quoted John Chrysostom now these:

Augustine

“This, the catholic faith has known of the one and only mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus, who condescended to undergo death—that is, the penalty of sin—without sin, for us. As He alone became the Son of man, in order that we might become through Him sons of God, so He alone, on our behalf, undertook punishment without ill deservings, that we through Him might obtain grace without good deservings. Because as to us nothing good was due so to Him nothing bad was due. Therefore, commending His love to them to whom He was about to give undeserved life, He was willing to suffer for them an undeserved death.” (Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, Book 4, chap. 7)
CHURCH FATHERS: Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, Book IV (Augustine)

Hilary of Poitiers

He blotted out through death the sentence of death, that by a new creation of our race in Himself He might sweep away the penalty appointed by the former Law. He let them nail Him to the cross that He might nail to the curse of the cross and abolish all the curses to which the world is condemned. He suffered as man to the utmost that He might put powers to shame. For Scripture had foretold that He Who is God should die; that the victory and triumph of them that trust in Him lay in the fact that He, Who is immortal and cannot be overcome by death, was to die that mortals might gain eternity.

CHURCH FATHERS: On the Trinity, Book I (Hilary of Poitiers)

Cyril of Jerusalem

If Phinees, when he waxed zealous and slew the evil-doer, staved the wrath of God, shall not Jesus, who slew not another, but gave up Himself for a ransom, put away the wrath which is against mankind?…Further; if the lamb under Moses drove the destroyer far away, did not much rather the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world, deliver us from our sins? The blood of a silly sheep gave salvation; and shall not the Blood of the Only-begotten much rather save?…Jesus then really suffered for all men; for the Cross was no illusion, otherwise our redemption is an illusion also…These things the Saviour endured, and made peace through the Blood of His Cross, for things in heaven, and things in earth. For we were enemies of God through sin, and God had appointed the sinner to die. There must needs therefore have happened one of two things; either that God, in His truth, should destroy all men, or that in His loving-kindness He should cancel the sentence. But behold the wisdom of God; He preserved both the truth of His sentence, and the exercise of His loving-kindness. Christ took our sins in His body on the tree, that we by His death might die to sin, and live unto righteousness.--St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, XIII

CHURCH FATHERS: Catechetical Lecture 13 (Cyril of Jerusalem)​

Therefore, it begs the question...If wrath had to be satisfied Whose wrath are we speaking of? Who took upon this wrath so men would not suffer it. I think we can logically conclude this matter.

 

[BNR32FAN]

See how 'dangerous' it was even for you? Good deal.

Yes I see your point now I’m forced to adhere to the truth instead of the easy way of just believing. It has definitely narrowed the gate to heaven quite a bit lol

 

[redleghunter]

That may be what YOU teach. Not Scripture. God's wrath upon Jesus the Eternal Son?

Then for you it is a 'what' and not a 'who' when it comes to wrath satisfied? Meaning Jesus Christ satisfied the wrath due to mankind, yet this wrath is not God's wrath? Then who or what does the wrath belong to that Jesus satisfied?

I'm just looking for your logical conclusion as the Scriptures are clear that the 'wrath' we speak of is the "Wrath of God."

See this link to the Wrath of God as used in the New Testament.
See this one for the entire Bible.

I know that mentioning wrath and God in post-modern times is not popular.

 

[redleghunter]

That 'infused' is of the devil.

I would not qualify that personally, but I do think it is an incomplete concept and does portray us as having some 'goodness' God is adding to. I get a blood transfusion I still have my blood and just getting a boost from a donor. Put theologically, infusion would be Jesus giving us what we are lacking. Whereas Romans 3:23 tells us we are all sinners and fall short of the glory of God.

 

[Afra]

Yes.

In your view, why should it be punished?

 

[Afra]

Actually Orange condemns most of the canons of the future Trent. But not the subject of the thread.

Well that is an interesting opinion. Do you have an example?

 

[Afra]

He did take on our sins no?

2 Corinthians 5: NASB
21For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.


Then the due wrath which Paul speaks of in his epistles would need for you to be some inanimate 'wrath.' Or I guess you can personify the Law keeping God out of the wrath department. Yet not all the early fathers were adverse to draw the conclusions the Apostle did in his epistles:

I already quoted John Chrysostom now these:

Augustine

“This, the catholic faith has known of the one and only mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus, who condescended to undergo death—that is, the penalty of sin—without sin, for us. As He alone became the Son of man, in order that we might become through Him sons of God, so He alone, on our behalf, undertook punishment without ill deservings, that we through Him might obtain grace without good deservings. Because as to us nothing good was due so to Him nothing bad was due. Therefore, commending His love to them to whom He was about to give undeserved life, He was willing to suffer for them an undeserved death.” (Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, Book 4, chap. 7)
CHURCH FATHERS: Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, Book IV (Augustine)

Hilary of Poitiers

He blotted out through death the sentence of death, that by a new creation of our race in Himself He might sweep away the penalty appointed by the former Law. He let them nail Him to the cross that He might nail to the curse of the cross and abolish all the curses to which the world is condemned. He suffered as man to the utmost that He might put powers to shame. For Scripture had foretold that He Who is God should die; that the victory and triumph of them that trust in Him lay in the fact that He, Who is immortal and cannot be overcome by death, was to die that mortals might gain eternity.

CHURCH FATHERS: On the Trinity, Book I (Hilary of Poitiers)

Cyril of Jerusalem

If Phinees, when he waxed zealous and slew the evil-doer, staved the wrath of God, shall not Jesus, who slew not another, but gave up Himself for a ransom, put away the wrath which is against mankind?…Further; if the lamb under Moses drove the destroyer far away, did not much rather the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world, deliver us from our sins? The blood of a silly sheep gave salvation; and shall not the Blood of the Only-begotten much rather save?…Jesus then really suffered for all men; for the Cross was no illusion, otherwise our redemption is an illusion also…These things the Saviour endured, and made peace through the Blood of His Cross, for things in heaven, and things in earth. For we were enemies of God through sin, and God had appointed the sinner to die. There must needs therefore have happened one of two things; either that God, in His truth, should destroy all men, or that in His loving-kindness He should cancel the sentence. But behold the wisdom of God; He preserved both the truth of His sentence, and the exercise of His loving-kindness. Christ took our sins in His body on the tree, that we by His death might die to sin, and live unto righteousness.--St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, XIII

CHURCH FATHERS: Catechetical Lecture 13 (Cyril of Jerusalem)​

Therefore, it begs the question...If wrath had to be satisfied Whose wrath are we speaking of? Who took upon this wrath so men would not suffer it. I think we can logically conclude this matter.

The punishment that we are due for our sins is an eternity in hell. If our Lord received the punishment that was due us, why did he not spend an eternity in hell, in your opinion?

 

[Tree of Life]

In your view, why should it be punished?

Because it is sinful, unholy, unjust, and hateful to a holy God.

 

[Tree of Life]

The punishment that we are due for our sins is an eternity in hell. If our Lord received the punishment that was due us, why did he not spend an eternity in hell, in your opinion?

An eternally valuable being suffered in our place. His suffering has eternal value.

 

[redleghunter]

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.

Actually reading the early fathers was quite refreshing that some of them actually read the Scriptures and understood them.

 

[Afra]

Because it is sinful, unholy, unjust, and hateful to a holy God.

At least to me, this view seems to lead to a conclusion that a man is not culpable for his own sins. He is punished regardless of his own choices. That is, he is punished merely for being born a certain way, even though he had no control over that whatsoever.

In your view, is there any moral distinction between a man who has a homosexual desire but resolutely chooses a celibate life, and a homosexual man who acts out on those desires and sleeps with other men regularly?