Do Catholics Deny Imputation?

[redleghunter]

Sorry. I don't get you. Can you explain the point that you want to make in greater detail?

Read Romans. By the time I am done here it will probably have to be quoted in full along with Hebrews.

 

[Ripheus27]

No that verse does not imply the Work of Christ makes us able to be good enough.

I didn't say that Christ makes us capable of doing works that then save us. Virtue is neither a cause nor an effect of salvation. Being righteous just is what salvation is.

 

[redleghunter]

I didn't say that Christ makes us capable of doing works that then save us. Virtue is neither a cause nor an effect of salvation. Being righteous just is what salvation is.

Yes and it the righteousness of God cited no?

 

[redleghunter]

This does not teach that our Lord's own personal righteousness is imputed to a believer. The text states or implies no such thing.

Then whose righteousness if not God’s? I only see God’s righteousness there.

 

[redleghunter]

I don't deny that there are things that sound similar to the idea of literal/federal/w/e imputation, in the text, but on my understanding of the concept of imputation, taking it literally here would make God out to be a liar, and for no reason whatsoever (He lies to Himself by saying that His own (as His Son) good works were actually performed by we sinners, and He says this to Himself to avoid punishing us when He could just as well have avoided predestining us to sin, or imputing Adam's sin to us, or whatever, in the first place).

You are going to have to unwrap that a bit.

 

[redleghunter]

I'm going to assume that this is not the best translation of the original, because as it stands, it's absurd.

I’ll await your alternate translation or your own personal translation from the Koine Greek.

 

[Afra]

Then whose righteousness if not God’s? I only see God’s righteousness there.

The text states "so that in him we might become the righteousness of God". The only righteousness referred to here is "the righteousness of God". But this does not teach that our Lord Jesus's own personal righteousness is imputed to a believer. The text simply does not state this. This is merely your interpretation of the text.

 

[chevyontheriver]

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

Not in a way that he himself became hated by the Father. But that seems to be Reformed soteriology and I'm not buying.

 

[Afra]

Read Romans. By the time I am done here it will probably have to be quoted in full along with Hebrews.

You read it first.

And you do not have to quote Romans and Hebrews in full. You only have to quote one single verse that teaches that our Lord's own personal righteousness is imputed to a believer. I am patiently waiting.

If the NT is dripping with that idea, as you suggest, surely you can provide one single verse that teaches it.

 

[redleghunter]

The text states "so that in him we might become the righteousness of God". The only righteousness referred to here is "the righteousness of God". But this does not teach that our Lord Jesus's own personal righteousness is imputed to a believer. The text simply does not state this. This is merely your interpretation of the text.

If one believes in Him who justifies the wicked, is not his faith credited as righteousness? If this be the case then whose righteousness do we speak of? Who is crediting the righteousness? Is this not God?

 

[redleghunter]

Not in a way that he himself became hated by the Father. But that seems to be Reformed soteriology and I'm not buying.

I’ll take that as a yes that Christ took upon himself our sins.

Why did He do this?

 

[Afra]

If this be the case then whose righteousness do we speak of?

The text does not state whose righteousness is spoken of.

Who is crediting the righteousness? Is this not God?

Verse 6 appears to indicate that God is crediting the righteousness.

When are you going to provide a verse that teaches that our Lord's Jesus's own personal righteousness is imputed to a believer?

 

[chevyontheriver]

I’ll take that as a yes that Christ took upon himself our sins.

Why did He do this?

You can read about this in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Bible. Or you could wait a while for me to quote it all for you in a day or so. You will do better reading the Catechism because you can get your answer in minutes or hours and it's more coherent anyway.

As for the premise that Catholics deny imputation, no, we don't. We just insist that a legal declaration must also reflect an ontological change in making the one declared to be just to also be just. You won't buy that. So? We differ. It's the Reformed, or at least some of them, against the rest of Biblical Christianity.

 

[expos4ever]

I don’t believe the Scriptures teach imputation and I am not Catholic. Nor have I been exposed to Catholic doctrine.

 

[expos4ever]

Some defenders of imputation seem to think that we cannot acquire a status of righteousness unless it is someone else’s righteousness. But why can’t a person simply be declared to be “in the right” just as someone is when acquitted in a court of law?

 

[Afra]

I am not Catholic.

Any particular reason?

 

[redleghunter]

The text does not state whose righteousness is spoken of.

So we don’t know?

There is none who are righteous therefore it cannot be our righteousness spoken of. It is The justifier.

Romans 4:

23Now the words “it was credited to him” were written not only for Abraham, 24but also for us, to whom righteousness will be credited—for us who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead.25He was delivered over to death for our trespasses and was raised to life for our justification.

 

[redleghunter]

When are you going to provide a verse that teaches that our Lord's Jesus's own personal righteousness is imputed to a believer?

Neither of us are Modalists.

Romans 5:
15But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. 16And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. 17For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

18Therefore, as one trespassf led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousnessg leads to justification and life for all men. 19For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. 20Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

[gordonhooker]

It is the PROTESTANT VIEW...it is neither the Orthodox or the orthodox view

I will rephrase my question then....

You do realise what orthodox means don't you?

My point being what is orthodox teaching to a Calvinist may not necessarily be orthodox teaching to a Roman Catholic or an Eastern Orthodox group.

So I would suggest that what you really mean is that it is not orthodox Eastern Orthodox teaching, to say it is not orthodox is basically saying - We are right and you are wrong and that is pretty arrogant really, because none of us know for sure.

 

[Afra]

So we don’t know?

There is none who are righteous therefore it cannot be our righteousness spoken of. It is The justifier.

5 In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, of the division of Abijah. And he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. 6 And they were both righteous before God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statutes of the Lord. 7 But they had no child, because Elizabeth was barren, and both were advanced in years.

The text states that Elizabeth and Zechariah were righteous, does it not?

I am not sure if I have the time, ability, or desire to explain all of it in detail at this late hour, but in general, it appears that the flaw in your reasoning is that you limit "righteousness" to only two distinct possibilities: 1) our Lord Jesus's own personal righteousness in having obeyed the commandments perfectly, and 2) our own personal righteousness in having obeyed God's commandments ourselves perfectly (which we do not do, of course).

Righteousness, in your view, seems simply to be a matter of having obeyed the commandments or not obeyed the commandments. Is this correct? If one has perfectly obeyed the commandments he is righteous. If he has broken any commandment he is not righteous. Is this how you view things?

There are more possibilities than the two listed above, and there are more ways of conceptualizing righteousness than by employing a court of law analogy.

Now what are those other possibilites, you ask. The explanation is fairly long and I do not feel like getting into it tonight. But they are explained well in the articles below, for your reference.

Justification in Catholic Teaching
Righteousness and Merit

 

[Afra]

Neither of us are Modalists.

Romans 5:
15But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. 16And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. 17For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

18Therefore, as one trespassf led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousnessg leads to justification and life for all men. 19For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. 20Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Yes, but God can make a man righteous in many different ways. You seem to think that the only way that God can make a man righteous is to impute our Lord's personal righteousness to him, but that is not the only possibility. Here you can study the Catholic concept of infused righteousness or infused grace. Again, the explanation is long, but I am sure there are plenty of resources you can find on the web that explain that.