Do Catholics Deny Imputation?

[expos4ever]

Any particular reason?

Any reason I am not Catholic? Or any reason I don’t believe in imputation?

 

[Afra]

Any reason I am not Catholic? Or any reason I don’t believe in imputation?

I already know why you deny imputation.

 

[redleghunter]

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.

Who says?

2 Corinthians 5:
16From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer. 17Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation.b The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.18All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; 19that is, in Christ God was reconcilingc the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. 20Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 21For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

1 Peter 1:

3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4to an inheritance that is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, 5who by God’s power are being guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.


Titus 3:
1Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work, 2to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to show perfect courtesy toward all people. 3For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another.4But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared,5he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, 6whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. 8The saying is trustworthy, and I want you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works. These things are excellent and profitable for people.

 

[redleghunter]

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?

Romans chapters 3 through 5 may be instructive in answering your questions.

 

[expos4ever]

I already know why you deny imputation.

Really? How? I have argued against imputation before but that was a long time ago, I think.

 

[redleghunter]

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

According to the Law. Yet both Elizabeth and Zechariah required the Day of Atonement each year like all in Israel. See Leviticus 16.

So Luke is accurate that they according to the statutes were righteous. Yet what does Paul say about the Law and righteousness in Romans 3?

 

[expos4ever]

Romans chapters 3 through 5 may be instructive in answering your questions.

I sm very familiar with Romans. I see no evidence there for imputation.

 

[redleghunter]

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

I look forward to your explanation of the alternative versions of righteousness.

 

[redleghunter]

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.

I look forward to the Biblical explanation of infused righteousness.

 

[redleghunter]

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

Thanks for your opinion.

 

[redleghunter]

I sm very familiar with Romans. I see no evidence there for imputation.

Sorry to hear that.

 

[Afra]

According to the Law. Yet both Elizabeth and Zechariah required the Day of Atonement each year like all in Israel. See Leviticus 16.

So Luke is accurate that they according to the statutes were righteous. Yet what does Paul say about the Law and righteousness in Romans 3?

No, the text states "And they were both righteous before God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statutes of the Lord." It does not state that "they were both righteous before God, because they walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statutes of the Lord."

The text does not state the manner in which they are righteous before God, although what you suggest is a reasonable (and perhaps even the most probable) interpretation. I posted the text not to resolve that question, but rather, to open your mind to the possibility that there may be ways of understanding righteousness that you may not have considered.

 

[Afra]

Really? How? I have argued against imputation before but that was a long time ago, I think.

You do not believe it because it is not taught in Sacred Scripture. Am I wrong?

 

[redleghunter]

No, the text states "And they were both righteous before God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statutes of the Lord." It does not state that "they were both righteous before God, because they walking blamelessly in all the commandments and statutes of the Lord."

The text does not state the manner in which they are righteous before God, although what you suggest is a reasonable (and perhaps even the most probable) interpretation. I posted the text not to resolve that question, but rather, to open your mind to the possibility that there may be ways of understanding righteousness that you may not have considered.

Thanks I will read your article.

 

[Afra]

I look forward to your explanation of the alternative versions of righteousness.

Here you go:

Justification in Catholic Teaching

Righteousness and Merit

 

[Afra]

Thanks I will read your article.

The section in the first article, called "C. The kind of righteousness we receive" is probably the most on point.

 

[Afra]

Thanks I will read your article.

To put it very briefly (and likely very imprecisely), in my own words and using Luther's analogy. Let's say that your soul is black. There are at least two possibilities by which God can rectify that ugly situation. The first is to cover your black soul with a white one. This is imputation. Another possibility is that God changes your soul from black to white by, for example, pouring the love of God into your heart and having the Holy Spirit dwell within you. This is infusion. You are made righteous because God befriends you, adopts you as his son, pours love into your heart, and dwells within you.

Now, your objections are likely that "that is sanctification not justification" and "but we still sin after we are justified". All of that is discussed in the articles.

 

[mark kennedy]

Romans chapters 3 through 5 may be instructive in answering your questions.

Its not so much a legal analogy as an economic one. The idea here is a debt, much more so then a pending criminal action. If you were deep in debt in the ancient world you could be taken as a slave in payment of the debt. A number of our terms in the New Testament were originally financial terms, atonement and dispensation for example. Jesus on the cross said it is finished, that literally means paid in full. The thing is atonement satisfies the debt, but grace also 'credits' righteousness to our account. I still dont see any significance to calling imputed or infused. If imputed means credited to us as righteousness I'm on board with that. Infused is a little more puzzling, we are born again of the Spirit, who Jesus promised would be with us forever.

 

[redleghunter]

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.

Thanks. Afra loaded me with some resources. I am very familiar with Trent so I will take it from there.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

I will rephrase my question then....

You do realise what orthodox means don't you?

Yes I do