slowing down....

All -

As I have a lot less time (and as a whole, a lot less energy=p) these days, I'm going to have to pick and choose what I respond to. Sorry in advance.

I think there's still a few bits of "talking past one another" here. Let me see if I can clear some things up, especially over this major issue.

I think Scripture supports the concept of justify to be the equivalent of being declared righteous (the same word translates both phrases). It is the act of a righteous judge (God), declaring "yes, you are righteous." It is an instantaneous declaration.

Now, this is done on the basis of only one possibility as God does not clear the guilty. We actually have to be righteous and perfect in order for us to be justified.

Thus the key distinction between infusion and imputation.

Either God looks upon me or God does not. If God looks upon me, then however much I cooperate with the divine grace, my sin still taints what I do, and my guilt from previous sins hangs over me (all have sinned), I am still guilty.

The other option, and this is what makes the Gospel the Gospel, is that God looks not upon me, but chooses instead to look upon a substitute. The guilty sentence that I earned is placed upon Christ, and the "just, righteous" sentence that Christ earned (if we may use so base a term for a relationship between a father and son, though the concept of "wages" is there), is placed upon me.

So a lot of skipping here. No snipping. If you'd like me to cover a point specifically that I didn't, feel free to bring it up. I can't promise a response, but I'll try.

And I'd like to get to some scripture, as that's where this debate is going to have to go. So hopefully I can do some exegesis at the end.

On 5/18/07, Charles F. Capps wrote:

Well, let's see . . .

I. Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth…

Agreed…

…not by infusing righteousness into them…

Disagreed, of course…

…but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for any thing wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; not by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.

We wouldn't put it in this way, but I guess we agree with much of this. He pardons our sins and accounts/accepts us as righteous for Christ's sake alone, yes. Apart from Christ, nothing done by us suffices to justify us, yes. We receive and rest on Him and His righteousness by faith, which faith we have not of ourselves; it is the gift of God, yes.

Again, though, we would phrase the entire process differently. We would say that becoming a child of God in the New Covenant in place of a child of Adam frees us from the curse of subjection to the Levitical Law (Rom 8:2). In baptism, we receive adoption by God by uniting ourselves to Christ and receiving His own divine life infused into our souls. If you want to use the term "righteousness," then we are infused with "righteousness" when we are infused with Christ's divine life, which we call sanctifying grace.

Here is where the "righteousness is a sentence" would come into play. If by "infused with righteousness" you mean "infused with holiness" then I think I can agree. We are given holiness, the new heart that loves God rather than the old one that hates Him. But the righteousness of Christ is a sentence laid down by God.

This righteousness is a sentence given to Christ and all who are united with him by faith, not because of their faith or any subsequent obedience, but because of Christ and His life on earth, being fully without sin and perfect. He is declared righteous truly.

All others cannot look to themselves, or even to Christ in them, as their works are tainted by sin. They must look to a substitute. That's why I have to make the distinction between the works done in me (through Christ) and the works done in Christ (through Christ). It's His works, and His righteousness (the sentence, passed down by God).

Returning to your terminology, we would see God imputing Christ's righteousness to us to be inexorably accompanied by God infusing Christ's righteousness into us. If God accounts us as righteous, how can we not be (Rom 8:31-34)? As God says in Isaiah 55:11: "so shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose." By virtue of God declaring us righteous on Christ's account, we are righteous on Christ's account.

I'm not too sure your application of the passages are good, but I do affirm that we are made holy by God, while we are declared holy by God. I agree with you here. I think.

But I do see what is said above as different from what the council of Trent said -

"If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema." (Canon 14).

Justification, by faith alone, says exactly what is being declared anathema here. It is resting in Christ alone for righteousness and looking not to what we've done, however much we have become holy by God's gracious work in us.

Thus, if Christ's righteousness is imputed to us, apprehended by faith (also given to us), then you're actually a protestant. Which would make this whole discussion rather silly, though I would say very beneficial =D.

Catholics are often accused of undermining the totality and sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice by encouraging prayer through Mary or by repeatedly offering the Sacrifice of the Mass. We will address these points later, but for now I would like to turn the tables for a moment and argue that Protestants, by limiting salvation in Christ to a merely forensic justification, actually underestimate the power of the cross. According to you, Christ's sacrifice simply covers our dung with snow and causes God, when He finds us worthy of eternal damnation, to declare our sentence paid and usher us into heaven. Christ's sacrifice has now done its work. AND YET WE ARE STILL DUNG. So then, because nothing unclean will enter heaven (Rev 21:27) you say God instantaneously/painlessly transforms our dung into gold.

My point is this: you regard Christ's sacrifice as sufficient to justify us but unable to sanctify us (where by "sanctify" I mean not an imputed veneer of holiness but rather actual "de-dung-ification"). The reason you are forced to argue that God the Father snaps His fingers and de-dung-ifies us after the Last Judgment is because, under your view of salvation, Christ's sacrifice fails to do so. The fuller, Catholic picture of justification includes, in addition to the external imputation of freedom from the curse of the law, the infusion of sanctifying grace that does just what it's title suggests--sanctifies us. Sanctification is something that transforms us--it is not just something that changes the way that God sees us without correspondence to our actual state. So we would say that something very important is "wrought in us" when we are baptized.

Well, Christ's sacrifice isn't limited just to the declaration of righteousness of course. Maybe the synergistic protestants may think so, but certainly the holiness is bought by the blood of Christ as well. So we are still dung, we are changing into gold, and we will be transformed (in a blink) all by the power of the cross.

Thus, while your argument may work with other protestants, it has no effect here, as I do affirm all those things you say we deny.

We are made holy. We are gradually being purified. We are given a new heart, not a heart of stone but of flesh (Eze. 36:22ff), we are given a spirit of God that moves in us to no longer hate God, but delight in Him (Romans 8:5ff).

But the declaration of righteousness is, as you say correctly, forensic, because it's a declaration that we are in the right. We are worthy. We are pure and perfect.

And in order for God to make that declaration, he cannot look upon me, because I still am unclean, impure, unholy, however much I've become holier and purer as God has worked His grace in me. He must look upon Christ and join me in Christ (through faith). So my sentence (condemned) is Christ's, and Christ's sentence (righteous) is mine.

We would also point to Scripture (Heb 10:14; 2Pet 1:9; etc.) to support our idea of infused righteousness.

Once again, if you mean "holiness" I agree. God makes us holy along with justifying us. But righteousness isn't infused in us, we are counted righteous, just as Abraham was. (Romans 4:3)

II. Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification; yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love.

The act of faith and the sacrament of baptism together constitute God's chosen instrument of justification. As long as the person is justified, the faith is not dead faith, but it worketh through love. Disregard for works of charity renders faith dead and therefore represents a free choice to cast off justification (Jas 2:17).

Justification – meaning the initial event of becoming justified – may therefore be said to be by faith alone (where this faith, this openness to receiving Christ's righteousness, by definition includes an openness to having the grace of God work charitably through us). However, justification – meaning the state of being justified – is negatively upheld through the grace of God by the continued openness to this, that is, by the lack of mortal sin. As John says, it is impossible for someone to commit mortal sin and yet continue to abide in Christ (1Jn 3:4-9). For this reason, referring more to the condition of being in a justified state than to the initial event of justification itself, James wrote that "a man is justified by works and not by faith alone" (2:24).

Once again, the distinction must be made at a definitional level. Justification is a declaration, not a process. Thus, it's an on-off switch. Either you have it or you don't.

I would say those who fail to bear fruit never were justified. If they were, they would have also been purified and made holy.

With regards to James 2, I would say that he is using the term justified in a different sense than Paul. Over and over you see James dealing with very practical topics, living life rightly. The book is referred to as the "proverbs of the NT." So I would say his usage of the term "justified" is "proven true."

Luke 7:35 uses it in a similar manner -

Yet wisdom is justified by all her children."

Is wisdom wisdom? Tautology. But wisdom is displayed, proven to be wisdom, by her children. In the same way faith is still faith, but it's displayed and proven to be faith. And a man is proven to be a child of God by his works.

III. Christ, by his obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction of his Father's justice in their behalf. Yet inasmuch as he was given by the Father for them, and his obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead, and both freely, not for any thing in them, their justification is only of free grace, that both the exact justice and rich grace of God might be glorified in the justification of sinners.

Agreed.

IV. God did, from all eternity, decree to justify the elect; and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins and rise again for their justification; nevertheless they are not justified until the Holy Spirit doth, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.

Yep, this is fine.

V. God doth continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified; and although they can never fall from the state of justification, yet they may by their sins fall under God's Fatherly displeasure, and not have the light of his countenance restored unto them, until they humble themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon, and renew their faith and repentance.

Apart from "and although they can never fall from the state of justification," we agree.

As I wrote above, we believe that faith without works of love is dead (Jas 2:17)--and dead faith is not associated with justification. A rejection of love is a rejection of God (because God is love--1Jn 4:8) and hence a rejection of Christ and hence a rejection of justification, because our justification derives solely from the righteousness of Christ. Such a complete rejection of love we call mortal sin (1Jn 5:16-17). Unlike you, we believe that it is possible for someone who is truly justified to reject this justification; we believe our position is necessitated by free will (but, since you do not believe in free will, you argue that God causes a perfect correlation to occur between those who are truly justified and those who persevere). Without addressing the underlying difference of free will vs. unconditional election, we would point to Scripture to support our position.

HEB 10:

28: A man who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy at the testimony of two or three witnesses.
29: How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace?

I strongly feel that Paul is not speaking hypothetically in verse 29 (especially in light of verses 36 and 38). Neither can "sanctified" mean "temporally set apart" because in verse 14 Paul states, "For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are sanctified." If I remember correctly, you claim Paul is operating under two different definitions of "sanctified." As you would say, this objection raises up a possibility without establishing it--and I would add that this possibility is an unlikely possibility at best considering how close verse 14 is to 29 both textually/spatially and topically.

Obviously that conclusion is driven by the strength of "sanctified" and why that necessitates some gymnastics in v.29.

Here's a very brief outline of why I think "sanctified" may have two different interpretations, and I would also suggest even if it doesn't, it seems that Paul does not seem quite as concerned as you might think, judging by the way he finishes up that very passage, where he affirms that he actually believes this is not going to happen. -

32But recall the former days when, after you were enlightened, you endured a hard struggle with sufferings, 33sometimes being publicly exposed to reproach and affliction, and sometimes being partners with those so treated. 34For you had compassion on those in prison, and you joyfully accepted the plundering of your property, since you knew that you yourselves had a better possession and an abiding one. 35Therefore do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward. 36For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God you may receive what is promised. 37For,

"Yet a little while,
and the coming one will come and will not delay;
38but my righteous one shall live by faith,
and if he shrinks back,
my soul has no pleasure in him."

39But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and preserve their souls.

Briefly - the perfection of Christ's sacrifice from Hebrews 10

1For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. 2Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sin? 3But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sin every year. 4For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

v.1 we have the concept of being made perfect being introduced. The distinction between the two sacrifices is being made. The law sacrifice and Christ.

What does being made perfect mean? Well from verse 2 it must include the "no longer have any consciousness of sin" along with "being cleansed." In contrast to this, the sacrifices are offered every year (v.3) so there's a reminder of sin.

v.4 tells us (once again, setting up contrasts) that the blood of bulls and goats cannot take away sin.

5Consequently, when Christ^[a] came into the world, he said,

"Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired,
but a body have you prepared for me;
6in burnt offerings and sin offerings
you have taken no pleasure.
7Then I said, 'Behold, I have come to do your will, O God,
as it is written of me in the scroll of the book.'"

8When he said above, "You have neither desired nor taken pleasure in sacrifices and offerings and burnt offerings and sin offerings" (these are offered according to the law), 9then he added, "Behold, I have come to do your will." He abolishes the first in order to establish the second. 10And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

v.5 starts the great contrast (Hebrews is a book of contrasts, Christ and angels. Christ and men. Christ and Moses. Christ and the law) - In contrast to the law, which cannot take away sins. Christ has come. Contrasted to the OT law of sacrifices and offerings (v.5-6), He comes and abolishes that.

v.10 then establishes the big connection. Those sacrifices could not remove sins, could not cleanse the conscience. But Christ's offering of His body does all that.

11And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12But when Christ^[b] had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. 14For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified.

The contrast continues and is finished. many offerings - no cleansing. One offering, perfected. v.14 links us back to v.1 which points us to verse 2 -

For those who are dead in Christ, we have been cleansed and perfected. No more does sin stand against us, condemning us, but rather it has been taken away.

Additionally, the interjection of "enables us to be made perfect" ruins the whole contrast, thus is unacceptable. Thus those being sanctified are now perfect, sins taken away. There's no future aspect to these passages, as it's all looking back.

Thus they cannot be condemned anymore, as there is no sin to condemn them with. Christ makes full atonement for all sins -> it's all been punished. So thus I must interpret the other punishment threatened as punishment for sins that weren't taken away.

But that cannot have happened to those who have already been perfect, so it requires a different interpretation of "sanctified."

PHP 1:6 [discussed in an earlier one of my e-mails]

2PET 2 [discussed in one of George's]

VI. The justification of believers under the Old Testament was, in all these respect, one and the same with the justification of believers under the New Testament.

I think we’re ok with that.

I hope this helps!

kt,
Charlie

Ok, the moment you've all been waiting for.... hardcore nudity!!

whoops, Simpsons episode, I mean....exegesis!

I hope to prove with this passage the forensic aspect of justification - done not on the basis of our holiness (or as you would say, righteousness infused, though I still would say that "righteousness" is the wrong term here), but on the basis of faith alone -

Romans 4 -

1What then shall we say was gained by^[a] Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh?

Paul transitions from Romans 3, which had just declared that all had fallen short, but were justified by God's free gift on the basis of Christ's propitiation (Romans 3:25), which basically means "turning away wrath." He moves onto Abraham forefather of the Jews. How was Abraham saved?


2For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.

As Abraham comes before the Mosaic law, Paul broadens his rejection of being justified by the "law" to simply that of works. But notice that he points out that if Abraham was justified by these works, there's something to boast about, but this cannot be the case before God.

I might rephrase this to direct it against "free will" as many commonly see it. If people are justified finally on the basis of passively accepting Christ's sacrifice, then they have something to boast about, they did not reject God. But this cannot be so! There is no grounds for boasting, thus no room for "passive acceptance."

And how passive is an action that determines whether or not we are ultimately saved? It seems like verbal slight of hand here to call it "passive" if you can say God does 99.99999% and we refuse to allow God to do 0.00001% we won't be saved. I'm not saying it's wrong for you to hold that position, but let's call a spade a spade at least.

3For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness." 4Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5And to the one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,

Paul then points out that in contrast to any works, Abraham was justified (counted righteous again), on the basis of belief.

Immediately, Paul makes clear that it's not "working out with love" that justifies Abraham, but faith. As if it's "working out with love" then his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. Instead, Abraham, like me, like everyone, must not work (or more precisely, not trust in our work, even if done in holiness and love), but trust god who justifies the ungodly.

Ungodly! God justifies the ungodly. Not those who through faith worked out in love persevere and thus are holy, but ungodly!

6just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:

7"Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
and whose sins are covered;
8blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin."

this blessing is echoed again in the Psalms, where Paul quotes David as pointing to those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, not on the basis of their cooperation with grace, but are covered and not counted against them. (by the blood of the Lamb of God)

9Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. 10How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. 11He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised, so that righteousness would be counted to them as well, 12and to make him the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

Notice as well, Paul rejects any concept of "cooperation with grace" by pointing to the fact that justification happens before Abraham was circumcised. The circumcision that Abraham underwent was not an act of obedience (however passive you might call it) that resulted in God justifying Abraham, but was a fruit of the faith that Abraham had before.

In the same way, man is justified (declared righteous) not by our cooperation, or passive going along, but by faith and faith alone, through Christ alone.

You said you'd get to how Catholics actually believe in the perfection of Christ's sacrifice. So here are some questions to ponder. I'm not expecting an answer (as I am no longer to able to answer everything), but I would hope you would read and think -

If Christ's sacrifice perfects us, why is there further punishment as purging in purgatory?

I would say all sins are paid for, so there no longer is punishment for sins or for impurity, but perfection is bought and paid for. Delivered partially in life, wholly upon death (or the second coming).

If Christ's sacrifice perfects us, why do some fall away? Was it not perfect enough for them?

I would say none that Christ dies for, being perfected, will fall away. This is in accord to the entirety of the Scriptures, specifically note John 6:37-39, John 10:27-28, where Christ makes clear that those given to Him by God will never fall and will be saved.

And regarding the Eucharist, I had to do some reading but I'm curious why you don't see it as truly a sacrifice -

1365 Because it is the memorial of Christ's Passover, the Eucharist is also a sacrifice. The sacrificial character of the Eucharist is manifested in the very words of institution: "This is my body which is given for you" and "This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood."[185] In the Eucharist Christ gives us the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he "poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."[186]

Not just a memorial, but also a sacrifice- what kind of sacrifice? an efficacious one. body given up, blood poured out all over again. Reading on, we see Eucharist to be of exactly the same as the sacrifice on the cross.

1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner."[188]

But that flatly contradicts the one sacrifice once for all which is spoken of in Hebrews 10.

Lots of lead up to the final question -

If Christ's sacrifice on the cross (as Hebrews 10 knows nothing of continual sacrifice) perfects once for all, why is there a continual sacrifice upon the altar, during which it is necessary to offer Christ repeatedly?

Sorry for the many words, you have given more than me =p and once again I apologize for not being able to answer every point. If there are points specifically, you'd like me to address, please put them somewhere prominent, and I'll try to get to them. Otherwise I'm just going to pick and choose, on the basis of not having the time or energy. Thanks much again for the discussions, and hopefully email will suffice for now.

Mickey