Replies

Rome fundamentally misses the point of Christ's atonement in that Rome believes Christ subjectively morphs the sinner into a non-sinner through an infusion of grace.

Thus this is what has permitted Rome to arrogantly believe it can dispense God's grace to whom it wills, and to parcel out salvation according to the dictates of men. "Say this prayer and receive this much grace." "Eat this wafer and ingest God Himself into your genetic code." "Do this and become God."

But Scripture does not tell us this. Scripture tells us all men are fallen and none seeks God unless God draws them, perfectly and irrevocably because it is the will of God that they receive grace. God is just and sin requires penalty, and the only recompense equal to the trespass is God Himself. We are sinners standing in condemnation by a just God who decided from before the foundation of the world to acquit some men by Christ taking on their sins and paying for every one of them.

I direct you again to Charles Hodge's Scriptural understanding of Paul regarding justification by grace through faith alone because he so clearly details its Scriptural foundation. But justification by the imputation of Christ's righteousness was not a concoction of the Reformation; it was the center of Christ's ministry and the core of Paul's teaching. It was always the cornerstone of the church, regardless how far Rome strayed from the truth.

JUSTIFICATION IS A FORENSIC ACT

"...Justification the Opposite of Condemnation.
2. This is still further evident from the antithesis between condemnation and justification. Condemnation is not the opposite either of pardon or of reformation. To condemn is to pronounce guilty or worthy of punishment. To justify is to declare not guilty, or that justice does not demand punishment, or that the person concerned cannot justly be condemned. When, therefore, the Apostle says, "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus" (Rom 8:1), he declares that they are absolved from guilt; that the penalty of the Law cannot justly be inflicted upon them. "Who," he asks, "shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died" (8:33, 34). Against the elect in Christ no ground of condemnation can be presented. God pronounces them just, and therefore no one can pronounce them guilty.
This passage is certainly decisive against the doctrine of subjective justification in any form. This opposition between condemnation and justification is familiar both in Scripture and in common life. "If I justify myself, mine own mouth shall condemn me" (Job 9:20). "And wilt thou condemn him that is most just" (Job 34:17). If to condemn does not mean to make wicked, to justify does not mean to make good. And if condemnation is a judicial [act], so is justification. In condemnation it is a judge who pronounces sentence on the guilty. In justification it is a judge who pronounces or who declares the person arraigned free from guilt and entitled to be treated as righteous..."

"If to condemn does not mean to make wicked, to justify does not mean to make good." -- Hodge

AMEN.

We are saved by ONLY Christ's grace that He won for us on the cross.

If Rome had really believed this, there would have been no necessity for the Reformation. Are we made righteous ourselves, or is it Christ's righteousness that saves us?

Are men good or is Christ good?

"Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." -- Romans 4:4-5

"For I know of nothing against myself, yet I am not justified by this; but He who judges me is the Lord." -- 1 Corinthians 4:4

You wrote:

"Rome fundamentally misses the point of Christ's atonement in that Rome believes Christ subjectively morphs the sinner into a non-sinner through an infusion of grace."

That's utter nonsense. If you're going to attack what Catholics believe it would help if you actually knew what we believed and talked about that. Making up nonsense and saying that's what Catholics believe is not only not helpful, it is intellectually dishonest.

We do not believe the sinner becomes a non-sinner in this lifetime. We do believe the sinner is transformed through God's grace. We believe God's grace has real power. It is effective. It actually does something to the sinner.

"Thus this is what has permitted Rome to arrogantly believe it can dispense God's grace to whom it wills, and to parcel out salvation according to the dictates of men."

Again, completely false. There is no arrogance in the Church's belief as to what it is because it really is THE Church established by Christ. Men are arrogant. The Church is not. Also, no man, no matter how loved by someone in the Church can be made holy if he has no disposition for it. You are ignorantly proposing that the Church believes the sacraments will sanctify a man not based upon his own openness to God or even because of the absolutely necessity of grace given by God, but only because "Rome...wills it." This is not only NOT WHAT CATHOLICS BELIEVE it is an incredibly nutty idea.

"Say this prayer and receive this much grace." "Eat this wafer and ingest God Himself into your genetic code." "Do this and become God."

All incorrect. There is no quid pro quo in terms of grace. Grace is a gift. God uses the Church to give gifts of grace. They are gifts nonetheless. You really have no idea of what you're talking about do you?

"But Scripture does not tell us this."

I should hope not!!! The Church - no surprise - also doesn't teach that. You just make it up because you have no real argument. Since you're not equiped to deal with the real thing you make up a straw man and attack it.

"I direct you again to Charles Hodge's Scriptural understanding of Paul regarding justification by grace through faith alone because he so clearly details its Scriptural foundation."

No, he doesn't. I have no reason to trust Hodge's Protestant interpretation. I would clearly be better off trusting the interpretation of someone who gets it right such as Chris Van Landingham's Judgment & Justification In Early Judaism And The Apostle Paul (Nov. 2006). Van Landingham actually interprets the verses as they stand and doesn't force a Protestant interpretation out of them.

"But justification by the imputation of Christ's righteousness was not a concoction of the Reformation; it was the center of Christ's ministry and the core of Paul's teaching. It was always the cornerstone of the church, regardless how far Rome strayed from the truth."

Nonsense. It was an invented concoction of the Protestant Revolutionaries. This is being increasingly admitted by Protestant scholars - although still too few have the courage to do so.

I had written: "We are saved by ONLY Christ's grace that He won for us on the cross."

You wrote:

"If Rome had really believed this, there would have been no necessity for the Reformation."

There was no necessity for the Protestant Revolution. It was a rebellion, not a reformation. More and more Protestant ministers and scholars are coming to realize these facts.

"Are we made righteous ourselves, or is it Christ's righteousness that saves us?"

We are saved by Christ and He shares Himself with us. In other words, your question is based upon a wrong premise. Like any other typical, Protestant you assume things are "either/or" rather than "both/and". The fact that Christ saved us, and that we need Him to be saved in no negates that His grace is so powerful and effective that it actually changes us and we become more like Him. God became a man so that we might become like God. He took on flesh so that we might take on holiness - a real participation in the life of God. That is not just forensic. It is REAL.

"Are men good or is Christ good?"

Christ is good, and He came for sinners, to make them into His brothers so that they might call His Father Abba, and one day here those beautiful words: 'Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.'

"Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." -- Romans 4:4-5

And even many Lutherans now believe Luther was wrong when interpreting these verses to mean anything other than a condemnation of the Mosaic Law as a means of righteousness.

As Dave Armstrong notes:

As for Paul's usage of "works of the law" in a technical sense, referring primarily to the Jews (i.e., ones who misunderstood the essence of the Law, not all), I cite The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ed. James Orr, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1939/1956, rep. 1974, vol. 5, "Works," p. 3105):

'Works' is used by Paul and James, in a special sense, as denoting (with Paul) those legal performances by means of which men sought to be accepted by God, in contradistinction to that faith in Christ through which the sinner is justified apart from all legal works (Rom 3:27; 4:2,6, etc.; Gal 2:16; 3:2,5,10) . . . Judgment is according to 'works' (Mt 16:27 . . . Rom 2:6, 1 Pet 1:17, etc.), the new life being therein evidenced. A contrast between 'faith' and 'good works' is never drawn in the NT.

[W.L. Walker - Congregational Minister]

The New Bible Dictionary (ed. J.D. Douglas, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1962, "Law," p. 722, written by J. Murray - Reformed), not exactly a flaming Catholic reference work, either, states with great precision:

In varying forms of expression 'law' is used in a depreciatory sense to denote the status of the person who looks to the law, and therefore to works of the law, as the way of justification and acceptance with God. The formula 'under law' has this signification (Rom 6:14-15; Gal 5:18). As indicated above, this use of the formula is not to be confused with the same when applied to the Mosaic dispensation (cf. Gal 3:23 and others cited). Interpretation of the New Testament, particularly of the Pauline epistles, has been complicated by failure to recognize the distinction. The person who is 'under law' in the sense of Rom 6:14 is in bondage to sin in its guilt, defilement, and power. But this was not the consequence of being under the Mosaic economy during the period from Moses to Christ. Nor is 'under law', in this sense, to be confused with a similar term as it applies to a believer in Christ (1 Cor 9:21). Of the same force as 'under law' in this depreciatory sense is the expression 'of law' (Rom 4:14; Gal 3:18; Phil 3:9); and the phrase 'of works of law' (Rom 3:29; Gal 2:16, 3:2,5,10) refers to the same notion. 'Apart from works of law (Rom 3:28) expresses the opposite. Several expressions are to be interpreted in terms of this concept and of the status it denotes. When Paul says, 'a righteousness without law has been manifested' (Rom 3:21), he means a righteousness apart from works of law, and therefore antithetical to works-righteousness. When he says that we have been put to death to the law and discharged from the law (Rom 7:4,6), he refers to the breaking of that bond that binds us to the law as the way of acceptance with God (cf. also Gal 2:19). Law as law, as commandment requiring obedience and pronouncing its curse upon all transgression, doers not have any potency or provision for the justification of the ungodly.

Likewise, the Eerdmans Bible Dictionary (ed. Allen C. Myers, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,1987, "Works," p. 1065):

. . . 'Works' can be divided into the 'works of the flesh' and 'good works' . . . 'good works' . . . can be described as acts of Christian duty and piety, as evidence of faith in Jesus Christ. Paul is sure to point out that good works are not the basis for salvation (Eph 2:8-9). To suppose otherwise is to seek God's favor on the basis of the 'works of the law' (Gal 3:10). Such legal 'performances,' in order to gain God's acceptance, are useless and, in the end, only result in the curse and condemnation of God (Gal 2:16,21; 3:10-14). In essence the 'works of the law' can be categorized with the 'works of the flesh,' in that both are performed without faith in the saving grace of God (Heb 6:1; 9:14; 'dead works') . . .

Paul would argue that indeed Christians are saved in order to perform good works (Eph 2:10; cf. Titus 2:14). The basis of good works is the grace of God (2 Cor 9:8; cf. Phil 1:6; 2 Thess 2:17) . . . For Paul, good works are works of faith (1 Thess 1:3; 2 Thess 1:11).

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/01/interpretation-exegesis-of-romans-2-4.html

http://ic.net/~erasmus/ERASMUS7.HTM#FAITH%20ALONE%20(%20SOLA%20FIDE)%20AND%20IMPUTED

Again, if you're going to attack what Catholics teach and believe then at least have the common decency to attack what we actually teach and believe and not make up either. Is that too much to ask?