Infused righteousness versus imputed righteousness – which one entitles us to enter heaven?
There is still on-going discussion on infused righteousness (Catholic position) and imputed righteousness (Protestant/Reformer position). Rev. Chase Sears of Reformed Baptist Church wrote a number of posts on this issue in his blog (http://chasesears.info/) – he already closed his blog. It is quite natural (and he is entitled to do so) that he tried his best to defend Protestant’s position and tuned down that of Catholic.
Imputed righteousness means we use Christ’ righteousness accepted by faith alone to cover our unrighteousness – in other words we do not contribute anything and we are declared righteous. It is like Christ covers our dirty robe (the dirt represents our sins) with his spotless robe and He needs to do it only once. Infused righteousness, on the other hand, means God through Christ helps us to become righteous. Note that the source of righteousness is God, not us, yet the outcome of justification is we become righteous. Using similar analogy of dirty robe representing our sin, in infused righteousness God through Christ helps us to clean our dirty robe. This needs our cooperation and it is an on-going process. Our dirty robe is first washed clean through (Sacrament of) Baptism. Whenever we make it dirty again through sinning, God through Christ helps us to clean it through (Sacrament of) Reconciliation. When we die with our robe still stained with venial sin then purgatory will cleanse it. Imputed righteousness concept cannot go inline with purgatory – purgatory makes what Christ did (covering our dirty robe) insufficient.
Which righteousness entitles us to enter heaven? In Matthew 25:31-46 the sheep are welcomed into heaven while the goats are sent to hell Verse 46 boldly says that the righteous will go to eternal life. Are they declared righteous or made righteous (hence are righteous)? Verses 35 and 36 tell us that they did righteous acts, i.e. they did not use Christ’ righteousness to cover their unrighteousness or to make their unrighteous things appear righteous (before God). 1 John 3:8 defines righteousness as “He who does right is righteous, as he [Christ] is righteous”. Certainly to believe in Christ is one act that leads to righteousness – but it is not the only one. The phrase “He who does right” implies our cooperation. The goats are condemned to hell because they did not do righteous acts or they are not unrighteous (1 Corinthians 6:9). They are not declared unrighteous but they are indeed unrighteous.
The reason why Protestants are against infused righteousness is they view it as work-based justification, in contradiction to their concept of faith alone justification. Catholics do not believe in working on or earning our justification either. God’s Grace always first moves us to do righteous acts, be they believe in Christ, love one another, repenting etc. This means without His Grace we can neither do them nor even have the initiative to do them. Protestants, while insist on justification by faith alone, at the end of the day have to admit that faith that justifies is not alone as what Rev. Sears, quoting from Calvin, wrote below (emphasis added):
Calvin said, “When we say a man is justified by faith alone, we do not fancy a faith devoid of charity, but we mean that faith alone is the cause of justification.” Again Calvin makes this remarkable statement “I wish the reader to understand that as often as we mention Faith alone in this question, we are not thinking of a dead faith, which worketh not by love, but holding faith to be the only cause of justification. It is therefore faith alone which justifies, and yet the faith which justifies is not alone.”
For more information about Justification from both Catholic and Protestant position, read my page: https://vivacatholic.wordpress.com/223/
Viva Catholic 
The necessity of a one-time forensice justification is made quite clear in Scripture. “But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness” (Romans 4:5). God justifies the ungodly by grace through faith, and being justified by faith we have peace with God.
The Roman Catholic (RC) perversion of Scripture conflates sanctification with justification. The error infuses all of RC doctrine, flowing from a perversion of the idea of original sin. Trent states that “If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema.” (Session IV, Canon 9). This is a rejection of the clear Biblical teaching that men are dead in their trespasses and sins before the grace of regeneration (Eph 2:1-3, Titus 3:5).
RC doctrine perverts the concept of regeneration with the idea of baptismal regeneration, as if the work of the Holy Spirit could be controlled by the desire and actions of men. This is contrary to John 1:13, “who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God” and the very idea of grace.
Forensic justification is the only possible ground of sanctification. In rejecting this, RC doctrine forces men to live in a servile fear of punishment, which is contrary to the godly fear of God. Romans 5:1 says that “being justified by faith we have peace with God” but RC doctrine of infused grace takes away the peace with God by removing the imputation of righteousness and our acceptance in union with Christ.
RC doctrine is unbiblical through and through and undermines the true gospel at every point. Original sin means that we are born alienated from God and slaves of sin, devoid of any good. That is why the need to be born again is the essential need. RC doctrine perverts this by introducing baptismal regeneration and by teaching that cooperation is needed before justification. That makes justification the result of certain works and actions of men, which is precluded by Scripture. Eph 2:8-9, “For by grace are you saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, so that no one may boast.” Romans 9:16, “So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy” (Romans 9:16)
And so, justification is a one-time event which proceeds from the sovereign grace of God, and it is necessary to experience and know the peace that flows from acceptance with God in order for sanctification to proceed. Sanctification is grounded in faith and love and there is no faith before regeneration and no love before justification.
In short, RC doctrine is a deadly stew that leads to hell. By rejection the imputation of Christ as the sole ground of our justification and acceptance with God, they are denying union with Christ. And Scripture is clear that “there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ” (Rom 8:1) and this union is by grace alone through faith alone. God regenerates and justifies the ungodly, and we are accepted in the Beloved (EPh 1:6) not because of any cooperation on our part but because of the great goodness and mercy of God alone (Eph 1:5). RC perverts the precious gospel in a comprehensive attempt to obscure the simplicity and beauty of the salvation which is set forth in Christ. But the gospel declares the glory of God, “to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus” (Romans 3:26), “to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved” (Eph 1:6).
In both Hebrew and Greek the words righteous, justification and righteousness are related to the word justice and the word justice has something to do with judgment. There is forensic aspect of justification, even Catholics believe that. Scripture says when we die we will be judged (Heb. 9:27).
The Reformers taught that justification is one time and is therefore by faith alone. The phrase “justified by faith” appear four times in NT (Rom. 3:28, 5:1, Gal. 2:16 and 3:24). The one in Rom. 3:28 is written in Greek passive present tense, while the other three are in Greek passive aorist tense. Both present and aorist tenses do not indicate a completed justification. If Scripture teaches faith-alone one time justification, then the Holy Spirit would inspire Paul to write the phrase “justified by faith” in Greek passive PERFECT tense but Paul did not do that. Greek perfect tense is the tense that precisely describe that the action “to be justified” is completed in the past (by faith) with continuing result to the present. That is the reason why Trent rejected faith-alone justification – Scripture does not teach that justification is one time. Scripture says God saves us through faith (Eph. 2:8) and through sanctification (2 Thes. 2:13). If salvation is on-going, then so is justification because justification is the necessary prerequisite of salvation or before we can be saved we must be justified first.
Our justification is the work of God by His grace through Christ. Scripture says that through Christ we are made righteous (Rom. 5:19). Why being made righteous is essential? Scripture says the wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23) and it is righteousness that delivers from death (Prov. 10:2) and Christ said that the righteous shall go to eternal life (Mat. 25:46). In contrast the Reformers taught that through one time justification we are counted as righteous based on external righteousness of Christ imputed on us. Reformation’ one time justification does not make us righteous because it only changes our status, not our nature. Scripture says that we lose our righteousness through sinning in Ezekiel 33:12: “the righteous shall not be able to live by his righteousness when he sins”. That is why Catholics believe that our sins needs to be washed away or forgiven. In contrast the Reformers taught that our sins are imputed on or credited to Christ who bore them on the cross. Catholics do believe that Christ willingly offered Himself to die for our sins as without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin (Heb. 9:22) but our sins are neither imputed nor infused to Him. In contrast the Reformers taught because our sins are imputed to Him, then God directed His anger and wrath to sinless Christ, instead of to us – the so-called penal substitution. According to the Reformers God will let us enter heaven while we remain unrighteous or with sins because those sins were imputed to Christ who was punished or condemned while being righteous. Compared that to Scripture that says in Prov. 17:15: “he who justified the wicked and he who condemn the righteous are both like abomination to the Lord.
The Greek verb “sunergo” that means “to work together” appears in NT, a good example is Rom. 8:28. Scripture does teach synergism. In contrast both Luther and Calvin taught monergism but Calvin limited monergism only to regeneration. After being monergistically regenerated the person will freely cooperate to come to Christ. The Greek word for regeneration appears twice in NT (Mat. 19:28 and Titus 3:5). Both do not refer to regeneration as understood by Reformed Christians.
Jim- I’d love to connect with you- excellent argumentation.
Can you email me at reformedrookie at gmail. Thanks!
question: exactly WHEN and exactly HOW does Jesus save a catholic?
is it during the catholic’s life time? or after the judgement? or after 83 years and 11 weeks
in purgatory? if after judgement or purgatory sentence how does Jesus get the glory?
The answers of all your questions are in the following pdf file:
Click to access justification-e28093-contrasting-catholic-and-reformers_-position1.pdf
Read first and then comments/feedback are welcome!
To use the analogy from the article above, it is not as though He covers our dirty robe or rag, but rather that He took ours upon Himself on the cross and gave us a new one (as He does with our hearts/lives when we are born of the Spirit). My apologies for the double posting. I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Thank you for your comment.
You wrote “true faith is given (as the gift of God, that no man should boast) only to a regenerate heart, and such faith will inevitably produce good works.” Actually you don’t answer my question here. I am aware of the phrase “inevitably produce good works” – the question is: does it produce good works continuously without any failure or will the regenerated person may fall into sin, then repent, and sins again and so on? If you say the former I am doubtful anybody can do it – just read Romans 7:14-25.
Your question: Do you believe that salvation can be lost through sin? For the answer you can read Hebrews 10:26-27 and according to James 1:15, full grown sin brings forth death. 1 John 3:8 says those who sin belongs to the devil.
You wrote “Your wording seems to suggest that salvation is indeed something we work toward throughout our lifetime and hope to receive in the end, based on a repeated covering up of our sin.”
First Catholics do not believe in repeated covering up our sins – God does forgive and blotted out our sin. Second what do you mean by the word “work”? If by works you mean we have to contribute in our salvation, the answer is NO. Catholics believe that we enter heaven when we die with all mortal sins repented – it neither depends on the amount of good works we do, nor on the amount of sin we commit (Ezekiel 18:21-22, 27-28). We cannot repent unless we are fist moved by God’s Grace – there is no such thing as our contribution in our salvation. By works Catholics mean we cooperate with God’s Grace and you may read Philippians 2:12-13 and 1 Corinthians 15:10 for scriptural support. Most (if not all) Calvinists think that in synergism God contributes x % and we contribute (100 – x)% in our salvation. Some Calvinists in the past rhetorically asked me “what is our minimum contribution to secure a place in heaven?” Here they confuse cooperation with contribution. They are not the same and the following analogies may help. A person has one million dollar debt and he has no way to pay it. Another person who happens to be generous and super rich gives him one million dollar cheque to pay his debt. It is a free gift, i.e. no strings attached and no re-payment is required. The first person cannot claim he contributes in his debt-free status because he must go to the Bank to cash the cheque. He does cooperate but he does not contribute. As analogy of contribution, in some countries you may save x% of your salary for retirement fund and if you do then (by law) the employer will contribute another y%.
According to Scripture Christ came into the world to give His Life as ransom for all (1 Timothy 2:6), not only for the Elect, which He accomplished on the cross (John 19:30). If you understand it to mean that there is no cooperation required from us then Paul would not write in Colossians 1:24 that in his flesh he completed what is lacking in Christ afflictions. The Greek word translated as “lacking” (RSV) is “husterema”, which means absence or wanting. In the New Testament the word also appears in Luke 21:4 (translated as poverty in RSV and NIV, as penury in KJV), 1 Corinthians 16:17, 2 Corinthians 8:14, 9:12, 11:9, Philippians 2:30 and 1 Thessalonians 3:10.
hello!
I am having some difficulties in understanding Join declaration on justification. how would we evaluate this based on Justification?
That was years ago. I heard about it but did not read it. As far as I know in the document both Catholics and those who signed from Protestant/Evangelical side affirm that we are justified by faith.
To ‘Thechamo Ngullie’ from above…
Main thing to know about the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification is that neither side spoke authoritatively. That is, the signatories from the side of Roman Catholicism did not represent the Vatican, and the mainline liberal Lutherans did not represent the greater world of ‘evangelicalism,’ let alone Reformed theology.
Thus the declaration changed nothing—the anathemas of the Council of Trent are still damning. And the biblical doctrine of justification by faith ALONE remains the same.
Prior to Trent at the Colloquy of Regensburg (1541) the two sides tried to reconcile, led by Rome’s Cardinal Contarini’s and the Roman Catholic faction of ‘justification by faith alone.’ But they were undermined by the Pope’s greater concerns over the church, the sacraments, and transubstantiation, etc. (Trent: What Happened at the Council, John W. O’Malley, 2013, p. 69-70)
Here’s a fuller answer to your question…
https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/03/a-betrayal-of-the-gospel-the-joint-declaration-on-the-doctrine-of-justification
Zechariah 3 provides the perfect picture of forensic justification,
(1) Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the Angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to oppose him. (2) And the LORD said to Satan, “The LORD rebuke you, Satan! The LORD who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is this not a brand plucked from the fire?” (3) Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments, and was standing before the Angel. (4) Then He answered and spoke to those who stood before Him, saying, “Take away the filthy garments from him.” And to him He said, “See, I have removed your iniquity from you, and I will clothe you with rich robes.” (5) And I said, “Let them put a clean turban on his head.” So they put a clean turban on his head, and they put the clothes on him. And the Angel of the LORD stood by. (Zechariah 3:1-5)
It is a courtroom scene, with Joshua standing before the Judge in filthy garments. Satan is there to accuse and there is a defense attorney who defends the elect. He calls for the removal of the filthy garments and declares the meaning, “See, I have removed your iniquity from you,” (v. 4). Then the declaration, “and I will clothe you with rich robes” must be taken as the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. This is a trinitarian scene with a forensic justification in spite of legal prosecution.
This is the true Biblical doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone. Joshua is the recipient of favor through no merit of his own, and no effort of his own. He received the gracious cleansing by the blood of Christ and the gracious covering by the righteousness of Christ. This is forensic justification.
What Zech. 3:1-5 does not support justification as taught by the Reformers. According to the Reformers one time faith-alone justification only changes our status but NOT our nature. It is a declaration that we are counted as righteous while we remain unrighteous or still with sin. Zech. 3:1-5 says in verse 3 “Take away the filthy garments from him”, before God clothed him with rich robes. The imputation concept in justification taught by the Reformers implies that we can keep our filthy garment while at the same time we wear garment righteousness of Christ. In Latin it is referred as “simul iustus et peccator” that means “justified/righteous and sinner at the same time”. Do you see the difference?
You’re premise is incorrect. Reformed believe, as is taught in the Scriptures, that regeneration is monergistic and produces a changed nature AND saving faith. This is described in 2 Cor 4:6,
For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. (2 Corinthians 4:6 NKJV)
There you see the monergistic nature of it, as God commanded light to shine out of darkness, as absolute sovereign and not in response to anything but His own free will, just so has He shone in our hearts to give the light of knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. This is regeneration and is the sine qua non of saving faith which flows only from a regenerate heart. The law is written on the heart at regeneration and all things become new. This is the kind of faith that produces works acceptable to God, in reverence and godly fear that flows the work of God in the heart. That saving faith so produced rests in Christ and the union is made up. The guilt of sin is taken away as per Zech. 3 and the righteousness of Christ is a rich robe around the sinner.
This is the obvious meaning of Rom 4:5, “But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness” — that regeneration is the sovereign grace of God, and the Spirit who works where He wishes.
Roman Catholicism is a fabrication of compensating falsehoods. By rejecting the full implications of original sin, by downplaying the effects, the entire theological system becomes corrupted. The parallel of Adam and Christ in Rom 5:12-19 is infected, and so your doctrine of imputation is unbiblical — you partly reject the imputation of Adam’s guilt and undermine the Biblical teaching concerning the fallen nature and so must partly reject the imputation of Christ’s righteousness.
Your response evinces a further confusion/conflation of justification and sanctification. When you remark, >>>”The imputation concept in justification taught by the Reformers implies that we can keep our filthy garment while at the same time we wear garment righteousness of Christ. In Latin it is referred as “simul iustus et peccator” that means “justified/righteous and sinner at the same time”<<<
But the picture in Zech 3 is regarding justification — as I claimed — and so naturally there is no reference to the "et peccator" aspect of our experience. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding about justification based on union with Christ. Rom 8:1, "there is no condemnation for those who are **IN CHRIST**". The idea is that those who are in Christ — in union with Him personally — are counted, accepted and viewed as perfectly righteous in Christ. That is the legal or forensic view.
So your objection is based on a conflation of justification and sanctification. Our acceptance by God is not based on our obedience or good works in any way. God requires perfection and that perfection is found only in the works of Christ. That's why He is the ONLY Mediator between God and Man and if you go by any other you are condemned. No man can come to the Father but by Christ the Mediator. Those who seek another way outside of Christ are condemned already.
Romans 8:30 says, "whom He justified, these He also glorified" so not one of those who are reconciled to the Father by the Son will be lost. And "those whom He called, these He also justified" requires the connection of regeneration with ultimate glorification. All those who are truly born again believe and trust in Christ and will be conformed to His image and glorified. Both saving faith and sanctification flow from the same source, the same glorious work of the Spirit in giving a new heart.
Are you talking about justification or regeneration? Those two are not the same. In my earlier response I acknowledged that according to John Calvin regeneration is monergistic. The best analogy to describe monergism is a dead person can do nothing before he is revived or regenerated back to life. Because he is “dead” then regeneration is the work of God alone but once he is made “alive” (after being regenerated) then he can freely cooperate with grace to receive the gift faith. Once he has faith then he is justified according to the teaching of the Reformers. The change in regeneration is from dead to life, that is, from not being able to receive the gift of faith to being able to do it freely or from being able to do only evil freely to being able to do good freely. The one time justification through faith alone, on the other hand, only change our status, that is from guilty state to non-guilty state but it does not change our nature, that is we remain sinner. Reformed systematic theologian Berkhof wrote about justification:
“it is a judicial act of God, a declaration respecting the sinner, and NOT an act or process of renewal, such as regeneration, conversion and sanctification. While it has respect to the sinner, it does NOT change his inner life.” (Berkhof: Systematic Theology, page 513, emphasis in capital is mine)
Other Reformed scholar, Schreiner wrote: “justification is forensic rather than transformative, denoting a change in status rather than a change in nature.” (Thomas Schreiner: Faith Alone—The Doctrine of Justification: What the Reformers Taught … and Why It Still Matters, page 39)
Coming back to Zech. 3:1-5 the filthy garment must be removed first, before the application of new rich robe. In contrast Luther wrote: “Thus a Christian man is righteous and a sinner at the same time, holy and profane, an enemy of God and a child of God.”(Luther: Lectures on Galatians, chapter 1-4, English translation from Luther’s Works, Vol. 26, page 232). According to the Reformer, you still keep your filthy garment (or your sins) while you are clothed with Christ’ righteousness at the same time and that is NOT what Zech. 3:1-5 describes.
Catholics do believe in the Fall that affect all mankind. Without grace from God we are all doomed. While you are entitled to disagree with what Catholics believe and vice versa, you need to know why we reject faith-alone justification. I already wrote about it in my earlier response, which is the answer to your FIRST comment.
Regeneration is the necessary prerequisite for saving faith. John 3:3,5 — unless a man is born again, he can neither see nor enter the kingdom of God. A man is spiritually dead before regeneration (Eph 2:1-2) “And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins” and is enmity against God (Rom 8:7) “the carnal mind is enmity against God.” There is no saving faith before regeneration.
Thus, regeneration is the necessary prerequisite of justification since justification is by faith alone. (Eph 2:8,9) For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, NOT OF WORKS, lest anyone should boast.” Only those who are predestined to eternal life are called, and all who are called are justified, and all who are justified are glorified (Rom 8:30) “whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.” Romans 4:5, “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.”
Roman Catholicism teaches baptismal regeneration, such that regeneration becomes a synergistic work, dependent upon the individual or his parents. That is utterly contrary to Scripture since many of those who were supposedly baptismally regenerated fall away, including many Popes who were utterly wicked men, who died in their sins. The Roman Catholic idea is grotesque and is destructive of the gospel.
Roman Catholicism teaches justification through sanctification not realizing that justification is the only possible ground and basis for sanctification. Because until we are at peace with God, Rom 5:1, “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” sanctification cannot even begin since the servile fear of God and the fear of death is utterly destructive of the generation of the fruit of the Spirit. Rather Roman Catholics “who through fear of death [are] all their lifetime subject to bondage” because they are yet alienated from God and yet under condemnation.
It seems you did not read my earlier response where all issues you raised in your response were already addressed. Copied and pasted again for your convenience:
In both Hebrew and Greek the words righteous, justification and righteousness are related to the word justice and the word justice has something to do with judgment. There is forensic aspect of justification, even Catholics believe that. Scripture says when we die we will be judged (Heb. 9:27).
The Reformers taught that justification is one time and is therefore by faith alone. The phrase “justified by faith” appear four times in NT (Rom. 3:28, 5:1, Gal. 2:16 and 3:24). The one in Rom. 3:28 is written in Greek passive present tense, while the other three are in Greek passive aorist tense. Both present and aorist tenses do not indicate a completed justification. If Scripture teaches faith-alone one time justification, then the Holy Spirit would inspire Paul to write the phrase “justified by faith” in Greek passive PERFECT tense but Paul did not do that. Greek perfect tense is the tense that precisely describe that the action “to be justified” is completed in the past (by faith) with continuing result to the present. That is the reason why Trent rejected faith-alone justification – Scripture does not teach that justification is one time. Scripture says God saves us through faith (Eph. 2:8) and through sanctification (2 Thes. 2:13). If salvation is on-going, then so is justification because justification is the necessary prerequisite of salvation or before we can be saved we must be justified first.
Our justification is the work of God by His grace through Christ. Scripture says that through Christ we are made righteous (Rom. 5:19). Why being made righteous is essential? Scripture says the wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23) and it is righteousness that delivers from death (Prov. 10:2) and Christ said that the righteous shall go to eternal life (Mat. 25:46). In contrast the Reformers taught that through one time justification we are counted as righteous based on external righteousness of Christ imputed on us. Reformation’ one time justification does not make us righteous because it only changes our status, not our nature. Scripture says that we lose our righteousness through sinning in Ezekiel 33:12: “the righteous shall not be able to live by his righteousness when he sins”. That is why Catholics believe that our sins needs to be washed away or forgiven. In contrast the Reformers taught that our sins are imputed on or credited to Christ who bore them on the cross. Catholics do believe that Christ willingly offered Himself to die for our sins as without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin (Heb. 9:22) but our sins are neither imputed nor infused to Him. In contrast the Reformers taught because our sins are imputed to Him, then God directed His anger and wrath to sinless Christ, instead of to us – the so-called penal substitution. According to the Reformers God will let us enter heaven while we remain unrighteous or with sins because those sins were imputed to Christ who was punished or condemned while being righteous. Compared that to Scripture that says in Prov. 17:15: “he who justified the wicked and he who condemn the righteous are both like abomination to the Lord.
The Greek verb “sunergo” that means “to work together” appears in NT, a good example is Rom. 8:28. Scripture does teach synergism. In contrast both Luther and Calvin taught monergism but Calvin limited monergism only to regeneration. After being monergistically regenerated the person will freely cooperate to come to Christ. The Greek word for regeneration appears twice in NT (Mat. 19:28 and Titus 3:5). Both do not refer to regeneration as understood by Reformed Christians.
You wrote, “If Scripture teaches faith-alone one time justification, then the Holy Spirit would inspire Paul to write the phrase “justified by faith” in Greek passive present tense but Paul did not do that.”
This evidences a poor reading of the text and a worse understanding of Greek grammar. For, surely, the aorist passive participle Δικαιωθέντες in Romans 5:1 is expressive of the permanent one-time justification which results in the present active ἔχωμεν (we have) peace with God. Union with Christ is by the sovereign power of God in regeneration and therefore the saving faith the results is not temporary but permanent. Thus, the state of justification is permanent and cannot be lost. “whom He justified, these He also glorified” (Rom 8:30). Every single one who is justified will be glorified because justification is based on the predestination of God and His sovereign calling.
Your middle paragraph begins with a misunderstand of Rom 5:19 and ends with a condemnation of God. It goes from the ridiculous to the blasphemous. You wrote, “According to the Reformers God will let us enter heaven while we remain unrighteous or with sins because those sins were imputed to Christ who was punished or condemned while being righteous. Compared that to Scripture that says in Prov. 17:15: “he who justified the wicked and he who condemn the righteous are both like abomination to the Lord.”
Your accusation against God’s justice in justifying the ungodly simply IGNORES Romand 4:5 “But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness” (Romans 4:5). And so you declare God to be unjust in justifying the wicked by virtue of union with Christ whereas it is exactly this gospel that demonstrates the righteousness of God as we read, “to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus” (Rom 3:26).
You really ought to repent of your unbiblical reasoning!
You also wrote, “The Greek verb “sunergo” that means “to work together” appears in NT, a good example is Rom. 8:28. Scripture does teach synergism.”
But this is a strange argument in that πάντα συνεργεῖ εἰς ἀγαθόν says that “all things work together for good” and does not imply in any sense the idea of synergism in regeneration — the idea of the verse is simply that those things that happen to us that seem harmful or negative are, in fact, under the sovereign providence of God, actually working for our good. Your attempt to extract some synergism in soteriology from this is completely untenable.
Your understanding of Greek grammar is defective. Aorist tense does not always indicates a completed action in the past. Protestant NT scholar William Mounce wrote about aorist tense:
“The aorist tense has often been mishandled by both scholars and preachers. Aorist verbs too frequently are said to denote once-for-all action when the text has no such intention.” (Mounce: Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar, page 202)
In Rom. 8:28 all verbs were written in aorist tense, including glorify. Our glorification will happen in the future and it is NOT one time event. The same apples to verb that appear in 1 Cor. 6:11 but “to be sanctified” does not happen in the past and is NOT one time event. The fact that Paul put “justified” after “sanctified”, NOT before it shows that we are justified by faith alone as taught by the Reformers. 1 Peter 1:24 says “grass withers and the flowers fall”, both to wither and to fall are in aorist tense but grass withers and flowers fall every summer or autumn or all the time in tropical countries. If Scripture teaches faith-alone justification, then Paul would write the phrase “justified by faith” in Greek passive PERFECT tense but he did not.
The fact the verb sunergo appears in NT while the verb “monergo” does not (the verb monergo may not even exist), show that Scripture does not support monergism. Again the Greek word for regeneration appears twice in NT and both do not refer to regeneration as understood by you. Even John Calvin, in his commentary on Titus, still referred “washing of regeneration” in Titus 3:5 as baptism.
You wrote: “The fact the verb sunergo appears in NT while the verb “monergo” does not (the verb monergo may not even exist), show that Scripture does not support monergism. Again the Greek word for regeneration appears twice in NT and both do not refer to regeneration as understood by you.
This is no valid argument, as if the absence of a word from Scripture, which is not even a word ought to be considered as having some weight. Even worse, the word συνεργέω is not used in a context which supports your assertion even in the slightest. Strange argument you’re making.
Here is monergism for you — “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing” (John 6:63).
Here is monergism — “even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved),” (Eph 2:5)
Those who are spiritually dead can no more contribute to their own spiritual birth than can a baby work along with the mother to bring himself to birth. The one idea is as impossible as the other. What did Lazarus do to bring himself back to life? Nothing.
So your argument on this point has no merit and no force at all.
You continued: “Even John Calvin, in his commentary on Titus, still referred “washing of regeneration” in Titus 3:5 as baptism.”
Calvin is not perfect and he is not the Scriptures, nevertheless he doesn’t view the passage as being about water baptism though he recognizes water baptism as the outward reflection of spiritual baptism. He concludes his commentary on Titus 3:5 with the words, “It is therefore the Spirit of God who regenerates us, and makes us new creatures; but because his grace is invisible and hidden, a visible symbol of it is beheld in baptism.”
So, you can take that for what it is worth — but it seems clear that you are not reading Calvin carefully enough.
You wrote “This is no valid argument, as if the absence of a word from Scripture, which is not even a word ought to be considered as having some weight” If monergo does NOT have some some weight and that explains its absence from Scripture, then why you defend it? If monergistically regeneration is scriptural, why Scripture does not mention it at all?
ALl verses you cited do NOT support monergism. Remember monergism implies that grace works alone. Lazarus died physically but when you say you die in sin you do NOT die physically – it is poor comparison. What Calvin wrote which you cited “it is therefore the Spirit of God who regenerates us, and makes us new creatures; but because his grace is invisible and hidden, a visible symbol of it is beheld in baptism.” does not say that grace works alone in baptism. He wrote that grace is invincible and hidden and its visible symbol is in baptism. In other words Calvin still considered baptism to be sacrament or channel of grace. He said nothing about monergism.
Can you show any synergism in Zechariah 3? Please list the contributions made by Joshua.
You look so desperate. First you try to prove your one time justification with Zech. 3:1-5. When it fails you try to use the same verses to prove monergism.
To answer your question: When you want to put a new dress on a mannequin, you need to remove the old one first before putting the new one. You don’t need consent or cooperation from the mannequin because it is a dead object. Now try to do the same to human, say somebody ask you to remove your clothes because he is going to give a new one. The person needs your cooperation, because you are a living human. The same applies to Joshua, who was a living human, in Zech. 3:1-5. Cooperation is not contribution – do not confuse these two.
Vivator wrote: “You look so desperate. First you try to prove your one time justification with Zech. 3:1-5. When it fails you try to use the same verses to prove monergism.”
That’s funny. It’s you who find yourself painted into a corner and so you lash out with ad hominem. It’s not uncommon for those who find themselves in an indefensible position to engage in personal attack.
Here your words condemn your own position — “To answer your question: When you want to put a new dress on a mannequin, you need to remove the old one first before putting the new one.”
Your use of the word _manneqin_ is appropriate since Joshua is absolutely passive in Zechariah 3. (In spite of your attempt to pervert the meaning of the passage!) The Scripture says that “It is God who justifies” (Romans 8:33) and that is exactly what is shown in Zech 3. “Take away the filthy garments from him” and the significance of this is given, “Behold, I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee” (v. 4). And God’s elect are “justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (Rom 3:24).
Justification is a one-time action to which the individual contributes absolutely nothing, just as Joshua did not participate in any way. Joshua was absolutely passive while the filthy clothes are removed by the blood of Christ and the robe of righteousness clothes him with the righteousness of Christ. You can’t hope to sustain your pitiful explanation.
As I’ve mentioned a few times, the main issue is Union with Christ — when a sinner comes into union with Him, his guilt is removed as far as the east is from the west by Christ’s expiation. When a man comes into union with Christ, the instantaneous effect is the removal of the filthy garments. The second effect of union with Christ is to be clothed with His perfect righteousness. The sinner is passive in this exactly as Joshua was absolutely passive in Zech 3.
But of Him you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God–and righteousness and sanctification and redemption– that, as it is written, “He who glories, let him glory in the LORD.” (1 Corinthians 1:30-31)
It is _of Him_ (i.e. by grace) that a man is _in Christ Jesus_. Union with Christ is by grace through regeneration and saving faith and in Christ is redemption (filthy rags removed) and righteousness (clothed with rich robe).
Joshua was not a mannequin but a human being. Removing garment from a mannequin and from a living human are not the same. A mannequin, being dead object, is passive but a human being is not, unless he is sedated. It is futile attempt to make Zech. 3:1-5 support your monergism. The verses neither say that he was passive like a corpse (there was no mannequin then), nor he was cooperative. Most likely, being human, Joshua was cooperative. Why don’t you try to remove garment from a living human and put a new one? Will the person remains petrified during the process?
In Reformed teaching your sanctification is never perfected. Read Westminster Confession of Faith XIII.2 and Berkhof’s Systematic Theology page 537. In contrast Scripture says in 1 Thes 5:23 that God sanctifies wholly. Imperfect sanctification in Reformed teaching implies that the remnant of sins always remain with you but they won’t affect your salvation as they were imputed to Christ. You keep on talking about union with Christ. Even Catholics believe that through Christ we become partakers of divine nature (2 Peter 1:4). In the Eastern Orthodox Church it is known in Greek as theosis. Theosis is not justification but it is the outcome of on-going justification, through which we are made righteous through Christ (Rom. 5:19). I already point out that your concept of one time justification by faith is NOT supported by Greek tense of the phrase “justified by faith” in NT (Rom. 3:28, 5:1, Gal. 2:16, 3:24). Because your sanctification is not perfected in your life, how can you expect to be in union with Christ and become the righteousness of God (2 Cor 5:21) if you die still with sins? In contrast Catholics believe that our sins must be forgiven and washed away. According to Ezekiel 33:12 we lose our righteousness through sinning. Your belief makes what Ezekiel say meaningless because you never become righteous in the first place (you cannot lose something you don’t have) and you do not need to become righteous as you rely on external righteousness of Christ.
Dear Vivator, you wrote:
Joshua was not a mannequin but a human being. Removing garment from a mannequin and from a living human are not the same. A mannequin, being dead object, is passive but a human being is not, unless he is sedated. It is futile attempt to make Zech. 3:1-5 support your monergism
This is not a viable response. Your response has to do with the nature not the actions — Joshua was LIKE a mannequin in that he took no actions. In fact, the passage absolutely supports monergism, your denial notwithstanding. Unless you can identify from the text something Joshua did to contribute to removing the filthy garments or putting on the rich robe you’re going to need to admit what is patently obvious to all.
You’re wrong.
Are you yourself like a mannequin? If you say no, then you cannot apply the same to other. When somebody wants to remove your clothing and then put a new one, if you are alive, you will cooperate in one way or another. Even if you are very old, bedridden and can barely move, you still cooperate. Only when you die you do not need to cooperate because you can no longer do such thing.
Try to google for image under “clothed in righteousness” and you will get image of Christ placing His robe on a person who is STILL WEARING his old dirty robe and that is NOT what is depicted in Zechariah. That image precisely describes imputation – you have Christ’ righteousness as external/alien righteousness while you yourself remain unrighteous.
You asked “Are you yourself like a mannequin? If you say no, then you cannot apply the same to other. ”
Yes, in regeneration and justification I was as passive as a mannequin. That is the way it is.
You add “When somebody wants to remove your clothing and then put a new one, if you are alive, you will cooperate in one way or another. ”
But this is your interpolation into the text and is not found in the text. You are twisting the Scripture to suit your theology rather than letting the Scripture correct your theology.
Your last paragraph is irrelevant — seriously?? No one cares what images you found on google.
The text in Zech 3:1-5 neither says Joshua was passive not he cooperated. Just using common sense, because he was a living human, he would cooperate like you yourself in the same situation. You too try to manipulate the text to suit your belief.
According to the teaching of the Reformed church, only regeneration is monergistic. After being monergistically regenerated then you cooperate freely to have faith. Justification in your Reformed teaching is not menergistic. You should do your homework and study what Sproul, Berkhof, Hodge etc. wrote. There are those who believe that everything is monergistic, including conversion and sanctification.
Vivator, you wrote: “The text in Zech 3:1-5 neither says Joshua was passive not he cooperated. Just using common sense, because he was a living human, he would cooperate like you yourself in the same situation. You too try to manipulate the text to suit your belief.”
The text ever so clearly describes the scene and ascribes the entire work of removing the filthy garments from Joshua and covering him with the robes of righteousness to God. Your argument from silence is ludicrous since the text is quite clear.
Read it again:
And he answered and spake unto those that stood before him, saying, Take away the filthy garments from him. And unto him he said, Behold, I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe thee with change of raiment. (Zechariah 3:4)
There is no escape for you here. Joshua did absolutely nothing in this scene. All the action is ascribes to God — READ: ***I*** have caused thine iniquity to pass, and ***I*** will clothe thee. There is no action ascribed to Joshua and every action is ascribed to the LORD. Your evasions are dishonest.
The scene has Satan accusing and Joshua being justified. Joshua did not one thing but God did all — Here is the explanation
(5) But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, (6) just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works: (7) “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, And whose sins are covered; (8) Blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute sin.” (Romans 4:5-8)
“Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifies.” (Romans 8:33)
The texts are simple and clear but your responses are fallacious and, to be honest, ridiculous. Your folly is manifest to all. (2 Tim 3:8-9).
Imagine you were Joshua. If somebody wants to remove your clothes before he put a new one, how would you behave? Do you behave like a dummy or a mannequin or do you behave like a living human?
You are entitled to cling to your opinion but you fail to convince me your way of thinking. In our salvation God and Jesus do all the works and we do not contribute any work – even Catholics believe that! Cooperation is NOT contribution! Grace from God through Christ moves us and enables us both to have faith and to obey His Commandments. Without it we can do nothing as Jesus said in John 15:5.
What is counted for righteousness to Abraham was faith (Gen. 15:6). But if you read Psalms 106:31 what is counted (the same Hebrew verb in Gen. 15:6) for righteousness to Phinehas is NOT faith, but what he did as described in verse 30 and in Numbers 25. Faith is counted as righteousness (Rom. 4:3) and does doing what is right (1 John 3:7). Our ability both to have faith and to do what is right comes from and are only possible by grace from God through Christ.
I need to add one more comment on your middle paragraph — because it is your misunderstanding of Romans 5:12-21 the fuels your rejection of Romans 4:5.
The idea of the passage is Federal Headship. All men are either in Adam or in Christ (see 1 Cor 15:22).
We are accounted guilty and are actually wicked because of Adam’s sin. The guilt of Adam is imputed to us and his nature is transmitted to us. The transmission of the nature of a penal sanction which presupposes the guilt. The guilt of Adam is our guilt and his fallen nature is therefore our nature.
Christ as Federal Head of His people satisfied both the wrath of God and the justice of God. His death bore the full penalty of God’s wrath for sin. He laid upon Him the iniquity of His people (see Isa 53:6). And His perfect righteousness was wholly accepted by God which He demonstrated by the resurrection. Death could not hold the Holy One of God. He knew no sin yet was made sin —
For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. (2 Corinthians 5:21)
Now when it says “He made Him to be sin” we ought to be clear that Christ was not converted or transformed into sin but that the guilt of sin was imputed to Him. He was not made actually sinful because He knew no sin, but He was accounted to be sinful because of the sin of His people.
Likewise, when it says “we become the righteousness of God in Him” is not speaking of us becoming subjectively righteous because it is “in Him” that we are accounted righteous. We will be conformed to Christ over time and will be glorified in a perfectly righteous condition but this is speaking of the righteousness of Christ imputed to us just as the guilt of His people was imputed to Him. As He was not made sinful by having the sins of others placed upon Him and Him accounted as sinful, so neither does justification actually make us righteous in and of ourselves.
This is the same idea in Romans 5:19, “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous” (Romans 5:19). We are made righteous in the same sense that Christ was made sin in 2 Cor 5:21.
Now your misunderstanding of the above leads to your misapplication of Proverbs 17:15 to condemn God in the justification of the ungodly in Christ. In your thinking, you have excluded the distinction made between those in union with Christ and those not in union with Christ. Because those who are in Christ are actually and permanently righteous in God’s sight, who sees us in Christ and accepted in the Beloved.
Rom. 5:19 says that through Adam we are made sinner and through Christ we are made righteous. We are NOT counted as sinner because of Adam but we indeed become sinners. When we become sinner those sins are ours. In the same way through Christ we are made righteous means we become righteous, not declared as righteous while we are not.
2 Cor 5.21 is often cited to support double imputation. The verse says “we become righteousness of God” but under imputation concept you do NOT become righteous through one time justification. The verse says Christ who knew no sin to become sin. Following your one time justification your sins are credited to Christ that made Him counted as sinner while remaining sinless – it is not what 2 Cor 5:21 says. To understand what 2 Cor 5:21 says you need to read Lev. 16, where the High Priest offered the blood of ONE of the TWO goats as sin offering to atone the sins of Israelites. In Hebrew the same ONE word is used for both “sin” and “sin offering” (You can check Striong concordance). The sins of Israelites were NOT imputed on that goat, they were imputed to the second goat that was not sacrificed but released in the wilderness. The first goat that was sacrificed become “sin offering” or “sin” (again the same Hebrew word for both). Christ the High priest of the New Covenant and He offered His own Blood to atone our sins but our sins are NOT imputed on Him.
If you follow Reformed teaching then you believe in penal substitution, that is God directed His wrath and anger to innocent and righteous Christ, instead of to you because all your sins, past and future, are credited to Him. At the same time God let you enter heaven while you remain unrighteous or still with sins. In human courtroom there will be injustice if a criminal is declared not guilty (and walks free) because all his crimes were credited to an innocent person, who then was executed for the crimes he did not do. Prov. 17:15 considers it abomination and the Reformers teaching on justification makes God do what Scripture refers as abomination.
Your first point is, “Rom. 5:19 says that through Adam we are made sinner and through Christ we are made righteous. We are NOT counted as sinner because of Adam but we indeed become sinners.”
We must first be reckoned guilty BEFORE the sin nature is transmitted because the sin nature is a penal sanction which presupposes guilt. You can’t deny the one and have the other without making God into a monster who punishes the righteous.
Your second point is, “2 Cor 5.21 is often cited to support double imputation. The verse says “we become righteousness of God” but under imputation concept you do NOT become righteous through one time justification. ”
Oh but we do become righteousness of God IN CHRIST through the one-time justification. When the sinner comes into union with Christ, he becomes righteous IN HIM — we are perfectly righteous in Christ otherwise the Scripture could not say, “there is therefore NO CONDEMNATION for those who are in Christ” (Rom 8:1). and “Who shall bring a charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies” (Rom 8:35).
But regarding 2 Cor 5:21,
For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him. (2 Cor 5:21)
For you to sustain your argument here requires that you assert that Christ became ACTUALLY SINFUL on the cross. If we are to be made actually righteous by justification then Christ had to have been made actually sinful on the cross.
Do you affirm that 2 Cor 5:21 teaches that Christ became sinful on the cross?
When Scripture says we are made sinner through Adam then we indeed become sinner through committing sin.
You do not know what you believe. In your one time justification you do NOT become righteous but are only counted as righteous. Your justification changes your status but NOT your nature. Read statement from Berkhof and other that I cited in my earlier response. I NEVER wrote that Christ became sinful. 2 Cor 5;21 says He became sin or sin offering because in Hebrew the same one word is used for both. In your justification Christ is counted as sinner while remaining sinless, while you are counted as righteous while remaining sinner.
Your first statement — “When Scripture says we are made sinner through Adam then we indeed become sinner through commuting sin.”
This is absolute false. You are asserting Pelagianism. I understood that you were semi-pelagian but this is opens up a new can of worms. For the Scriptures make it clear that we are guilty because of Adam’s sin, and not by initially by our own committing of sin. We read,
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. (Rom 5:14).
Death is the penalty for sin but Paul wrote that those die who did not personally sin, say infants dying in infancy. Thus, Adam’s transgression is their own transgression.
You continue, “In your one time justification you do NOT become righteous but are only counted as righteous. Your justification changes your status but NOT your nature.”
I never said that justification changes our nature. You are apparently stuck on the idea that justification is a mere declaration of righteousness or you don’t comprehend the concept of UNION WITH CHRIST. The Scripture teaches that we are justified by Christ’s righteousness not in an arbitrary way, as if God was justifying the wicked (as you brazenly asserted earlier) but that we are actually righteous IN CHRIST — IN CHRIST — IN CHRIST. I repeat it three times because it is the key you seem to be missing. Christ’s righteousness is objectively mine, and I am objectively righteous in God’s sight. I cannot be any more righteous — who shall lay anything to my charge? (Rom 8:33)
Please think about this —
Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth (Rom 8:33).
There is no charge which can be brought against the justified man. Do you understand that? If the justifies man was not actually righteous, then charges could be brought. But no charges can be brought therefore the justified person is actually righteous.
Do you get it?
You accusing me of believing in Pelagiansim and semi Pelagianism without understanding what they mean. Pelagius denied original sin and taught that we can will and achieve our salvation using our own will and effort – grace of God is only optional. Semi-Pelagian, on the other hand, believe in Original Sin but using our will we can take the first step in our salvation and only later we need grace. In semi-pelagianism grace and free-will are two independent mutually exclusive agents in our salvation. Synergism, on the other hand, believe that our free-will is secondary cause while grace is the primary cause, the former (free will) depend on and is produced by grace.
Scripture says in Ezekiel 18:20: “the son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer from the iniquity of the son”. Babies and children are not able to sin but they were born with fallen nature inherited from Adam – Adam’s sin are NOT counted on them.
Death is penalty of sin – Catholics believe that too. Scripture says that it is righteousness that delivers from death (Prov. 10:2). You look so desperate that you want to modify the teaching of the Reformer by introducing the concept of “union with Christ”. Westminster Handbook of Reformed Theology (page 202) states: “Christians are righteous and sinners at the same time – righteous because our sin is covered by the perfect righteousness of Christ and sinful because in and of ourselves we are still prone to follow the cravings of the flesh.” You do NOT become righteous but are only counted as righteous based on external/alien righteousness of Christ. If you are still with sins then you cannot become righteous at the same time because Scripture says in Ezekiel 33:12: “the righteous shall not be able to live by his righteousness when he sins”.
Catholics do believe that justification is a process through which we ARE MADE righteous. The Reformers did not teach such thing. Catholics have no problem with what Rom. 8:33 says.
You wrote, “Coming back to Zech. 3:1-5 the filthy garment must be removed first, before the application of new rich robe. In contrast Luther wrote: “Thus a Christian man is righteous and a sinner at the same time, holy and profane, an enemy of God and a child of God.”(Luther: Lectures on Galatians, chapter 1-4, English translation from Luther’s Works, Vol. 26, page 232). According to the Reformer, you still keep your filthy garment (or your sins) while you are clothed with Christ’ righteousness at the same time and that is NOT what Zech. 3:1-5 describes.”
This evidences a deep confusion between justification and sanctification. What you describe is not justification but sanctification conflated with justification. Justification is forensic — please read that again. Our sins are taken away (Zech 3:4) by the shed blood of Christ when we come into union with Him. He “Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree” (1 Peter 2:24) and we are “justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (Rom 3:24) such that “there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8:1). Justification does not make us righteous in and of ourselves — again, IT IS FORENSIC — and reflects the reality, not of our personal righteousness but of our UNION WITH CHRIST.
Jeremiah spoke of this in these marvelous words, “Now this is His name by which He will be called: THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS” (Jeremiah 23:6). It is Christ who is our righteousness because we are in union with Him. His death takes away our guilt altogether and completely before God and His righteousness is IMPUTED to us such that we are “accepted in the Beloved” (Ephesians 1:6). This is the gospel. Christ is the one Mediator between God and Man and no man comes to the Father but be virtue of union with His Son. This union is by grace alone, by the sovereign work of the Holy Spirit alone, through faith alone generated in the heart by the work of the Holy Spirit in planting Christ in the heart. “For it is the God who commanded light to shine out of darkness, who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (2 Corinthians 4:6). That work of the Holy Spirit is the sine qua non of the Christian life. For there is no life in us apart from that work.
He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. (1 John 5:12)
Now, regarding Zech 3, it is clear you are mistaken. The picture there is exactly of justification with no reference to sanctification at all. It is a picture of union with Christ in which His death removes our guilt completely and His righteousness covers us completely such that we are wholly accepted in Christ for His sake alone. This is justification. All the references to “simul justus et peccator” miss the mark and make a mockery of the picture of justification by saying that it doesn’t mention sanctification. Right! It doesn’t but that just means you misunderstand what justification is — it is our acceptance with God solely and strictly on the ground of Christ’s life, death and resurrection.
Thus regeneration is the sine qua non of saving faith and saving faith is the sine qua non of justification. Regeneration, saving faith and justification are all necessary prerequisites of sanctification. Unless a man has experienced the peace with God that comes through union with Christ then all talk of sanctification is out of place. For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. (Romans 6:5-6)
Mr. Beagle, if you want to have a dialogue or discussion please read what I wrote and do NOT repeat the same accusations which I already gave responses. If your intention is to preach (one way communication), then you can do it at street corner near where you live. If you keep on doing it, then your response won’t be published.
In Zech 3 the filthy garment must be removed BEFORE new one placed. In contrast the Reformers taught that justification only changes our status, NOT our nature or we remain sinner while at the same time declared/counted as righteous. It is like we put the new garment on top of the old filthy one. That is NOT what Zech 3 describes.
You wrote, “In Zech 3 the filthy garment must be removed BEFORE new one placed. In contrast the Reformers taught that justification only changes our status, NOT our nature or we remain sinner while at the same time declared/counted as righteous. It is like we put the new garment on top of the old filthy one. That is NOT what Zech 3 describes.”
The removal of the filthy garment is OBJECTIVE removal not SUBJECTIVE — it is by the death of Christ that our sins are removed and all the guilt of them at once. As Paul wrote, “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered” (Romans 4:7).
And again, “In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace” (Ephesians 1:7).
It is “in Him” that we have the forgiveness of sins. All the guilt of our sins is taken away by His death when we come into union with Him. His death completely removes the filthy garments from us — such that there is NO CONDEMNATION for those who are IN Christ (Rom 8:1).
You wrote “it is by the death of Christ that our sins are removed and all the guilt of them at once. As Paul wrote, “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered” (Romans 4:7).” It seems you do not understand the teaching of your church. In your concept of justification, which is one time, you are only counted as righteous but you remain sinner and unrighteous. Your justification as described by your own scholars like Berkhof and Scriver, only changes your status, but not your nature. Your sins, past and future, are imputed on or credited to Christ who bore them on the cross.
You wrote,
“It seems you do not understand the teaching of your church. In your concept of justification, which is one time, you are only counted as righteous but you remain sinner and unrighteous. Your justification as described by your own scholars like Berkhof and Scriver, only changes your status, but not your nature. Your sins, past and future, are imputed on or credited to Christ who bore them on the cross.”
That is absolutely correct — however what you are missing is the fact that saving faith presupposes regeneration which is a change of nature. Thus, while justification is forensic it presupposes saving faith and saving faith presupposes regeneration. Regeneration is the instantaneous change from death to life by the power of the Holy Spirit. Before regeneration there is spiritual death and no saving faith (though there may be temporal faith). After regeneration, there is saving faith — which is justifying faith — and therefore justification presupposes the new nature.
If you would read Owen, Berkhof, Dabney, Shedd or Hodge or the Westminster Confession of Faith, you would see that this is held in common among all. That is what the Bible teaches. Simply put, “whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.” (Romans 8:30)
You see, don’t you, that calling precedes justification? Read about the effectual call.
I do NOT miss any fact from what you believe. In my earlier response I already wrote that you believe you must be first monergistically regenerated before you can have faith. Read again what I wrote because I do not want to copy and paste again. I did read some (not all) what Luther, Calvin, Hodge C. and A.A. (father and son), Turretin, Berkhof, Sproul wrote and what WCF stated.
You finally admit that Zech 3 does not support your one-time justification. In your one time justification you are justified and sinner at the same time or you wear the new garment (Christ’ righteousness) to cover your filthy garment (your unrighteousness) while the verses say the filthy garment must be removed first.
Catholics do believe that God must first draw us or call us to Christ (John 6:44). We do not and cannot using our own effort or will to believe in Christ. It is grace from God that enables us to believe in Christ freely, or without grace we cannot do it. The Greek word regeneration appears twice in NT and in both verses do NOT support regeneration before faith as you believe. Scripture nowhere mentions monergistic regeneration before faith. Catholics understand, and so did John Calvin and Luther, that washing of regeneration in Titus 3:5 refers to Baptism. If you read Berkhof’s Systematic Theology on page 466, it says that in the past the word regeneration was not used in the way you understand today even by Luther, Calvin, Canons of Dort and Belgic Confession.
You wrote, “You finally admit that Zech 3 does not support your one-time justification. In your one time justification you are justified and sinner at the same time or you wear the new garment (Christ’ righteousness) to cover your filthy garment (your unrighteousness) while the verses say the filthy garment must be removed first.”
Your assertion is false (and seems like a desperate ploy). Clearly Zechariah 3 is about one-time justification — there is no other explanation for it. The filthy garments are removed by Christ’s expiation and the robe is the perfect righteousness of Christ. Your objection about continuing to be a sinner is simply irrelevant to the picture presented there AND to forensic justification.
You also wrote, “The Greek word regeneration appears twice in NT and in both verses do NOT support regeneration before faith as you believe. Scripture nowhere mentions monergistic regeneration before faith.” The doctrine of regeneration includes such passages as the new birth in John 3:3,5, the giving of the new heart in Ezekiel 36, the giving of life in Eph 2:1. The natural man is the unregenerate man, and there is very much said about the natural man. For instance,
But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Corinthians 2:14)
The natural man does not and cannot believe the gospel in a saving way because he does not receive the things of the Spirit of God. That is quite clear. John 3:3,5 clearly state that the unregenerate person cannot see the kingdom nor enter. We enter the kingdom by faith so it is clear that the unregenerate person cannot have saving faith.
Romans 8:7-8 make it clear that the natural person cannot please God and Heb 11:6 that without faith it is impossible to please Him. Therefore the natural person CANNOT have faith because if he could have faith, then the unregenerate person could please God. But that is excluded.
The Scriptures make this point crystal clear — regeneration is necessary for saving faith.
It is you who is so desperate to reconcile your one time justification with Zech. 3:1-5. You admit then in your justification you remain sinner and justified at the same time, while in Zech 3:1-5 the filthy garment, representing your sins, must be removed. Your sins are imputed on or credited to Christ but they do not make Christ a sinner. In the same way while Christ’ righteousness is imputed on or credited to you it does NOT make you righteous.
When you say regeneration you talk about monergistic regeneration. You may refer new birth, giving new heart, giving of life etc as synonyms of regeneration but those verses do NOT say it is monergistic. Without grace none of us can believe in Christ, even Catholics believe that, but Scripture nowhere mentions that grace works ALONE (that is monergism) in what you call as regeneration. Monergistic regeneration is based on analogy that a dead person can do nothing unless he is monergistically revived. When a mechanic wants to repair a car, he does not need any consent from the car – the car, being a dead object, cannot give any consent.
I do understand that Reformer justification is forensic – it is a legal exchange where we get Christ righteousness and He got our sins (and bore them on the cross) but there is no change in us, in other words we remain unrighteous. Thus Calvin defined justification as the acceptance with which God receives us into his favour as if we were righteous (Institutes of Christian Religion 3.11.2). The phrase “as if we were righteous” means “ we are not righteous but only counted as righteous based on righteousness of Christ”. Reformed scholar Berkhof elaborated further when he wrote that Justification takes outside of the sinner in the tribunal of God, and does NOT change his inner life, though the sentence is brought home to him subjectively (Systematic Theology poage 513). However Revelation 19:8 uses fine linen as the righteous deeds of the saints, i.e. (1) they do not use alien righteousness of Christ imputed on them; and (2) infused righteousness concept fits well here. Keep in mind that according to Reformers Justification is one time event and by faith alone and does not include sanctification; Catholics, on the other hand, consider sanctification as integral part of justification.
“Keep in mind that according to Reformers Justification is one time event and by faith alone and does not include sanctification; Catholics, on the other hand, consider sanctification as integral part of justification.”
Actually the Reformers consider justification and sanctification an integral part of *salvation*, the former being a declared *perfect* righteousness, the latter being an achieved *imperfect* holiness. The apostles didn’t conflate righteousness and holiness (1 Cor 1:30) and neither should we.
Vivator,
The question is not, “If faith does not produce works, will that person be saved or not? You mention transformed life – If the person sometimes produces good works, sometime he returns to his old way and the cycle repeats, will he be saved?” but rather, is true faith (living faith) capable of not producing works? The Reformed view holds that faith without works is dead, thus not genuine faith to begin with. However, true faith is given (as the gift of God, that no man should boast) only to a regenerate heart, and such faith will inevitably produce good works. Thus, your first question is irrelevant in respect to the Reformed view. Also, you refer to salvation as a future event (“…will he be saved?”), not as something obtained once and for all. Do you believe that salvation can be lost through sin? Your wording seems to suggest that salvation is indeed something we work toward throughout our lifetime and hope to receive in the end, based on a repeated covering up of our sin. I ask this not as a challenge but in an attempt to truly understand where you’re coming from (the last thing I want is for this to become an argument, as truth not spoken in love rarely bares good fruit). In the end, it all comes down to the key question: was Christ’s sacrifice sufficient to cleanse us of our sins (not cover them up until we sin again), or does salvation require more than His blood to atone for our unrighteousness?
If Christ is not enough, then what are we to make of Hebrews 10:10, “And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” Read within its context, and I ask that you do read all of Hebrews 10 before replying as it is not a lengthy passage, it seems obvious that nothing serves (or ever fully served) to satisfy God’s wrath towards sinners other than the “once and for all” sacrifice of His Son.
One more thing, when Calvin stated that “we are justified by faith alone, but by that kind of faith which is never alone” – he is simply saying that as far as the attaining of justification is concerned, faith alone suffices as means, but this faith always produces works as evidence of a genuine conversion. These works always accompanies faith in the life of the justified, but it doesn’t contribute to the attaining or maintenance of justification once received by faith.
Yes, I do know that and am aware of Calvin’s view. You may read the following:
https://vivacatholic.wordpress.com/223-2/
If you knew what Calvin teaches on these matters, why misrepresent him on many points? I’ve seen you do that plenty of times as I read through this website, mind you.
Before you accused me of misinterpreting Calvinism read the following post at
https://vivacatholic.wordpress.com/223-2/
All my statement on Protestantism are based on those made by Luther, Calvin, Berkhof and Sproul – check all the end-notes. For your convenience you can download the article as pdf file (which you can print, if you wish).
I’m not merely accusing you of maligning Calvin. When you claimed that when Calvin said “we are justified by faith alone, but with the kind of faith which is never alone” he in effect betrays the very essence of sola fide, you are evidently maligning him.
As I explained above, Calvin teaches that justification is attained through faith alone, without needing works. But he also clarifies (and I perfectly agree with him on this point), that saving faith always leads to a transformed life. Therefore, faith is never alone, as far as Chritian life is concerned. But in justification, faith suffices as means apart from the works it would soon produce as a consequence of being saved by grace.
Let me repeat my question, if faith does not produce works, will that person be saved or not? You mention transformed life – If the person sometimes produces good works, sometime he returns to his old way and the cycle repeats, will he be saved? This is not hypothetical case.
Don’t you want to talk about your deliberate MISREPRESENTATION of Calvin anymore?
Read what I wrote on comparing Justification in Catholicism and Protestantism and let me know which point(s) I misinterpret your belief. In the past I did revise that post based on inputs from my readers.
Why don’t you answer the question I raised? If you want to have discussion or dialogue it must be two way – eventually I won’t tolerate one way discussion because it is interrogation, not discussion.
Pleased to do so.
You ask for proof of where you misrepresent Calvinism…
Below are instances of where you misrepresent not only Calvinism, but Calvin, Berkhof, the Canons of Dordt, and the Westminster Confession. Starting with your comparison of Catholicism and Protestantism https://vivacatholic.wordpress.com/223-2/ – which has a number of problems ranging from the trivial (it’s “depraved,” not “deprived”) to the severe. Here is but one of these severe problems, under the heading ‘Predestination’ where you write:
“In Calvinism (monergism) God chose unconditionally from eternity the Elect whom He will regenerate (monergistically) and consequently will be saved. Those He chose from eternity not to be regenerated (also unconditionally), or the Reprobate, will end up in hell. This is known as double predestination…”
No, that is known as ‘(single) predestination,’ not double predestination which is a gross misrepresentation of Calvinism. This egregiously wrong definition of Calvinism makes God the author of sin and One who “positively” predestines the damned, a view that is denied by Luther, Calvin, Berkhof, and Sproul, the Westminster Confession, and the Canons of Dort. A careful look at the corpus of their work proves them in the ‘passive reprobation’ camp, or ‘infralapsarian,’ or ‘(single) predestinatarian’: that God actively saves the elect, but only passively “passes by” man in his sinful nature.
That is a tad different than your assertion: “In both Positive and Negative Unconditional Reprobation God is behind the Reprobate’s damnation. In contrast Catholic position makes the Reprobate responsible for their damnation…”
God knew from eternity that all men would fall to sin and thus reprobation – from these He predestined some to be regenerated. No Catholic is going to deny the fall, or The Council of Trent’s fifth session on Original Sin (#1) for that matter. The reprobate are always “responsible for their damnation.”
The Catholic Encyclopedia is more charitable on this than you:
“Even on so strictly Calvinistic a soil as Holland, Infralapsarianism, i.e. the connexion of reprobation with original sin, gained ground.” http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12376b.htm
You continue:
“… double predestination, which some, like R.C. Sproul, believe to be non- symmetric, i.e. He does actively predestine the Elect to salvation but passively bypasses the rest from being regenerated [58], i.e. they remain in their totally deprived [sic] state, the state of all mankind after the Fall.”
Please note: “Non-symmetric” double predestination is what everyone else in the world calls “predestination,” which is a “(single) predestination” or “infralapsarianism.”
The Synod of Dort also affirmed a passive, single predestination, or “infralapsarianism,” and condemned “double predestination.” And the Canons of Dort I hasten to add, provide a more authoritative summation of Luther and Calvin than what you or Rome can provide.
You end with:
“[The] Westminster Confession of Faith, on the other hand, seems to indicate active unconditional reprobation [59].”
No it doesn’t. “…seems to indicate” is a weasel clause. Your own reference [59] from the Westminster Confession states the passive implications of predestination.
Nevertheless, why not use this reference from the Westminster Confession:
Chapter III:
“I. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass;[1] yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin,[2] nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.[3]”
Even Wikipedia does a fairer job of defining Calvinist ‘predestination’: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination_(Calvinism)
Perhaps your problem stems from Rome’s mischaracterization of Calvinism:
“But from all eternity God has also made a decree not less absolute whereby he has positively predestined the non-elect to eternal torments. God can accomplish this design only by denying to the reprobate irresistibly efficacious graces and impelling their will to sin continually, thereby leading them slowly but surely to eternal damnation.” http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12376b.htm
Elsewhere in this blog, you attempt to recruit Berkhof to your wrong view of Calvinism because he happens to use the word “positive” in this passage:
“The positive side of reprobation is so clearly taught in Scripture as the opposite of election that we cannot regard it as something purely negative.” Pg 116, Systematic Theology, Berkhof.
But one must be careful not to assume from this that Berkhof is describing “positive” reprobation, as Berkhof clarifies himself a page later in his Systematic Theology:
“Preterition is purely passive, a simple passing by without any action on man, but condemnation is efficient and positive. Those who are passed by are condemned on account of their sin.”
“God’s decree undoubtedly rendered the entrance of sin into the world certain [“positive” to use Vivator’s language], but He did not predestinate some unto sin, as He did others unto holiness. And as the holy God He cannot be the author of sin. The position which Calvin takes on this point in his Institutes is clearly indicated in the following deliverances found in
Calvin’s Articles on Predestination:
“Although the will of God is the supreme and first cause of all things and God holds the devil and all the impious subject to His will, God nevertheless cannot be called the cause of sin, nor the author of evil, neither is He open to any blame.”
“Although the devil and reprobates are God’s servants and instruments to carry out His secret decisions, nevertheless in an incomprehensible manner God so works in them and through them as to contract no stain from their vice, because their malice is used in a just and righteous way for a good end, although the manner is often hidden from us.”
“They act ignorantly and calumniously who say that God is made the author of sin, if all things come to pass by His will and ordinance, because they make no distinction between the depravity of men and the hidden appointments of God.”
Pg 116,117, Systematic Theology, Berkhof.
If I may say so, your inclination to interpret everything in the light of Rome proves that your “will” is not “free.” Your “free will” is constrained by your sin nature which acts according to its greatest inclinations. And your greatest inclination here is merely to defend an erroneous Catholic position, and not about finding the objective truth.
To speculate a bit here, perhaps your intransigence (and Rome’s) on this issue is because if you were to deal honestly with Calvinism’s passive reprobation, you would see its affinity with Thomism’s passive reprobation.
And if you were to deal honestly with Calvinism’s active or “positive” election, you would see its affinity with Thomism’s active or ‘positive’ predestination.
In your words: ““Catholics are still free to choose from a number of predestination views, among which are: Thomism… Thomists (and some Molinists) teach Unconditional Election…” https://vivacatholic.wordpress.com/2007/08/12/predestination-in-catholicism/
So not only does Thomism teach positive unconditional election, it also teaches a passive unconditional reprobation – just like Calvinism! And we haven’t even started on the subject of Augustinianism.
(and please don’t start with your ‘free will defense’ for Thomism that even your Catholic Encyclopedia will not dogmatically defend or explain – in Thomism, God’s will is infallibly efficacious).
Thus Calvinism’s close kinship with Thomism is mighty uncomfortable for Rome. But what does one’s comfort have to do with truth?
You need to be much more careful about how you toss around the term “double-predestination.” Calvin is helpful here: “I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels.”
Really, you returned to Rome too soon – you should have waited until you better understood the biblical doctrines of grace, and better understood the problems with Roman Catholic doctrine.
You wrote “which has a number of problems ranging from the trivial (it’s “depraved,” not “deprived”)”. OK point taken and thank you for your input.
You wrote “No, that is known as ‘(single) predestination,’ not double predestination which is a gross misrepresentation of Calvinism. This egregiously wrong definition of Calvinism makes God the author of sin and One who “positively” predestines the damned, a view that is denied by Luther, Calvin, Berkhof, and Sproul, the Westminster Confession, and the Canons of Dort. A careful look at the corpus of their work proves them in the ‘passive reprobation’ camp, or ‘infralapsarian,’ or ‘(single) predestinatarian’: that God actively saves the elect, but only passively “passes by” man in his sinful nature.”
My comment:: First you claim that Calvinists believe in single predestination. I must say you know little about it. You may read what Sproul wrote in http://www.the-highway.com/DoublePredestination_Sproul.html
Second you charged me of not knowing “passive reprobation”. This is a false charge – this is what I wrote: “This is known as double predestination, which some, like R.C. Sproul believe to be non-symmetric, i.e. He does actively predestine the Elect to salvation but passively bypasses the rest from being regenerated, i.e. they remain in their totally depraved [thank you again for your correction] state, the state of all mankind after the Fall.”
I did state that Westminster of Confession of Faith seems to promote active reprobation – you can judge it yourself after reading the following
As for those wicked and ungodly men whom God, as a righteous Judge, for former sins, does blind and harden, from them He not only withholds His grace whereby they might have been enlightened in their understandings, and wrought upon in their heart; but sometimes also withdraws the gifts which they had, and exposes them to such objects as their corruption makes occasion of sin; and, withal, gives them over to their own lusts, the temptations of the world, and the power of Satan, whereby it comes to pass that they harden themselves, even under those means which God uses for the softening of others.
Westminster Confession of Faith V.6
Please note I never stated that Calvinists believe God is the author of sin.
You wrote “God knew from eternity that all men would fall to sin and thus reprobation – from these He predestined some to be regenerated. No Catholic is going to deny the fall, or The Council of Trent’s fifth session on Original Sin (#1) for that matter. The reprobate are always “responsible for their damnation.””
My comment: When you wrote “He predestined some to be regenerated” does it imply that He decided to bypass the rest not to be regenerated?
You wrote “Please note: “Non-symmetric” double predestination is what everyone else in the world calls “predestination,” which is a “(single) predestination” or “infralapsarianism.”
My comment: please do your home-work and study the issue diligently. No one equates single predestination with non-symmetric double predestination and “single predestination” and infralapsarianism are not the same.
Next you quoted from Catholic Encyclopedia: “But from all eternity God has also made a decree not less absolute whereby he has positively predestined the non-elect to eternal torments. God can accomplish this design only by denying to the reprobate irresistibly efficacious graces and impelling their will to sin continually, thereby leading them slowly but surely to eternal damnation.”http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12376b.htm
My comment: Do Calvinists believe that God bypass the Reprobate from being monergistically regenerated? If the answer is yes then you should not have problem with statement from Catholic Encyclopedia.
Finally you accused me of misunderstanding Berkhof when he used the word “positive” by quoting half of his phrase. Here is the complete phrase: “Preterition is purely passive, a simple passing by without any action on man, but condemnation is efficient and positive.” Again positive reprobation and active reprobation are NOT the same.
F.Y.I., Viva… Protestant Justification is not just a cover-up for sins. It is an actual putting away of sins. Christ didn’t just cover their guilt with His righteousness, He actually washes them away with His blood. God no longer remembers them.
Once again, you failed to represent accurately the historical Protestant position.
Pls read my page at https://vivacatholic.wordpress.com/223-2/
In short according to Reformers Justification is one-time event where the righteousness of Christ through faith is imputed on us. What happens after faith is not part of Justification. Thus John Calvin believed that through Baptism all sins (past, present and future) are forgiven but Baptism is not part of Reformer definition of Justification.
Vivator,
That Protestants believe in Justification via imputation of righteousness is already given. What I disagree with, however, is your claim that Protestant justification is just a cover-up for sins as if they don’t believe in the forgiveness and washing away of sins.
This is simply not true. Again, I don’t want to think that you do these misrepresentations on purpose, but please get your facts straight. Thank you.
P.S.
Calvin didn’t teach that Baptism washes away all sins (past, present, and future). He didn’t hold to any form of baptismal regeneration. FYI.
Jeph,
Please read my post on comparing justification in Catholicism and Protestantism at
https://vivacatholic.wordpress.com/223-2/
In short to the Reformers justification is one-time event where we use Christ’ righteousness to cover our unrighteousness. What happens afterwards is not part of justification.
Do not confuse baptism for forgiveness of sins and baptism of regeneration – they are not the same. Calvin did believe that through Baptism all sins (past, present and future) are forgiven. You may read his own words at Institute of Christian Religion Book 4 Chapter 15. He did reject Baptism can erase original sin.
Hi Jim,
Thank you for your comment. We do merit reward from good works but our merits are gift from God – it is not something we deserve, i.e. is not like meriting our salary through our job. You can read what I wrote on this subject at this post:
Also on my post on Justification: Contrasting Catholic and Protestant’s position, which you can access at the top of the blog
I am a Catholic who is tired of Catholics denying that we do work for a reward!. They are so afraid of protestants accusing us of pelagian “works righteousness” that they fail to put forth what the Church actually says about merit. We do not merit initial justification although good works are often a disposing for that same justification ( don’t confuse this with semi-pelagianism).
Once justifeid, made a temple of the Holy Ghost, an adopted son, made a partaker in the Divine nature, etc. etc. we are most certainly in a position to MERIT. And we had better do good works or we don’t get the final justification at the pearly gates.
God has made a promise to reward our good works. He keeps His promise.
God has promised to reward His sons. Hirelings don’t get the familial reward but adopted sons do.
As St. Paul says,neither the faith to move mountains nor natural do-gooderism apart from CHARITY merits anything. But once infused with sanctifying grace and Charity, we do most certainly work for a reward! Our works must have a supernatural motive to merit. Even fear of hell is such a motive.
Read romans 2;7.
Still, final perseverance in grace and good works in something we must constantly pray and work for. If we stop doing good works we will start doing bad works. The earn us hell. Eternal life is both a gift and a reward. The wages of sin is death.
Please fellow Catholics, quit wimping out and boldly profess our faith. amen
The bible doesn’t say there is a trinity either, or that Christ had two legs for that matter.
My goodness, I wonder how much Catholic dogma you’d lose if you stuck to your own advice “Christ did not say that.”
Nevertheless my interpretation is consistent with the preceding verses and with the whole of Scripture, and does not cause me to perform theological gymnastics with passages like these, to name a few:
Romans 4:4-8
4 “Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due.
5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,
6 just 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;
8 blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.”
Not to mention the entire book of Galatians, especially chapter 3 which begins:
1. “O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified.
2 Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?
4 Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain?
5 Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith— 6 just as Abraham “believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness”?
Finally, your comment: “Catholics do believe that our good works do not deserve reward. When God rewards us, which He does, it is a gift from Him.” Here I encourage you to inhale deeply of Romans 4:4 from above.
“He who overcomes will inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be My son. 8″But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.” revelations 21
It would seem that sin is still sin acording to Christ.
Dear Roger,
You wrote “The blessing to the “sheep” (Matt. 25:32) consists of their inheritance of the Father’s kingdom, given not as a reward for good works but because of their saving relationship with the Father and the Son” Christ did not say that, unless you put your words in His mouth. Catholics do believe that our good works do not deserve reward. When God rewards us, which He does, it is a gift from Him.
I think you have no idea what differs a gift from a reward.
Rewards are given as recompense to what has been done. Romans 2:6 says, “God will reward every man according to his works.” Now reward is essentially different from a gift in that gift is given freely and not according to works. “Now to him that works, his reward is reckoned not according to grace, but according to debt” (Rom. 4:4).
Jeph,
I must say you have no understanding on Catholics teaching on merits. You can read my post on this issue at
Hi Vivator,
I believe your initial claim is that Matt 25:31-40 contradicts Paul:
2 Cor 5:21, “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God,” and
Romans 4:8 “BLESSED is the man against whom the Lord will not count (reckon, or impute) his sin.”
Romans 4:6 “just as David also speaks of the BLESSING of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works.”
I maintain these passages are perfectly consistent with the Reformed (monergistic) view of justification.
Let’s have a look:
Matthew 25:31 – “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and HE WILL SEPARATE people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 And HE WILL PLACE THE SHEEP ON HIS RIGHT, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, YOU WHO ARE BLESSED by my Father, INHERIT THE KINGDOM PREPARED FOR YOU BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD.”
What it means:
There WILL be a judgement.
God is sovereign: HE does the choosing.
HE will choose between the sheep and the goats.
The sheep HE will BLESS.
The BLESSED will inherit the Kingdom.
The Kingdom is prepared for the blessed sheep BEFORE THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD.
Verses 35 to 40 go on to describe the BLESSED SHEEP.
The blessing to the “sheep” (Matt. 25:32) consists of their inheritance of the Father’s kingdom, given not as a reward for good works but because of their saving relationship with the Father and the Son.
Could not a man or woman of good conscience come to the same conclusion?
With all due respect, I don’t think you know what a contradiction is. These verses support my case.
Dear Roger,
With all due respect, you don’t know what you are talking. You insisted, quoting from those verses, that the only required righteousness to enter heaven is the one that comes through faith, i.e. when you believe in Christ as personal Lord and Saviour or mostly known as born again experience. If read Matthew 25:31-40, did Christ tell the sheep/the Elect that they inherit the kingdom simply because they believe in Him as Lord and Saviour?
Dear Roger,
According to your interpretaion then what Paul wrote contradicts Matthew 25:31-46 and 1 John 3:8.
What a novel idea: quoting Calvin himself to argue against his own view of justification. Calvin apparently was not a Calvinist, but a closet Roman Catholic! Your argument is a textbook example of an edifice built upon sand: the “edifice” being Calvin’s (& Luther’s, and the Reformers’, and “Bible-only’s”) unwitting acceptance of the Roman Catholic view of justification, and your “sand” is equivocation, where you slide from one meaning of “faith alone” to an entirely other meaning.
When Calvin, Luther, and the Reformers say “a faith that is not alone” they never veered from “grace alone, by faith alone, in Christ alone.”
When YOU say “faith alone” you mean the initial grace of God alone coupled with the cooperating works of the believer. To conflate the two views and suggest that the Reformers and other “Bible-only” believers are closet Catholics is ignorance at best and deception at worst.
It’s the difference between what happens AFTER justification and what is REQUIRED FOR justification. Think of what it’s like to be given a billion dollars versus a joint-venture to become a billionaire.
The issue is kept cleaner if we speak of whose righteousness is more efficacious: mine or Christ’s? If it is Christ’s, how is His righteousness applied to me? 2 Corinthians 5:21, “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.”
Romans 4:8 “Blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count (reckon, or impute) his sin.” Who is the man of verse 8? None other than the man in verse 6: “just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works.”
Give me this Biblical idea of imputation any day over the Catholic idea of imputation (by the transfer and reckoning of merit from the treasury of merit).
R.C. Sproul spoke on the topic of Imputation at the Ligonier Ministries 2008 National Conference, Evangelism According to Jesus. From my understanding, someone from the Vatican was streaming it online during the conference.
Roger.. the author never said that Calvin was a closet Catholic. You put words into his mouth. The reason the author brought Calvin up is because he says “Faith alone justifies.. but faith without works is dead.” You might as well just say it that works are necessary for salvation! Come on man! Where do you draw the line? It’s like saying “Gas is not necessary to drive my car, but without gas, my car will not drive.”
All of your comments so far reek of straw-men arguments and an unjustified arrogance on your part. Until you learn to see things objectively, and with a spirit of humility, you will not learn anything.
Calvin never taught that works are necessary for Salvation. What St. James (and Calvin) meant when he said “faith without works is dead”, according to context, is that mere profession of faith (i.e. “you say that God is one” v. 19, *which is a Jewish creed) does not bring you any good. If you claim to have faith, you should be bearing fruits consequent to that faith you claim to have. Now if you claim to have faith but do not have works (“show me your faith without works, and I’ll show you my faith by my works”) – it becomes evident that the faith you claim to have is just in your head. It’s not the kind of faith which justifies. It is dead. Not that it died due to lack of works; but that the reason it does not bear works is that it is in the first place dead!
All reformers teach that works aren’t necessary for attaining the grace of Salvation. Whenever they say that “the faith that justifies is never alone”, they do not mean that faith would not justify until it is coupled with works. What they mean is that the kind of faith which justifies always lead to a new life in Christ – or good works. To put it in order, Abraham was justified by grace through faith LONG BEFORE he worked (Rom. 4), but later on he eventually evinced that he was truly justified when he worked (James 2).
Jeph,
Let me ask you this question. If a person has faith in Christ but does not show the fruits of his faith will he be saved? If the answer is no then faith alone does not save. Luther candidly admitted it when he wrote:
Works are necessary to salvation, but they do not cause salvation, because faith alone gives life. On account of the hypocrites we must say that good works are necessary to salvation. It is necessary to work. Nevertheless, it does not follow that works save on that account, unless we understand necessity very clearly as the necessity that there must be an inward and outward salvation or righteousness. Works save outwardly, that is, they show evidence that we are righteous and that there is faith in a man which saves inwardly, as Paul says, “Man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses with his lips and so is saved” [Romans 10:10]. Outward salvation shows faith to be present, just as fruit shows a tree to be good.
Luther: The Disputation Concerning Justification, from Luther’s Works Vol. 34, page 135
Vivator,
For God’s sake! Are you reading with your lights on? Where in that statement from Luther did he say that works are necessary for Salvation in the Catholic sense?
Notice what he says there. He says that works saves us only “outwardly”, that is, it showcases our faith and inward Salvation, which means we work because we are already saved (inwardly) – not that we are inwardly saved because of works.
Protestants teach that we are justified (Greek, dikaioo) in God’s sight only through faith, without works, as is perfectly clear in Romans 4:1-6. Abraham was counted as righteous in God’s sight through faith, before he even worked. This is the inward salvation which Luther walks about in that statement of his.
Now, the Bible also tells us that years after Abraham’s experience of gratitious justification, he was evinced to be righteous (Greek, dikaioo) in OUR SIGHT – not God’s – when he offered Isaac to God, as indicated in James 2:22-23 according to its context. This is the outward salvation referred to by Luther.
We are saved, inwardly, that is deemed worthy before God, through faith alone.
But we are saved, outwardly, that is deemed righteous before men, through works.
Jeph,
Luther clearly wrote “works are necessary for salvation” – it is crystal clear statement. It is you who tried to soften his views. If true saving faith must show its fruit in good works then the one that does not is false faith and non-saving one. You still deny that works are not necessary?
I agreed with John Calvin, over against the Coucil of Trent and the Roman Church or the Pope.