lampalm | May 28, '11 7:42 pm |
Do Catholics believe in imputed righteousness?
Do Catholics believe in imputed righteousness?
Windfish | May 28, '11 7:43 pm |
Re: Do Catholics believe in imputed righteousness?
Short answer: nope.
lampalm | May 28, '11 7:44 pm |
Re: Do Catholics believe in imputed righteousness?
How is a Catholic declared righteous before God?
Algo1 | May 29, '11 10:09 pm |
Re: Do Catholics believe in imputed righteousness?
Here is an early example of the "Great Exchange" long before Luther embraced it.
Quote:
Mathetes to Diognetus: As long then as the former time endured, He permitted us to be borne along by unruly impulses, being drawn away by the desire of pleasure and various lusts. This was not that He at all delighted in our sins, but that He simply endured them; nor that He approved the time of working iniquity which then was, but that He sought to form a mind conscious of righteousness, so that being convinced in that time of our unworthiness of attaining life through our own works, it should now, through the kindness of God, be vouchsafed to us; and having made it manifest that in ourselves we were unable to enter into the kingdom of God, we might through the power of God be made able. But when our wickedness had reached its height, and it had been clearly shown that its reward, punishment and death, was impending over us; and when the time had come which God had before appointed for manifesting His own kindness and power, how the one love of God, through exceeding regard for men, did not regard us with hatred, nor thrust us away, nor remember our iniquity against us, but showed great long-suffering, and bore with us, He Himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities, He gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous, the incorruptible One for the corruptible, the immortal One for them that are mortal. For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than His righteousness? By what other one was it possible that we, the wicked and ungodly, could be justified, than by the only Son of God? O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation! that the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors! Having therefore convinced us in the former time that our nature was unable to attain to life, and having now revealed the Savior who is able to save even those things which it was [formerly] impossible to save, by both these facts He desired to lead us to trust in His kindness, to esteem Him our Nourisher, Father, Teacher, Counselor, Healer, our Wisdom, Light, Honor, Glory, Power, and Life, so that we should not be anxious concerning clothing and food. Ante-Nicene Fathers: Volume I, Mathetes to Diognetus, Chapter 9.
Algo1 | Jun 7, '11 7:04 pm |
Re: Do Catholics believe in imputed righteousness?
Do Roman Catholics likewise deny "Penal Substitution"?
gurneyhalleck1 | Jun 7, '11 7:06 pm |
Re: Do Catholics believe in imputed righteousness?
Penal substitution is a subtle offshoot of substitutionary atonement from St. Anselm. Catholics don't generally buy into Penal Subst.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Algo1 (Post 7960592) Do Roman Catholics likewise deny "Penal Substitution"? |
guanophore | Jun 7, '11 7:22 pm |
Re: Do Catholics believe in imputed righteousness?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Algo1 (Post 7960592) Do Roman Catholics likewise deny "Penal Substitution"? |
Yes. If Jesus had actually accomplished penal substitution, then He would burn in hell. :eek:
Instead, He bore our sins in His Body on the Cross as the lamb of sacrifice.
The idea of penal subsitution came from Calvin, who was a lawyer, and enjoyed the forensic conception of Christian doctrine.
guanophore | Jun 7, '11 7:27 pm |
Re: Do Catholics believe in imputed righteousness?
Quote:
Originally Posted by gurneyhalleck1 (Post 7960716) I think it's interesting that the Orthodox point to the problems they see with Anselm's doctrine and that it's this Anselmian Catholic doctrine that opened the door to worse atonement views like penal substitution |
Yes, I find it interesting about all the areas with which there are disagreements with the East. It seems like Latins tended to overthink the mysteries, and in an effort to make sense of them, came up with constructions that wedged even more distance, like transubstantiation.
Algo1 | Jun 8, '11 12:03 pm |
Re: Do Catholics believe in imputed righteousness?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Algo1 (Post 7960592) Do Roman Catholics likewise deny "Penal Substitution"? |
Quote:
Originally Posted by gurneyhalleck1 (Post 7960609) Penal substitution is a subtle offshoot of substitutionary atonement from St. Anselm. Catholics don't generally buy into Penal Subst. |
Is it possible that St. Anselm got his theories regarding Atonement from Scripture and from Early Church Writers?
Quote:
Tertullian (c. 160-c. 220): Now, since hatred was predicted against that Son of man who has His mission from the Creator, whilst the Gospel testifies that the name of Christians, as derived from Christ, was to be hated for the Son of man’s sake, because He is Christ, it determines the point that that was the Son of man in the matter of hatred who came according to the Creator’s purpose, and against whom the hatred was predicted. And even if He had not yet come, the hatred of His name which exists at the present day could not in any case have possibly preceded Him who was to bear the name. But He has both suffered the penalty in our presence, and surrendered His life, laying it down for our sakes, and is held in contempt by the Gentiles. And He who was born (into the world) will be that very Son of man on whose account our name also is rejected. ANF: Vol. III, The Five Books Against Marcion, Book IV, Chapter 14. Tertullian (c. 160-c. 220): Now, although the prophet Habakkuk first said this, yet you have the apostle here confirming the prophets, even as Christ did. The object, therefore, of the faith whereby the just man shall live, will be that same God to whom likewise belongs the law, by doing which no man is justified.* Since, then, there equally are found the curse in the law and the blessing in faith, you have both conditions set forth by the Creator: “Behold,” says He, “I have set before you a blessing and a curse.” You cannot establish a diversity of authors because there happens to be one of things; for the diversity is itself proposed by one and the same author. Why, however, “Christ was made a curse for us,” is declared by the apostle himself in a way which quite helps our side, as being the result of the Creator’s appointment.* * But yet it by no means follows, because the Creator said of old, “Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree,” that Christ belonged to another god, and on that account was accursed even then in the law. And how, indeed, could the Creator have cursed by anticipation one whom He knew not of? Why, however, may it not be more suitable for the Creator to have delivered His own Son to His own curse, than to have submitted Him to the malediction of that god of yours,—in behalf, too, of man, who is an alien to him? Now, if this appointment of the Creator respecting His Son appears to you to be a cruel one, it is equally so in the case of your own god; if, on the contrary, it be in accordance with reason in your god, it is equally so—nay, much more so—in mine. For it would be more credible that that God had provided blessing for man, through the curse of Christ, who formerly set both a blessing and a curse before man, than that he had done so, who, according to you, never at any time pronounced either. ANF: Vol. III, The Five Books Against Marcion, Book V, Chapter 3. Tertullian (c. 160-c. 220): Who has redeemed another’s death by his own, but the Son of God alone? For even in His very passion He set the robber free. For to this end had He come, that, being Himself pure from sin, and in all respects holy, He might undergo death on behalf of sinners. Similarly, you who emulate Him in condoning sins, if you yourself have done no sin, plainly suffer in my stead. If, however, you are a sinner, how will the oil of your puny torch be able to suffice for you and for me? ANF: Vol. IV, On Modesty, Chapter 22. |
gurneyhalleck1 | Jun 8, '11 12:29 pm |
Re: Do Catholics believe in imputed righteousness?
Tertullian was a Montanist and a schismatic with heterodox views. I wouldn't use him as a source personally despite the fact that the man was in many ways brilliant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Algo1 (Post 7963667) Is it possible that St. Anselm got his theories regarding Atonement from Scripture and from Early Church Writers? |
Algo1 | Jun 8, '11 12:43 pm |
Re: Do Catholics believe in imputed righteousness?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Algo1 (Post 7960592) Do Roman Catholics likewise deny "Penal Substitution"? |
Quote:
Originally Posted by guanophore (Post 7960708) Yes. If Jesus had actually accomplished penal substitution, then He would burn in hell. :eek: |
Christ's propitiation in which HE bore the wrath of GOD The Father on the cross was indeed a suffering beyond what any one sinner could ever experience in hell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by guanophore (Post 7960708) Instead, He bore our sins in His Body on the Cross as the lamb of sacrifice. |
Yes, as a Penal Substitutionary Atonement.
Quote:
Athanasius (297-373): For this purpose, then, the incorporeal and incorruptible and immaterial Word of God comes to our realm, howbeit he was not far from usbefore. For no past of Creation is left void of Him: He has filled all things everywhere, remaining present with His own Father. But He comes in condescension to shew loving-kindness upon us, and to visit us. 2. And seeing the race of rational creatures in the way to perish, and death reigning over them by corruption; seeing, too, that the threat against transgression gave a firm hold to the corruption which was upon us, and that it was monstrous that before the law was fulfilled it should fall through: seeing, once more, the unseemliness of what was come to pass: that the things whereof He Himself was Artificer were passing away: seeing, further, the exceeding wickedness of men, and how by little and little they had increased it to an intolerable pitch against themselves: and seeing, lastly, how all men were under penalty of death: He took pity on our race, and had mercy on our infirmity, and condescended to our corruption, and, unable to bear that death should have the mastery — lest the creature should perish, and His Father’s handiwork in men be spent for nought — He takes unto Himself a body, and that of no different sort from ours. 3. For He did not simply will to become embodied, or will merely to appear. For if He willed merely to appear, He was able to effect His divine appearance by some other and higher means as well. But He takes a body of our kind, and not merely so, but from a spotless and stainless virgin, knowing not a man, a body clean and in very truth pure from intercourse of men. For being Himself mighty, and Artificer of everything, He prepares the body in the Virgin as a temple unto Himself, and makes it His very own as an instrument, in it manifested, and in it dwelling. 4. And thus taking from our bodies one of like nature, because all were under penalty of the corruption of death He gave ‘it over to death in the stead of all, and offered it to the Father — doing this, moreover, of His loving-kindness, to the end that, firstly, all being held to have died in Him, the law involving the ruin of men might be undone (inasmuch as its power was fully spent in the Lord’s body, and had no longer holding-ground against men, his peers), and that, secondly, whereas men had turned toward corruption, He might turn them again toward incorruption, and quicken them from death by the appropriation of His body and by the grace of the Resurrection, banishing death from them like straw from fire. NPNF2: Vol. IV, On the Incarnation of the Word §8, 1-4. Athanasius (297-373): For the Word, perceiving that no otherwise could the corruption of men be undone save by death as a necessary condition, while it was impossible for the Word to suffer death, being immortal, and Son of the Father; to this end He takes to Himself a body capable of death, that it, by partaking of the Word Who is above all, might be worthy to die in the stead of all, and might, because of the Word which was come to dwell in it, remain incorruptible, and that thenceforth corruption might be stayed from all by the Grace of the Resurrection. Whence, by offering unto death the body He Himself had taken, as an offering and sacrifice free from any stain, straightway He put away death from all His peers by the offering of an equivalent. 2. For being over all, the Word of God naturally by offering His own temple and corporeal instrument for the life33 of all satisfied the debt by His death. And thus He, the incorruptible Son of God, being conjoined with all by a like nature, naturally clothed all with incorruption, by the promise of the resurrection. For the actual corruption in death has no longer holding-ground against men, by reason of the Word, which by His one body has come to dwell among them. NPNF2: Vol. IV, On the Incarnation of the Word, §9, 1-2. |
Athanasius (297-373): We have, then, now stated in part, as far as it was possible, and as ourselves had been able to understand, the reason of His bodily appearing; that it was in the power of none other to turn the corruptible to incorruption, except the Savior Himself, that had at the beginning also made all things out of naught and that none other could create anew the likeness of God’s image for men, save the Image of the Father; and that none other could render the mortal immortal, save our Lord Jesus Christ, Who is the Very Life; and that none other could teach men of the Father, and destroy the worship of idols, save the Word, that orders all things and is alone the true Only-begotten Son of the Father. 2. But since it was necessary also that the debt owing from all should be paid again: for, as I have already said, it was owing that all should die, for which especial cause, indeed, He came among us: to this intent, after the proofs of His Godhead from His works, He next offered up His sacrifice also on behalf of all, yielding His Temple to death in the stead of all, in order firstly to make men quit and free of their old trespass, and further to shew Himself more powerful even than death, displaying His own body incorruptible, as first-fruits of the resurrection of all. 3. And do not be surprised if we frequently repeat the same words on the same subject. For since we are speaking of the counsel of God, therefore we expound the same sense in more than one form, lest we should seem to be leaving anything out, and incur the charge of inadequate treatment: for it is better to submit to the blame of repetition than to leave out anything! that ought to be set down. 4. The body, then, as sharing the same nature with all, for it was a human body, though by an unparalleled miracle it was formed of a virgin only, yet being mortal, was to die also, conformably to its peers. But by virtue of the union of the Word with it, it was no longer subject to corruption according to its own nature, but by reason of the Word that was come to dwell in it was placed out of the reach of corruption. 5. And so it was that two marvels came to pass at once, that the death of all was accomplished in the Lord’s body, and that death and corruption were wholly done away by reason of the Word that was united with it. For there was need of death, and death must needs be suffered on behalf of all, that the debt owing from all might be paid. 6. Whence, as I said before, the Word, since it was not possible for Him to die, as He was immortal, took to Himself a body such as could die, that He might offer it as His own in the stead of all, and as suffering, through His union with it, on behalf of all, “Bring to naught Him that had the power of death, that is the devil; and might deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.” NPNF2: Vol. IV, On the Incarnation of the Word, §20, 1-6.
Athanasius (297-373): And thus much in reply to those without who pile up arguments for themselves. But if any of our own people also inquire, not from love of debate, but from love of learning, why He suffered death in none other way save on the Cross, let him also be told that no other way than this was good for us, and that it was well that the Lord suffered this for our sakes. 2. For if He came Himself to bear the curse laid upon us, how else could He have “become a curse,” unless He received the death set for a curse? and that is the Cross. For this is exactly what is written: “Cursed is he that hangeth on a tree.” NPNF2: Vol. IV, On the Incarnation of the Word, §25, 1-2.
Athanasius (297-373): He is the Life of all, and He it is that as a sheep yielded His body to death as a substitute, for the salvation of all, even though the Jews believe it not. NPNF2: Vol. IV, On the Incarnation of the Word, §38, 7.
Algo1 | Jun 8, '11 7:36 pm |
Re: Do Catholics believe in imputed righteousness?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Algo1 (Post 7960592) Do Roman Catholics likewise deny "Penal Substitution"? |
Quote:
Originally Posted by guanophore (Post 7960708) The idea of penal subsitution came from Calvin, who was a lawyer, and enjoyed the forensic conception of Christian doctrine. |
Did it come directly from Calvin?
Or did he possibly glean it from ECFs like Augustine and others?
Quote:
Augustine (354-430) commenting on Gal. 3:13: He, therefore, who was made a curse for us, certainly is the one who hung on a tree—Christ, who set us free from the curse of the law that we might no longer be justified in fear by works of the law but by faith before God, which works not through fear but through love. For the Holy Spirit, speaking through Moses, provided for both in such a way that those who were not yet able to live by faith in invisible things might be restrained by fear of visible punishment, and Christ himself might break down that fear by taking upon himself the thing that was feared and, once the fear was taken away, bestow the gift of love. Nor is it to be thought an insult to the Lord that the one who hangs on a tree is called cursed. Indeed, in his mortal aspect he hung on a tree, but believers know the origin of our mortality—it comes from the penalty and curse for the sin of the first human being, which the Lord took upon himself and bore our sins in his body on the tree (1 Pet. 2:24). See Eric Plumer, Augustine’s Commentary on Galatians: Introduction, Text, Translation, and Notes (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), p. 161. Latin Text Qui ergo pro nobis factus est maledictum, ipse utique pependit in ligno, id est, Christus, qui nos liberavit a maledicto Legis; ut non jam timore justificaremur in operibus Legis, sed fide apud Deum, quae non per timorem, sed per dilectionem operatur. Spiritus enim sanctus, qui hoc per Moysen dixit, utrumque providit, ut et timore visibilis poenae custodirentur qui nondum poterant ex invisibilium fide vivere; et ipse timorem istum solveret suscipiendo quod timebatur, qui timore sublato donum dare poterat charitatis. Nec in hoc quod maledictus est appellatus qui pendet in ligno, contumelia in Dominum putanda est. Ex parte quippe mortali pependit in ligno: mortalitas autem unde sit, notum est credentibus; ex poena quippe est, et maledictione peccati*primi hominis, quam Dominus suscepit, et peccata nostra pertulit in corpore suo super lignum* (I Petr. II, 24).*Expositio Epistulae ad Galatas, §22, PL 35:2120. Augustine (354-430): Thus the good and true Mediator showed that it is sin which is evil, and not the substance or nature of flesh; for this, together with the human soul, could without sin be both assumed and retained, and laid down in death, and changed to something better by resurrection. He showed also that death itself, although the punishment of sin, was submitted to by Him for our sakes without sin, and must not be evaded by sin on our part, but rather, if opportunity serves, be borne for righteousness’ sake. For he was able to expiate sins by dying, because He both died, and not for sin of His own. NPNF1: Vol. II, The City of God, Book X, Chapter 24. Augustine (354-430): Begotten and conceived, then, without any indulgence of carnal lust, and therefore bringing with Him no original sin, and by the grace of God joined and united in a wonderful and unspeakable way in one person with the Word, the Only-begotten of the Father, a son by nature, not by grace, and therefore having no sin of His own; nevertheless, on account of the likeness of sinful flesh in which He came, He was called sin, that He might be sacrificed to wash away sin. For, under the Old Covenant. sacrifices for sin were called sins. And He, of whom all these sacrifices were types and shadows, was Himself truly made sin. Hence the apostle, after saying, “We pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God,” forthwith adds: “for He hath made Him to be sin for us who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.” He does not say, as some incorrect copies read, “He who knew no sin did sin for us,” as if Christ had Himself sinned for our sakes; but he says, “Him who knew no sin,” that is, Christ, God, to whom we are to be reconciled, “hath made to be sin for us,” that is, hath made Him a sacrifice for our sins, by which we might be reconciled to God. He, then, being made sin, just as we are made righteousness (our righteousness being not our own, but God’s, not in ourselves, but in Him); He being made sin, not His own, but ours, not in Himself, but in us, showed, by the likeness of sinful flesh in which He was crucified, that though sin was not in Him, yet that in a certain sense He died to sin, by dying in the flesh which was the likeness of sin; and that although He Himself had never lived the old life of sin, yet by His resurrection He typified our new life springing up out of the old death in sin. NPNF1: Vol. III, Enchiridion, On Faith, Hope and Love, Chapter 41. |
Augustine (354-430): He, then, being made sin, just as we are made righteousness (our righteousness being not our own, but God’s, not in ourselves, but in Him); He being made sin, not His own, but ours, not in Himself, but in us, showed, by the likeness of sinful flesh in which He was crucified,... NPNF1: Vol. III, The Enchiridion, Chapter 41. |
(Notice: Christ was never "infused" with sin, and Christ is the parallel Augustine uses with "us" here.)
Quote:
Augustine (354-430): He did no sin, neither was any guile found in His mouth; who, when He was reviled, reviled not again; and as a lamb before its shearer is dumb, so He opened not His mouth; to whom the prince of this world came, and found nothing in Him; whom, though He had done no sin, God made sin for us. NPNF1: Vol. V, On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants, Book III, Chapter 13. Augustine (354-430): He says this, of course, of the whole Church, which, by itself, He frequently also calls by the name of the world: as when it is said, “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself.” He says this, of course, of the whole Church, which, by itself, He frequently also calls by the name of the world: as when it is said, “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself.” And this also: “The Son of man came not to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.” And John says in his epistle: “We have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: and He is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also [for those] of the whole world.” The whole world then is the Church , and yet the whole world hateth the Church. The world therefore hateth the world, the hostile that which is reconciled, the condemned that which is saved, the polluted that which is cleansed. 3. But that world which God is in Christ reconciling unto Himself, which is saved by Christ, and has all its sins freely pardoned by Christ, has been chosen out of the world that is hostile, condemned, and defiled. For out of that mass, which has all perished in Adam, are formed the vessels of mercy, whereof that world of reconciliation is composed, that is hated by the world which belongeth to the vessels of wrath that are formed out of the same mass and fitted to destruction. Finally, after saying, “If ye were of the world, the world would love its own,” He immediately added, “But because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.” And so these men were themselves also of that world, and, that they might no longer be of it, were chosen out of it, through no merit of their own, for no good works of theirs had preceded; and not by nature, which through free-will had become totally corrupted at its source: but gratuitously, that is, of actual grace. For He who chose the world out of the world, effected for Himself, instead of finding, what He should choose: for “there is a remnant saved according to the election of grace. And if by grace,” he adds, “then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace.” NPNF1: Vol. VII, Tractates on John, Tractate LXXXVII, §2-3, John 15:17-19. |
guanophore | Jun 8, '11 10:05 pm |
Re: Do Catholics believe in imputed righteousness?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Algo1 (Post 7963667) Is it possible that St. Anselm got his theories regarding Atonement from Scripture and from Early Church Writers? |
Without doubt.
But they have since expanded beyond the boundaries of the once for all divine deposit of faith to the Church.
guanophore | Jun 8, '11 10:11 pm |
Re: Do Catholics believe in imputed righteousness?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Algo1 (Post 7963858) Christ's propitiation in which HE bore the wrath of GOD The Father on the cross was indeed a suffering beyond what any one sinner could ever experience in hell. Yes, as a Penal Substitutionary Atonement. |
These notions emanate from the Reformation, and the heresies introduced by Calvin. As an attorney, he was looked at Christian theology through the forensic lens.
They represent a departure from what the Apostles believed and taught.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Algo1 (Post 7965432) Did it come directly from Calvin? Or did he possibly glean it from ECFs like Augustine and others? continued: |
Gleaned, certainly. And this is the major source of the trouble. The gospel is to be RECEIVED from those who are authorized by Christ to transmit it. It is not to be "gleaned" from the pages of books, however holy. Every time a Christian has attempted to "glean" the Gospel from the pages, errors result. The "gleaning" method is insufficient.
To be continued in part #4
Posts
