"Protestant/Catholic Discussion On
Imputed Righteousness"
The following exchange between Tom and an apologist from
a prominent Protestant apologetics website took place from October to December 2001.The content of the Protestant’s response is
in blue.
Tom wrote:
If justification is imputed, not infused, how can I produce a “saving faith”
by my own efforts?If it is the work of the
Spirit in me, how is that not infused?Thank
You!
Tom
Protestant apologist wrote:
Roman
Catholicism confuses, if not combines, the effects of both justification and
sanctification. The Bible teaches that justification is a forensic act by God (Romans
4:1-5), while sanctification is both an ongoing work by God and a one-time act.
We are sanctified by Christ (set apart for His purpose), but we are also being sanctified
(made holy, living godly, etc.) every day until He takes us home. The process of
sanctification is something we participate in.
We
flee evil and sin. We resist temptation. We live lives that honor and glorify
God. However, we understand that God is the source of our strength and ability to do
so. He does this by His Holy Spirit, whom all believers receive upon regeneration (1
Corinthians 12:13). It is a humbling thing, to say the least, to be counted as
receiving the sovereign grace of God in Christ. It isn't anything we can "pat
ourselves on the back" about.
Tom wrote:
Dear Sir:
Thank you for your response to my email.I
hope you don’t mind if I impose on your patience once again.I have read many books – both Protestant and
Catholic - on the subject of justification.Your
e-mail leads me to ask if it is possible to be justified without subsequently being
sanctified?If it is not, then how does it
matter if a person says that justification works an inward change, or the sanctification
that immediately follows does?While it is
certainly necessary to get a common terminology, surely the break up of Christianity
wasn’t over what word to attach to a common understanding?I would appreciate your thoughts on the following:
Neither side teaches that human effort can earn the gift of going from an unjustified
state to a state of justification:
“…faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation, and the root of
all Justification; without which it is impossible to please God, and to come unto the
fellowship of His sons: but we are therefore said to be justified freely, because that
none of those things which precede justification-whether faith or works-merit the grace
itself of justification. For, if it be a grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the
same Apostle says, grace is no more grace.”(Council
of Trent, Sixth Session, Chapter VIII)
“If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether
done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God
through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.”(Council
of Trent, Sixth Session, Canon I)
It seems to me also that both sides teach that the “works” - including the
act of having faith itself - done after the grace of justification (or regeneration as the
case may be), are a result of God's action within us (i.e., Galatians 2:20).Protestants express this as “saving faith
produces good works,” “saving faith is a result of regeneration,” etc.Catholics seem to express this as “infused
righteousness,” or as the Council of Trent put it:
“Thus, neither is our own justice established as our own as from ourselves; nor
is the justice of God ignored or repudiated: for that justice which is called ours,
because that we are justified from its being inherent in us, that same is (the justice) of
God, because that it is infused into us of God, through the merit of Christ. Neither is
this to be omitted, that although, in the sacred writings, so much is attributed to good
works, that Christ promises, that even He that shall give a drink of cold water to one of
His least ones, shall not lose his reward; and the Apostle testifies that, that which is
at present momentary and light of our tribulation, worketh for us above measure
exceedingly an eternal weight of glory; nevertheless God forbid that a Christian should
either trust or glory in himself, and not in the Lord, whose bounty towards all men is so
great, that He will have the things which are His own gifts be their merits.” (Council
of Trent, Sixth Session, Chapter XVI) (Emphasis mine.)
It seems to me that this clearly means that anything good in us is a result of
God’s work within us.This also seems to
me to be the point you are expressing by the words:“We
flee evil and sin.We resist
temptation.”, etc.Which is certainly a
“work” – or “response,” if you prefer, on our part that God
enables us to do because of our “new heart” given in regeneration.Of course, all of this is because of Christ’s
work on the cross.Furthermore, if the
Reformed position is correct, then a regenerated man has no choice but to have saving
faith later on.And if that is the case,
then the Protestant position would more accurately be called “regeneration
alone,” rather than “faith alone.”
Thus I think that the Council of Trent agrees with you when you say:
It
is a humbling thing, to say the least, to be counted as receiving the sovereign grace of
God in Christ. It isn't anything we can "pat ourselves on the back" about.
Once
again, I fail to see how this is not the same thing Trent is saying by the words:
“…none
of those things which precede justification - whether faith or works - merit the grace
itself of justification.” (Quoted above)
What
I’m getting at is that it is difficult using common sense rules of language to
reconcile statements such as the following:
“It is one of the primary errors of the Romish Church
that it regards justification as the infusion of grace, as renewal and sanctification
whereby we are made holy . . . Justification does not mean to make holy or upright . .
.” (John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied, Eerdmans, 1955, pgs. 118
and 119).
It is difficult to believe that the same author that said infused righteousness was
the error of the Romish Church on page 118 writes the following on page 122:
“Justification means to declare or pronounce to be righteous.When equity is maintained such a declaration or
pronouncement implies that the righteous state or standing declared to be presupposed in
the declaration. . . . The declaration of the fact presupposes the fact which is declared
to be.”(John Murray, Redemption
Accomplished and Applied, pg. 122).
I appreciate your time in allowing me to bother you again.After researching the subject extensively, I am
unable to conclude that there is any difference in substance between the two positions.I hope that I have been able to sufficiently
articulate why in this brief treatment of the subject.I am therefore forced to conclude that any one wishing to maintain that there is a
substantial difference either has insufficient understanding of what the other side is
saying, or wishes to remain obstinate in the face of the evidence.
Your servant in Christ,
Tom
Protestant response:
I
believe that the Scriptures clearly teach that when we are justified, we are also
sanctified, in the sense that we are separated from the realm of darkness and death.
There is also teaching in the sanctification of the believer as they grow in the grace and
knowledge of the Lord. This sanctification is an ongoing process.
The
distinction has been made--and needs to be--because Scripture makes the distinction.
Those who teach justification is an "infused" change of the believer, also
portray the idea that one can lose the "grace of justification," that we are
required to earn our salvation ("works" salvation), and other errors.
There
was much, much more "protested." The Reformation was triggered by the need
of truth from the Scriptures which were being held hostage by Rome. She was guilty
of using Scripture for her own greed gain, with indulgences, ideas of purgatory, and
dependence on the priests of Rome for forgiveness, all contributed to examples of
violations of God's truth.
I
was going to drop it because he seemed deliberately evasive, but he wrote again:
Trent
follows with 33 Canons which emphasize that man cannot be justified by trust or faith in
Christ, but that works are necessary. Trent is clear to state that
"anathema" is declared to those who have "confidence in the divine mercy
which remits sin for Christ's sake," or anyone "certain, of any absolute and
infallible certainty, have the perseverance unto the end," and that "the
obtaining the remission of sins, [one] believes for certain and without any wavering
arising in his own infirmity and indispositions that his sins are forgiven," they are
"anathema" by Rome. Sounds like quite a difference from the Reformers'
cry.
Simply
reading the "anathemas" of Trent and *why* one is anathema'd, you can't escape
the differences.
Tom
wrote:
Dear Sir:
I apologize for my imprecision.I did
not intend to suggest that Catholics and Protestants agree on everything.I know that is not the case.I was intending to say that both sides agree on
the question of inner transformation.
Reformed Protestants say that one is “given a new heart,” “made a new
creature,” etc. in regeneration, which then enables one to have a “saving
faith.”Catholics call this
“infused righteousness.”If the
sinner was already interiorly transformed in regeneration, what is the meaning of
“imputed, forensic righteousness?”
This is the question that I was trying to ask, not about assurance, perseverance,
etc.; which are distinct - albeit related - issues.I
appreciate your thoughts.
Protestant response:
The
imputed, forensic righteousness is what is accomplished in *justification,* not in
*regeneration.* There is also *sanctification* whereby the believer is continually
sanctified, or walking in holiness, living right, staying away from evil, etc. The
distinctions are made because we believe the Bible makes them. Rome teaches that
justification changes the believer. We believe it changes them *positionally* with
God, not like regeneration does *actually* or *practically.* Does this help?
Tom
wrote:
Dear Sir:
I believe the quote from John Calvin below is
representative of the typical explanation of justification given by Protestants:
"There is no doubt that it is entirely by the
intervention of Christ’s righteousness that we obtain justification before God.This is equivalent to saying that man is not just
in himself, but that the righteousness of Christ is communicated to him by imputation,
when really he deserves punishment.So
we can dismiss the absurd dogma that man is justified by faith because it brings him under
the influence of God’s spirit, by whom the sinner is made righteous.”
(John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 11, #23, emphasis
mine).
In your last e-mail you said that Reformed Protestants
believe regeneration does change the believer.Given
that to be the case, would it not make more sense for Protestants to argue their case for
justification in the following way:
“We also believe that the sinner is inwardly made
righteous/ just, but we are saying that the inward righteousness occurs in regeneration
not justification.”
Of course, this begs the question if it is possible for a
person to be regenerated and not be justified; if justification is only a positional
change of a regenerated person - who although he is inwardly renewed, he is still not
justified (?) - to a state of being declared justified?If regeneration and justification are simultaneous, then the Protestant case is a
distinction without a difference and only semantic gymnastics.If a person can be inwardly renewed and not be
justified, does this not mean free will exists?If
the regenerated person is infallibly bound to be “declared justified” someday,
once again is this not a distinction without a difference and just playing games with
words?
I am not, of course, questioning what the Bible teaches.I am questioning - if you will permit me - whether
your interpretation is correct.No offense
intended.
Sorry to continue bothering you but I appreciate your
thoughts.
Tom
Protestant response:
Like Calvin pointed out: "the intervention of
Christ's righteousness that we obtain justification *before God*."
No one is regenerated who has not been justified by
God. One "gets the whole thing" or nothing (Romans 8:29-30).
As I stated before, the distinction must be made between
*justification* and *regeneration.*
Justification is a one-time act by God, while regeneration
can be a process whereby God draws one to Himself and brings man to the recognition of his
sin and need for God.
I don't believe that can happen.
Tom
wrote:
Dear
Sir:
You
wrote:
“We
believe it [justification] changes them *positionally* with God, not like regeneration
does *actually* or *practically.*”
Then
you wrote:
“No
one is regenerated who has not been justified by God. One "gets the whole
thing" or nothing (Romans 8:29-30).”
In
other words, the justified sinner is made inwardly righteous at the point of going from an
unjustified state to a justified state; we just have to call it an “r” word
instead of a “j” word. How can I possibly not think that you are just
obfuscating?
Your
servant in Christ,
Tom
Protestant
response:
I am not sure that I stated that justification made
someone "inwardly righteous." The Bible teaches that we are justified BY
GOD and we are justified IN HIS EYES. It is a forensic righteousness. We are
"counted" or "considered" righteous before God, not necessarily before
our enemies or skeptics (see Romans 4:1-5 and consider what Paul is saying).
Now, once God justifies someone, He promises to regenerate
them, sanctify them, keep them, etc. (Romans 8:29-30).
I don't think this is too hard to believe *IF* one
believes the truths of the Bible.
Final Comment by Tom:
I am not going to reply; it seems like a waste of time to continue.Obviously his response to the logical dilemma he
is in is that “the Bible teaches it.”How
do we know the Bible teaches it?Because
interpreting it this way supports his theology, of course.Never mind that such an interpretation is illogical - which is the whole point oftrying to understand a text - isn’t it?If an interpretation is unreasonable, isn’t
that a good reason to conclude that we have misinterpreted it?
When a person says that “justification” does not work an inward change, but
the “regeneration” that happens simultaneously does, how can anyone think that
he is not just obfuscating in order to find an excuse to disagree?You can call the inward change whatever you wish -
“justification,” “regeneration,” or “chop suey” for all I
care - the point is that it happens.Therefore,
Protestant talk of extrinsic justification is no more than a sanctimonious bromide.
