Catholics vs. Protestants on Justification

First of all, regarding the article by Mr. Cross you referred me to: in the comments section, #2 & 6, we read,
1) "imputation is not biblical" ...and
2) "It seems obvious upon reflection that RC Sproul Jr. is forcing his theology on the text"

The charge of "forcing one's theology on the text" is beyond ridiculous and shows the depth of ignorance and hypocrisy amongst Catholics. Let me get this straight: We are to suppose that Catholics are exempt from the charge of "forcing their theology" into the Text, but Protestants are guilty of this? We are to suppose that even though most of Rome's peculiar doctrines are not explicitly mentioned, theyyyy get a free pass to believe anything they want because the Pope decided to appoint himself infallible in 1870?
Methinks these are the results of rejecting the purity of the gospel, and for that reason, "God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie" (2 Thess 2:11-12).

As for the doctrine of imputation being unbiblical; Catholics conveniently "forget" that they do indeed believe in the concept of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ (R.O.C.), but would prefer not to think about it because it gives too much credibility to the Protestant position.
Is it not true that somewhere out there in outer space, is a so-called "Treasury of Merit" which we are told contains all the "excess merits" of Christ and the saints (beyond that which was needed for them) which are then distributed piecemeal to the faithful via an indulgence to lessen punishment time in purgatory after the merit of a good work is accomplished? The merit of these good works via an indulgence are then "APPLIED" (says the catechism in #1471) to either the living or the dead. That is, (whether you like it or not) these "applied merits" are IMPUTED (not infused) to the individual. Again, there is no other way other than by theimputation of the R.O.C. that a Catholic may receive an indulgence; and as I told you last time, there is no other way other than by imputation, that sins were "applied" to the animal sacrifices, and there was no other way other than imputation than our sins were "applied" to Christ, and hence there is no other way other than by imputation, that righteousness may be "applied" to us in justification, whether Catholic orrrrr Protestant.

Moreover, at the get-go, the very word is used in Scripture over a dozen times---but "infusion" is no where used, so it is undeniable the non-Catholic certainly has a VERY good case to bring into court, especially when the very essence of our salvation hinges on it; namely, whereas the one act of Adam brought condemnation to us all, so too will the "one act of righteousness" bring justification to "many", per Romans 5. This "one act of righteousness, consisting of the entire scope of Christ's earthly life and death, must be imputed, because the act of one cannot be made the act of many, except by imputation!
Second, while I am sensitive to your time constraints, the fact remains that you've hop-scotched over a lot of what I've said without response; therefore, my objections stand. You can leave it that way if you wish. As long as I've gone on record in heaven as having done what I needed to do, I'm satisfied (Mal 3:16).

Mr. Cross says: "the case of the Pharisee does not justify the conclusion that those who believe that through baptism they have received by infusion the righteousness of Christ are ipso facto unjustified or condemned."

On the contrary, the R.O.C. is not infused at baptism or at any other time in the believer's life. Mr. Cross suffers from theological hemophilia, in that he has scratched his head and bleeds badly, failing to articulate the issue properly for his readers. The infusion of the R.O.C. that justifies, of which heeee speaks, is not Christ's own personal righteousness, as it is for Protestants. To be clear:
Since the R.O.C. is exclusively the Lord's own, it is ludicrous to suggest we can apprehend it personally via infusion. No such promise is even hinted at. When Paul said he knew that in his flesh dwelt no good thing (Rms 7:18) he did not at the same time console himself with the infusion of the R.O.C. Therefore, it did not exist then, nor does it now. When Catholics speak of the infusion of the R.O.C., they are not speaking of the actual R.O.C., but "A" righteousness which is infused BY Christ, as if it were some sort of metaphysical substance infused into them like a doctor's needle via the sacraments. Trent does not use the term "R.O.C.", but says Christ "continually infuses strength into those justified." Consequently, it is not Christ's personal righteousness, but "A" righteousness which provides the strength necessary to perform good works. When that person cooperates with this infused "strength", they then come to possess an "inherent righteousness" (according to Trent), manifested in good works via G.G. (#1821) which then become the ground of their justification. This theory is biblically bankrupt, for as I told you last time:

If it is a salvation based on works that come from grace, it is not based on grace---but on the Christian's works that come fromgrace.


Protestants, armed with Scripture and common sense, know they are co-heir's with Christ, as a bride is to her husband. A wife becomes co-heir simply by her union in marriage. There is no virtue or merit in that. She simply possesses what is his by that relationship. The marriage ceremony does not deserve or merit a reward, it simply brings the hubby's possessions along with him. This is essentially what is meant by imputation. The R.O.C. is exclusively His own. We have nothing to do with it personally and never will. But we can be partakers of that righteousness which He accomplished here on earth, in His doing and dying, by imputation. The justified one does not merit heaven by good works via G.G., but is clothed in the actual, earthbound R.O.C....

by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on Him and His righteousness, by faith
---Westminster Confession [Matt 22, Mark 9:3, Isa 61:10, Zech 3:3, Rms 13:14, Rev 3:5].


The concept of being "in Christ" (pervasive throughout the Text) allows God to view us AS IF this righteousness were our own, ...AS IF we had fulfilled the law and suffered its penalty---just as the state considers the wife's possession of her husband's goods, her own, AS IF she had paid for them herself.
Hence, "I will make mention of thy righteousness, even of thine only" (Ps 71:16)...He being called, "The Lord our Righteousness", because we are now said to be "the righteousness of God in Him" [Jesus]... (Jer 23:6, 2 Cor 5:21).

Mr. Cross says:

"The person who has received righteousness by infusion knows that he still possesses concupiscence... he is an unrighteous, unworthy sinner, and that he has a long, long way to go in growing in sanctification. He knows that he sins venially at least seven times a day."

NO. Rather, it is the doctrine of the imputation of the earthbound R.O.C. which allows the sinner to know he still has a long way to go in sanctification. The logical ramifications of the infusion of the R.O.C. (if it were true) should render a person pristine and infallible, with no room for "conforming to the likeness of Christ" as Scripture indicates....because they would already have it! However, since we do not see any perfect Catholics walking this planet; the claim is false due to their sinning all the day long.
While Trent says that this righteousness may increase, they may not say that it is the actual R.O.C. because the same CANNOT be increased. It is perfect as is. I will get to that shortly.

Protestants escape the ramifications of "infusion" (which begs the objection of "where is your perfect life?") by simply believing the promise of Christ to send the Holy Spirit to reside with believers 24/7, yet knowing He has seen fit to leave us in a constant battle with the flesh which pits itself against the Spirit (Rms 7:23, Gal 5:17).

Hence, Mr. Cross, by no means, proved his position. Quoting the fathers at great length on the Pharisee's mental state of mind was a complete waste of time, his point being that the Pharisee was full of pride----as if any Protestant ever denied it! His argument is an eloquent example of a strawman, and proves absolutely nothing.








As always, you are arguing from concepts outside the Text so you can wallow in the quagmire of being justified by your works. The Catholic game of splitting grace and merit into a bunch of different categories only serves to complicate and distort G.G. to the point of no return, and the "simplicity" of the gospel is then undermined (2 Cor 11:3).








Why of course they do. But that does not alleviate the problem of Catholics seeking to...
attain salvation through faith, Baptism and the observance of the Commandments (CCC 2068)., which makes these categories of merit, of no consequence on Judgment Day since the heartbeat of those in your camp is simply not resting in the merits of Christalone! The Bible speaks of being justified by "faith" (Rms 3), by His "blood" (Rms 5) and being justified "freely by His grace" (Rms 3:28). But Scripture does NOT confirm what #2068 declares.
At the end of the day, grace has become the medium of exchange in the RCC merit system. Is it any wonder that Catholics are always accused of "working to earn grace"--- (a contradiction in terms) try as you might to avoid it. The accusation is valid because the conclusion flows freely from your theology. You are told to do works, which result in G.G. The more of G.G. you have, the harder you work and the more G.G. you earn---yet all the while claiming G.G. is a free gift. However, this is arguing in a vicious circle. The Romanist says that the works resulting in G.G., are themselves a product of the previous grace! All of this "righteousness" is said to "increase" one's justification, per Trent. But we steadfastly refuse such chatter. Justification, according to the Bible, CANNOT "increase", nor can the actual R.O.C. increase, infused orrrr imputed. The R.O.C. imputed to our account is perfect as is, because, "In Him, you have been made complete." (Col 2:10). Sadly, a sense of completeness in a one time justification is unknown to every Catholic on earth due to a desire to "increase" their justification.

Again: the R.O.C. is perfect as is, per Mark 9:3, where Christ's own raiment is illustrative of what WE will be wearing. "It became exceedingly white as snow, so no fuller on earth can white them". In God's view, we are in desperate need of a change of clothing. That clothing is the righteousness of Christ which is described as something we wear, but which is actually something that is imputed to us. "He hath clothed me with the garments of salvation....covered me with the robe of righteousness....take away the filthy garment from her.....behold, I have caused thine iniquity to
pass from thee and I will clothe thee with a change of raiment" (Isa 61:10, Zech 3:3, Rev 3:5). Thus, we are asked to "PUT ON" the Lord Jesus Christ (Rms 13:14). The Catholic Church attempts to "add bleach" to the wash in the form of good works increasing (or making "whiter") our righteousness before God to the point that it renovates the sinner and now becomes acceptable at the bar of justice. Trent says that when someone is justified, "the robe given to them through Jesus Christ must be preserved [by good works] pure and spotless so that we may bear it before the Judgment Seat" (Session 6, chap. 7). NO WAY. The wedding garments of yesteryear were supplied by the Bridegroom! What a horrible thought to bear the unattainable burden of preserving a pure and spotless robe before the eyes of a thrice-holy God, agonizing all your life in a desperate attempt to keep it spot-free. No one on earth is capable of this, as Paul admits (Phil 3:12), which is why he wanted to be found, "NOT having a righteousness of my own" (3:9). The R.O.C. is perfect AS IS, since no fuller on earth can whiten it, and we are given this "gift of righteousness" WHOLE and ENTIRE, not piecemeal, by faith alone (Rms 5:17).






But when I say Scripture nowhere condemns the imputation of the R.O.C., but in fact supports it, I am rejected out of hand???

Paul said he, "labored more abundantly than they all...[oh my, even more than Peter the Pope?] with the grace of God bestowed upon me" (1 Cor 15:10). Though his conscience was clear, he knew that even with those grace-produced good works wrought out in sanctification, the verdict was still, "I AM NOT HEREBY JUSTIFIED" (1 Cor 4:4).





When Jesus says the man was thankful, and you say the man was not, I don't see how you can fault me for coming to a conclusion that flows naturally from your assertion.







The bulk of my comments do not indicate "slander" or "insult" as any reader can see. Scripture speaks of being "appointed" not only to believe on Him, but to also suffer for His name's sake. One wonders then when real persecution comes your way, if you will be able to bear it in light of a couple of sentences of rebuke on my part.
What is really insulting is Trent having the gall to say that if I do not "firmly and faithfully accept" their doctrine of justification, I"cannot be justified.". Thus, I am going to hell. So it appears fine for the RCC to imply I am going to hell, but you think I am out of order to imply similar sentiments?