this idea of imputed righteousness...
-
-
Fifth Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 07/25/2012
Location: USA
Hilaire Belloc, in his book on Luther writes about his attempt to disprove the Doctrine of Transubstantiation. Luther found Aquinas extremely difficult to study, with all the legalisms and technicalities on how God is present, where He is present, does He go over, around, or through the Host, when exactly does the Holy Spirit come upon the Gifts and make them Holy, etc.. Of course one can understand his frustration(anyone here ever tried to read Thomistic Scholasticism)? Months later he simply declared that Aquinas was wrong. Aquinas never should have assumed that God works through legalisms in the Sacraments. Jesus said, "This is My Body, not "This will become My Body." "The priest has no power to change it, He is always present." Thus came what Lutherans call Sacramental Union or "Consubstantiation. It would seem that this idea of imputed righteousness came about in a similar way. Try as I might, I cannot figure out the origin of this concept. While Luther may not have been the originator he was certainly an adherent, as it fit hand-in hand with his "faith alone" doctrine. And yes, I am familiar with Romans 4:3 but that is different. Why can't non-Catholic Christians accept spiritual growth as a work in progress instead of this "Zap!" "I'm saved" mentality?
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 01/25/2012
Location: USA
The threat of formal excommunication probably "hurried along" Luther's theories on Sacramental Union... imputed righteousness and his belief in "faith alone".
-
-
Fourth Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 01/17/2007
Location: USA
I doubt that anyone would mistake Luther for a systematic theologian.
In the end, it was about him and relief from his mental struggles.
Something that you will rarely find is a thorough study of the word logizomai by Protestants as used in scripture (NT and the Hebrew equivalent in the Septuagint). This word is often translated in English as imputed and the basis of the Protestant idea of courtroom salvation as opposed to through the family room.
The correct understanding of this word is foundational to reformation soteriology. The majority just take it for granted; that it is, in effect, a legal fiction.
Devin Rose (former Protestant and blogger) has done a thorough investigation on this subject. He also quotes as many Protestant sources as he can find.
In the end he demonstrates:
1.) The typical Protestant understanding of logizomai and thus, imputed righteousness has no biblical foundation.
2.) Most Protestant commentaries simply assert the faulty interpretation and/or rely on what others have stated.
3.) While some Protestant scholars have concluded that there is no grammatical basis for the Protestant use of logizomai, they appear to be unwilling to take the next logical step.
4.) For the few Protestant scholars who have come to the conclusion that imputed righteousness is not biblical, shunning is often the result. This may be a possible answer to 3.)
If you have time, please read this thorough study:
http://www.devinrose.heroicvirtuecreations.com/blog/2012/06/12/a-study-on-imputation-of-righteousness/
-
-
Fifth Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 07/25/2012
Location: USA
Thanks for responding. I found Devin Rose's commentary informative. Basically it confirms what I've thought all along. No denomination wants to claim this baby. This concept seems to be the root of discord between Catholics and Protestants when it comes to Salvation. It is a dangerous mindset for any Christian to think God will not take their sins into account, because Jesus paid it all on the cross. Of course Catholics believe He paid it all as well. That is why we say we are REDEEMED rather than saved. Stalin, Hitler and Mao Tse-tung were born in a world redeemed by Christ's Death and Resurrection. Were they saved as well? Calvin and the Dutch Reformed church were forced to adopt another doctrine called Limited Atonement which states that Christ did not redeem the whole world, just the "elect." Heresy begets heresy. For a Catholic to be saved is a lifelong process, starting with our Baptism and the continued acceptance of His grace into our lives. If we are open to His graces and continue on the path of righteousness He will guide you through. Take His Hand and He will lead you home.
-
-
- -1209reputation
- 6732 Posts
Member since 03/06/2010
Location: United Kingdom
quote:
Originally posted by bwellmysoul
The threat of formal excommunication probably "hurried along" Luther's theories on Sacramental Union... imputed righteousness and his belief in "faith alone".
It was God who told Luther that the "Just shall live by faith", NOT BY WORKS, See Eph 2: 8-9.
But the catholics don't accept or believe the Bible, So the do penance, works of satisfaction and indulgencies in order to get forgiven and right with God.
Proving the catholics believe the pope's porkies rather than the Bible.
-
-
Fifth Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 07/25/2012
Location: USA
...ahem... anyway,Rose claims that more and more Protestants are quickly abandoning this whole concept. The more they read and study the Scriptures to support this, the more disillusioned they become. If they are honest people seeking the Truth, they will come to this conclusion. The Calvinist doctrine of Limited Atonement, once so popular as little as 50 years ago is virtually dead, surviving in a couple of offshoots in the Baptist faith. Maybe imputed righteousness will meet a similar fate.
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 01/25/2012
Location: USA
quote:
Originally posted by God4me
quote:
Originally posted by bwellmysoul
The threat of formal excommunication probably "hurried along" Luther's theories on Sacramental Union... imputed righteousness and his belief in "faith alone".
It was God who told Luther that the "Just shall live by faith", NOT BY WORKS, See Eph 2: 8-9.
But the catholics don't accept or believe the Bible, So the do penance, works of satisfaction and indulgencies in order to get forgiven and right with God.
Proving the catholics believe the pope's porkies rather than the Bible.
It was the Resurrected Christ who established Reconciliation through His Apostolic Church.
Does your denomination have a ministry of reconciliation delegated by Christ for absolving the repentant of their mortal sin?
Does your denomination even acknowledge the existance of mortal sin?
Another "Once Saved Always Saved" denomination following man-made doctrine?
Edited by bwellmysoul on 07/31/2012 10:21:09
-
-
Fourth Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 01/17/2007
Location: USA
Just for clarification and giving proper credit. This study was posted on Devin Rose's blog, but appears to have been researched and written by another Catholic blogger named Nick.
Since this is such a lynchpin subject for Protestantism, Devin is likely hosting the study to increase exposure.
-
-
Fifth Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 07/25/2012
Location: USA
well, whoever it was certainly did their homework on the subject. Thanks again!
-
-
Fifth Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 07/25/2012
Location: USA
It was by accident that the best answer was selected already. I would like to continue this thread if we can. Gee, this is a little awkward for me. Sorry, bewell.
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 01/25/2012
Location: USA
I've hit that botton by mistake as well :)
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 07/10/2003
Location: Germany
I wished a bible verse would have been used for this topic, but sence Catholic don't let the bible get in the way of thier philosophy I can understand why no bible scriptures to support the grace imputed righteousness, given to us by Christ!
Is this too good to be true that it only a idea and not a big part of the Christian Gospel?
Ro:5:19: For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.
Ro:5:20: Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound:
2 Corinthians 5:21
English Standard Version (ESV)
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.
one love
I may or may not believe coming forward is a necessary condition for salvation. But, if I clearly taught elsewhere that repentance/belief alone was sufficient no one would think coming forward is necessary for salvation,or water baptism is necessary for salvation.
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 01/25/2012
Location: USA
quote:
...so by the obedience of One shall many be made righteous.
quote:
...so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.
And, people "might become" and "many be made" righteous through Reconciliation with His Apostolic Church.
Sacrament of Reconciliation, a ministry required by Christ in the Catholic Church.
Biblical.
Sacrament of the Eucharist, the celebration of Christ as He required been done, at the Last Supper. As the Apostles and the Early Church celebrated.
Biblical.
quote:
...but sence Catholic don't let the bible get in the way of thier philosophy...
More "kicking against the goad".
Edited by bwellmysoul on 08/02/2012 10:38:26
-
-
Fourth Member
Contact:
PM
Member since 01/17/2007
Location: USA
Evan,
It actually included a link to a study that looked at every instance of logizomai and its conjugates in scripture. It also made references to many other passages of scripture. It also looked at tons of early church writings that refer to scripture. Try paying attention before you type next time.
If scripture consistently shows that there is no precedence (etymologically, contextually or historically) for 'logizomai' meaning placing a label on something that has no basis in objective reality, then the Protestant concept of imputed forensic righteousness is indeed legal fiction and remains an invention by a scrupulous man who refused to trust in God's forgiveness (Luther). That's right. According to this philosophy, God decided to hide what it meant to be justified for 1500 years until a German monk just happened to discover it.
Romans 5:19 says many will be made righteous, not stamped as righteous. This exposes your very limited view of grace as akin to welfare.
In 2Cor 5:21, you need to read the verses that preceeded this, because otherwise Paul is just loosing his train of thougt. He was previously speaking about his ministry of reconciliation and exhorted Christians to be reconciled to God.
Jesus did not become sin in the literal sense. He was a offering for sin (Romans 8:3), just as the lamb in the OT. He never belonged to the devil through sin. If He did, he was not God and the Trinity ceased to exist.
This idea that Jesus went to hell and suffered it's eternal torments is another invention of the 16th century by those who make Christ a sinner and make God the Father unjust in punishing an innocent man.
Also notice that it says that we may become the righteousness of God in Him. Again, speaking to Christians he is speaking of a process, present tense subjunctive - that we might become the righteousness of God. Apparently, they were not yet fully the righteousness of God. Paul includes himself by using we.
Where is the idea of one time legal, forensic, mysterious fictitous transfer of righteousness for sin in either of these passages. They both speak of ongoing realities IN CHRIST.
This is probably the biggest of the flaws in Protestant soteriology. It is ironic that you speak of scripture as your final authority (unbiblical), yet appeal to an unbiblical definition for a biblical word (logizomai) as the central proof.
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 07/10/2003
Location: Germany
quote:
Originally posted by jdubya
Evan,
It actually included a link to a study that looked at every instance of logizomai and its conjugates in scripture. It also made references to many other passages of scripture. It also looked at tons of early church writings that refer to scripture. Try paying attention before you type next time.
If scripture consistently shows that there is no precedence (etymologically, contextually or historically) for 'logizomai' meaning placing a label on something that has no basis in objective reality, then the Protestant concept of imputed forensic righteousness is indeed legal fiction and remains an invention by a scrupulous man who refused to trust in God's forgiveness (Luther). That's right. According to this philosophy, God decided to hide what it meant to be justified for 1500 years until a German monk just happened to discover it.
Romans 5:19 says many will be made righteous, not stamped as righteous. This exposes your very limited view of grace as akin to welfare.
In 2Cor 5:21, you need to read the verses that preceeded this, because otherwise Paul is just loosing his train of thougt. He was previously speaking about his ministry of reconciliation and exhorted Christians to be reconciled to God.
Jesus did not become sin in the literal sense. He was a offering for sin (Romans 8:3), just as the lamb in the OT. He never belonged to the devil through sin. If He did, he was not God and the Trinity ceased to exist.
This idea that Jesus went to hell and suffered it's eternal torments is another invention of the 16th century by those who make Christ a sinner and make God the Father unjust in punishing an innocent man.
Also notice that it says that we may become the righteousness of God in Him. Again, speaking to Christians he is speaking of a process, present tense subjunctive - that we might become the righteousness of God. Apparently, they were not yet fully the righteousness of God. Paul includes himself by using we.
Where is the idea of one time legal, forensic, mysterious fictitous transfer of righteousness for sin in either of these passages. They both speak of ongoing realities IN CHRIST.
This is probably the biggest of the flaws in Protestant soteriology. It is ironic that you speak of scripture as your final authority (unbiblical), yet appeal to an unbiblical definition for a biblical word (logizomai) as the central proof.
I guess you can't understand righteousness as a gift in Romans 5 because you don't know what is the meaning of the grace gift, and that can only make you based on works and self performance and merits and you need alot of point to earn before boasting about any catholic righteousness !
Sad!
one love
I may or may not believe coming forward is a necessary condition for salvation. But, if I clearly taught elsewhere that repentance/belief alone was sufficient no one would think coming forward is necessary for salvation,or water baptism is necessary for salvation.
-
-
Contact:
PM
Member since 07/10/2003
Location: Germany
I may or may not believe coming forward is a necessary condition for salvation. But, if I clearly taught elsewhere that repentance/belief alone was sufficient no one would think coming forward is necessary for salvation,or water baptism is necessary for salvation.
|
|
Subscribe by Email
RSS