Imputation Of Righteousness

[rkwright]

Someone brought this up today...

Wheres the scriptural smack down on this?

[thessalonian]

I see it as a false dichotomy between imputed vs. infused righteousness though leaning toward infused. Those who believe in imputed righteousness miss the boat on grace. That it is God just covering over our sins with Christ's righteousness.

Ezek.36

1. [25] I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you.

This is what Peter speaks of in his letters:
1Pet.3

1. [21] Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

But the sins are not just forgive and forget. They have damaged our souls and in baptism we are healed.

Yes, it is the righteousness of Christ that we put on. But that is not just symbolic. There are real changes immediately and we are totally sanctified. "we have been sanctified" Heb 10:10.

Edited October 5, 2009 by thessalonian

[Stormstopper]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='05 October 2009 - 05:14 PM' timestamp='1254780841' post='1978476']
I see it as a false dichotomy between imputed vs. infused righteousness though leaning toward infused. Those who believe in imputed righteousness miss the boat on grace. That it is God just covering over our sins with Christ's righteousness.

Ezek.36

1. [25] I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you.

This is what Peter speaks of in his letters:
1Pet.3

1. [21] Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

But the sins are not just forgive and forget. They have damaged our souls and in baptism we are healed.

Yes, it is the righteousness of Christ that we put on. But that is not just symbolic. There are real changes immediately and we are totally sanctified. "we have been sanctified" Heb 10:10.
[/quote]


[color="#006400"]Hey guys....I'm having a debate with Raphael on this topic in our debate on justification. From the outset, Thess is seriously and woefully out of line to suggest there is a false dicotomy between infused and imputed righteousness. You probably aren't even aware that your own church teaches the imputation of the righteousness of Christ!!! Now, all of your questions will be answered over there as we are submitting a rebuttal statement each Thursday. I suggest you tune in and examine both sides of the issue. Your eternal soul depends on it I might add.[/color]

[rkwright]

[quote name='Stormstopper' date='05 October 2009 - 11:21 PM' timestamp='1254802886' post='1978907']
[color="#006400"]Hey guys....I'm having a debate with Raphael on this topic in our debate on justification. From the outset, Thess is seriously and woefully out of line to suggest there is a false dicotomy between infused and imputed righteousness. You probably aren't even aware that your own church teaches the imputation of the righteousness of Christ!!! Now, all of your questions will be answered over there as we are submitting a rebuttal statement each Thursday. I suggest you tune in and examine both sides of the issue. Your eternal soul depends on it I might add.[/color]
[/quote]

Where is this thread?

[Stormstopper]

[quote name='rkwright' date='06 October 2009 - 09:28 AM' timestamp='1254839299' post='1979095']
Where is this thread?
[/quote]


"Debate on Justification"

[Starets]

[quote name='rkwright' date='06 October 2009 - 09:28 AM' timestamp='1254839299' post='1979095']
Where is this thread?
[/quote]
[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=98502"]Right here, RK[/url]

[thessalonian]

"You probably aren't even aware that your own church teaches the imputation of the righteousness of Christ!!!"

HA! HA! HA! incredibly funny. Isn't that extactly what I said. Do you even know what a false dichotomy is. Clearly not. What I said was that teaching imputed righteousness does not mean that imputed is false and vice versa. Catholicism is RARELY if ever either or. The bible is not either. But you are, that is clear.

Edited October 6, 2009 by thessalonian

[rkwright]

[quote name='Staretz' date='06 October 2009 - 10:52 AM' timestamp='1254844370' post='1979151']
[url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=98502"]Right here, RK[/url]
[/quote]

Thanks

[Stormstopper]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='06 October 2009 - 11:37 AM' timestamp='1254847030' post='1979172']
"You probably aren't even aware that your own church teaches the imputation of the righteousness of Christ!!!"

HA! HA! HA! incredibly funny. Isn't that extactly what I said. Do you even know what a false dichotomy is. Clearly not. What I said was that teaching imputed righteousness does not mean that imputed is false and vice versa. Catholicism is RARELY if ever either or. The bible is not either. But you are, that is clear.
[/quote]

Excuse me Mr. Thess, but there are OOOOOOOOOOdles of Cathoilcs I have interacted with who see NO such distinction between imputed and infused and I would always be accused of playing word games and it's all just "semantics" they'd say. Apparently, you know better, but how in the world was I supposed to know what view you take? In Catholicism, remember, everyone is notorious for holding their own opinion! ;-)
Besides, the topic of this thread has as a sub-heading, "Defeat it!" ....so it was only natural I thought you were TOTALLY and unalterably opposed.

By the way, I have been over this before. At Vatican 1 they made an ultimatum: "EITHER" you believe that Peter was the first pope, "ORRRRR" it's off to hell you go. Your statement that your church "RARELY" will fall into the either/or category, in light of the HUNDREDS of "either/or" anathemas she has dished out over time is a lame attempt at revisionist history and you should be ashamed of yourself. You should also be glad there are people around like me to correct you so you don't go to your grave believing one lie after another.

Now seriously, if there are any questions on this after you read the debates, I will be happy to answer as time permits.

Edited October 6, 2009 by Stormstopper

[rkwright]

[quote name='Stormstopper' date='06 October 2009 - 03:37 PM' timestamp='1254861459' post='1979391']
Excuse me Mr. Thess, but there are OOOOOOOOOOdles of Cathoilcs I have interacted with who see NO such distinction between imputed and infused and I would always be accused of playing word games and it's all just "semantics" they'd say. Apparently, you know better, but how in the world was I supposed to know what view you take? In Catholicism, remember, everyone is notorious for holding their own opinion! ;-)
Besides, the topic of this thread has as a sub-heading, "Defeat it!" ....so it was only natural I thought you were TOTALLY and unalterably opposed.

By the way, I have been over this before. At Vatican 1 they made an ultimatum: "EITHER" you believe that Peter was the first pope, "ORRRRR" it's off to hell you go. Your statement that your church "RARELY" will fall into the either/or category, in light of the HUNDREDS of "either/or" anathemas she has dished out over time is a lame attempt at revisionist history and you should be ashamed of yourself. You should also be glad there are people around like me to correct you so you don't go to your grave believing one lie after another.

Now seriously, if there are any questions on this after you read the debates, I will be happy to answer as time permits.
[/quote]

Sorry for the confusion, the "defeat it" was a semi-joke. Don't take it too seriously.

[dominicansoul]

storm, you seem a bit arrogant to me...isn't pride a vice? Jesus never went around with a smart alleck attitude teaching the Gospel with such arrogance...

So, you don't really get your point across...if you aren't going to speak of your beliefs with love, why would we be attracted to them?

I am more attracted to those who don't spend their times flapping lips like clashing cymbals, but more by the way people actually live Scripture...they make the Scriptures come alive...like the Word made Flesh (in imitation of Christ...)

One example of this is Mother Theresa...I find it hard to believe that woman was all wrong in her Faith...(after all, she was a Catholic...and by your standards, she misses the boat!) She did more to convert thousands to Christ by her life, than most preachers do by all the hatred they spew over what's wrong with the Catholic Church...

[Selah]

you said it far better than I, Dominicansoul

[StColette]

I believe Micah (Raphael) and Stormstopper are debating each other on this topic, I believe the topic is down the list a little bit in the Debate Table, it's called Debate on Justification.

[Stormstopper]

[quote name='dominicansoul' date='06 October 2009 - 03:48 PM' timestamp='1254862122' post='1979400']
storm, you seem a bit arrogant to me...isn't pride a vice? Jesus never went around with a smart alleck attitude teaching the Gospel with such arrogance...

So, you don't really get your point across...if you aren't going to speak of your beliefs with love, why would we be attracted to them?

I am more attracted to those who don't spend their times flapping lips like clashing cymbals, but more by the way people actually live Scripture...they make the Scriptures come alive...like the Word made Flesh (in imitation of Christ...)

[/quote]


Dominican,

When correcting the Galatians, Paul said, "Have I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth?"

The gospel is serious business and we see the apostle "disputing" in no less than 8 places in the book of Acts. I will send you the verses upon request. And Jesus said, "woe unto you if all men speak well of you". If everyone thinks you are the sweetest person, there must be a little something wrong with your ministry, Domini. There is going to be opposition, face it. Do you think John the Baptist was wrong to begin his ministry with, "You Brood of Vipers"?
Sometimes, stinging language will get people to check thinks out for themselves. You call me arrogant? I'm not saying anything that cannot be checked out for yourself and there are many falsehoods being tooted on this site. What would you have me say? "Darling, allow me to put a rose in my mouth and bat my eyes while I tell you where you have erred?"
You appear to be intimidated because I've studied the issues and have not come to the same conclusions as you. Oh sure--- There are many nicer Protestants who have NOT studied the issues and they will not offend you in the least. But when somebody HAS studied and finds serious wrongs in contradiction to Scripture, then CORRECTION is in order. We are to "reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long-suffering and doctrine" saith the Scripture. If you disagree with that, then your problem is not with me, but with God. Kindly tell me what prophet in the Bible exemplies Mother Teresa?

As for that very nice lady, I can only judge her by the words that came out of her mouth, and when one reads her comments, I must conclude she was indeed religious, BUT LOST.


[font="Arial"]"Mother" Teresa, and those who work with her, never try to convert to Christ the dying people for whom they care. Instead. She said, "If in coming face to face with God we accept Him in our lives, then we are converting. We become a better Hindu, a better Muslim, a better Catholic, a better whatever we are. ... What God is in your mind you must accept" (from Mother Teresa: Her People and Her Work , by Desmond Doig, p. 156).[/font]

She also said, "I have said to Jesus that if I don't go to heaven for anything else, I will be going to heaven for all the travelling, with all the publicity, because it has purified me and sacrificed me and made me really ready to go to heaven." (Priests for Life Newsletter, 2/94).

Consequently, M.T. did not encourage those she was dying to seek Christ, but rather "WHATEVER".......
and to further make such a statement that her entrance into eternal beautitude was based on her good deeds, is anti-ethical to the gospel, and unfortunately, we must conclude she was unsaved. Remember the parable of the 10 virgins, 5 foolish and 5 wise? The foolish were always in good company, had high morals, and were even looking out for the Bridgroom. How many untold thousands does that apply to today? Quite a few. How do YOU know, DominicanSoul, that you do not fall into the category of the 5 foolish, who when the Bridgegroom appeared, were shut out of the marriage feast (heaven)? How do YOU know that you will not be there on Judgement Day and be one of the MANY who will be saying, "Didn't we do many wonderful works in your name?" as we read in Matthew. But they were told, "I never knew you....depart from me!". These were RELIGIOUS people, not atheists. And by the way, they couldn't have been Protestants, because we, for the most part, do NOT plan to parade our good deeds before the Judgment throne. But Catholics are ready with their Samsonite suitcase, full of good deeds on their way to heaven waiting for Christ to let them in. I say Christ was referring primarily to Catholics there, because by process of elimination, the majority of those who are doing good deeds in the NAME of Christ and are counting on those good deeds to open heaven's gate, are Catholics! It's a somber thought that I think you ought to give consideration to. Your trust must be IN CHRIST ALONE, what He has done FOR you, and NOT what the Holy Spirit does THROUGH you in your sanctified life. The minute you place anything in addition to the finished work of Christ as a basis for your salvation, you have embraced another gospel. THAT is why these "good people" mentioned above, were not let in.

Edited October 6, 2009 by Stormstopper

[Nihil Obstat]

Stormstopper, that is foolish and incorrect.
In fact, one of the biggest criticisms against her, from (I believe) Dawkins, is that she put too much emphasis on evangelization and not enough on medical care.