With no disrespect intended, I shall refer to my opponent as "J.D." simply for ease of reading. The capital letter "P" will refer to paragraph number, and "OS" will denote the opening statement.

1)

WHEREFORE ART THOU, IMPUTATION?
One area of constant frustration to me has been the Catholic theologian's practice to to sidestep the word "imputation", which is everywhere in Scripture, and their tendency to elevate the word "infusion", which is nowhere in Scripture, to prove their doctrine. So, for example, when I look in "The Catholic Encyclopedia", "The Handbook of Catholic Theology", "The Catechism of the Catholic Church" (#2023)

, my opponent's website in the article, "The Nature of Christian Justification", or his OS, P #13... and find the idea of "imputation" ignored without explanation, and "infusion" extolled with no biblical backup, I think I have just cause to be a bit indignant.
2)

THE WORD "IMPUTE"
is familiar and unambiguous. It means to ascribe, to reckon to, to lay to one's charge. Philemon had no doubt what Paul meant when he told Phil to impute to him the debt of Onesimus. In other words, Paul was saying, "Charge his debt to my account" (vs. 18)

. Other indisputable references to imputation may be found in Leviticus 7:18; 17:4, 1 Sam 22:15, 2 Sam 19:19, Ps 32:2, Rms 4:6; 8-10, 22-24; 8:36, 9:8, 2 Cor 5:19, Gal 3:6, 2 Tim 4:16. Consequently, when the righteousness of Christ is said to be imputed to the believer (Rms 4:11)

, it does not and cannot mean that this righteousness is INFUSED into the person or in any way so imparted to him as to change or constitute his moral character... (contrary to J.D.'s P #13)

. When our sins were imputed to Christ, this did not "make" him sinful. When you impute theft to a man, you don't "make him a thief. So then, when righteousness is imputed to the believer, he does NOT thereby become objectively righteous to the point of meriting heaven!
3)

TITUS 3:5
I would like to remind our readers that the Council of Trent does admit that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to the believer, but in no way they say, are we to accept that we are justified "solely" by that means, "to the exclusion of the grace and charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost and is inherent in them" (chapter XI)

. I am astonished by this statement because it subtlely attacks the righteousness of Christ as being salvifically deficient to justify anyone, and I most strongly object. J.D. admits in P #2, we are not saved because of deeds done in righteousness. Well, if we are not, then they are excluded, and the righteousness of Christ reigns supreme and the Council of Trent is wrong. Now in P #5, J.D. would have us believe there is a distinction made by Paul of deeds done in righteousness as a non-believer (which will avail us nothing)

and deeds done in righteousness as a believer (which is the other side of the coin to our justification, a la Trent)

in addition to the righteousness of Christ imputed.
4)

QUESTION...
In Titus 3:5, how do you, Mr. D'Arcy, have the confidence to assert that "the deeds done in righteousness" to which Paul refers, are legalistic works-righteousness of the unbeliever? ... Let the reader beware that J.D.'s position hangs in the balance here at Titus 3. We must be attentive to see how he will prove my challenge. Why? Because the official teaching of Rome says that justification (which this debate is all about)

"is conferred in BAPTISM" (Catechsm of the Catholic Church, #1992)

..."and the church does not know of any means other than baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude" (#1257)

. Now baptism is called a "work of righteousness" in Matt 3:15. Unless J.D. can prove that Paul was speaking ONLY of legalistic works-righteousness in Titus 3:5, then I submit that he was NOT; hence baptism, being a work of righteousness we do in obedience to God's request, falls slam dunk into the category of those good deeds which we may not count on for assurance resulting in "eternal beatitude" (debunking CCC #1992, #1257 and the whole Catholic view of justification)

.
5)

THE ROBE
We must not forget that while the righteousness of Christ is indeed imputed to us, it is figuratively shown to be something we wear. The Lord sets the stage for this lesson right from the start, where we find Adam and Eve trying to cover their shame with their woefully inadequate fig leaves. Moses tells us that "God clothed them." Later on, our own "thrift store attire" is replaced also, with, "He has clothed me with the garments of SALVATION...covered me with the ROBE of righteousness" (Isa 61:10)

. "He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment" (Rev 3:5)

. See also Zech 3:3, Job 29:14 and the Matt 22 parable where someone tries to get into the wedding feast (heaven)

by wearing their OWN garment (good deeds)

. This robe of righteousness (also spoken of as "the gift of righteousness" and "the crown of righteousness" ...Rms 5:17; 2 Tim 4:8)

is something we are to RECEIVE, and the raiment of Jesus is illustrative of this fact. Notice Mark 9:3 where His clothes become "exceedingly white as snow, so as no fuller on earth can white them." What is the point? The clean, white raiment which God defines as the righteousness of Christ, CANNOT become any whiter. It is perfect as is, and is enough...quite enough....more than enough....to accomplish the purpose God intends. And because this is so, neither can our justification "INCREASE", as Trent indicates. (1)

. Something that is perfectly white (the righteousness of Christ)

simply cannot become any whiter (or "increase)

. The Catholic view is a dreary exercise in futility because they have vainly attempted to "add bleach" to an already perfectly white wash, in the form of (as J.D. would say)

"self-sacrificial generosity" (P #16)

. This generosity supposedly "makes whiter" our justification before the Judgment Throne. On the contrary, the testimony we have is that "NO FULLER ON EARTH CAN WHITEN" the righteousness of Christ. It is complete. It is finished. And it is ours for the asking.
6)

YOU'RE PUTTING ME ON!
The Ryrie Study Bible notes that in relation to the Matt 22 parable, it was the custom in those days, for the host to provide the guests with a wedding garment if they had none. The man in the parable did not take advantage of the offered provision, and was thrown out (sent to hell)

. Getting to heaven requires us to receive the garment the Host supplies and to "PUT ON the Lord Jesus Christ" (Rms 13:14)

. Having put this robe on by faith alone, we are ushered through the pearly gates into His glorious presence. Those attempting to sneak past the Gatekeeper by washing their clothes in "All Temperature Cheer plus bleach", will not escape the penetrating eye of Him with whom we have to do.
7)

GRACE
While the term "grace" may have secondary senses in which it may be applied, properly speaking, it is used to express the concept of kindness bestowed upon someone undeserving. Perhaps J.D. was a bit careless, but I found his definition of this word, to be dangerously misleading. Note what he says: "Christ offers His grace as the solution to the problem of sin" (P #5)

. That may sound nice, but it will never do. Rather, He offers HIMSELF as the remedy to save mankind (Gal 1:4)

. The loving kindness of God is one of His notable attributes. In and of itself does not solve the problem of sin. Moreover, we read that, "He freely offers His grace to cleanse (us)

from (our)

sin" (P #6)

. Wrong again. It is only the blood of Jesus Christ which has the power to cleanse us from our sins (1 Jn 1:7)

, and this we appropriate by having "faith in His BLOOD" (Rms 3:25)

, not faith in His grace.
8)

"REBUTTAL #2 OF JAMES WHITE ON SALVATION"
In the above mentioned article posted on J.D.'s website (2)

we find the most dastardly and venemous misrepresentation of grace I have ever read. Dear reader, I know these are strong words, but certain situations call for it, just as when Jesus called Herod a "fox", and the Baptist called certain ones "a brood of vipers" (Luke 13:32, Matt 3:7)

. It precisely describes and cuts to the very heart of this debate topic in one simple sentence. Here it is: "Catholicism teaches that the human merit that is necessary for justification is not added to grace, BUT PART OF IT" (emphasis mine)

. I will let John Gerstner articulate for us here: "We agree with Roman friends --- salvation is by grace.
That is the reason it must be by faith. 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 FROM grace. The works that come from grace must PROVE grace, but they cannot BE grace. They may come from, be derivitive of, a consequence of...but they cannot be identified with it." (3)

.
9)

All the benefits we enjoy as a result of the grace of God, do not gain for us the holiness absolute divine justice requires. We need a righteousness that is greater than whatever inheres within us in order to stand before the Judgment Seat (Matt 5:20)

. J.D. began his OS by announcing he believes in justification by grace alone. Unfortunately, he is either not being honest or he is temporarily confused because to denote that human merit is PART OF grace, "frustrates the grace of God" (Gal 2:21)

. The result of all this is that faith is diluted, and justification becomes intertwined with the believer's own flawed accomplishments. "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works (infused or not, I insist)

otherwise grace is no longer grace" (Rms 11:6)

. The Roman Catholic Church has left its flock with "grace that is no longer grace", and the logical ramifications are such that, while they may not mean it to be so, we are forced to conclude this view makes a mockery of our salvation as a "free gift" (Rms 5:15-17)

. A free gift is just that: a free, unprompted, unsolicited expression of His sovereign love which consists in a gift BESTOWED.......not a grace infused! Recall in P #5 I mentioned the Council of Trent and their belief that we are justified by grace that is poured forth into our hearts and becomes "inherent" in us, enabling us to do good works and merit eternal life. But notice 2 Tim 1:9, where God saves us, "not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was GIVEN US IN CHRIST JESUS BEFORE THE WORLD BEGAN." To be sure then, we cannot be saved in any way whatsoever by the grace that is inherent within us, for the grace of Christ was given to us ages ago WHEN WE DID NOT YET EVEN EXIST.
10)

ROMANS 2 EQUALS ETERNAL LIFE?
In P #8, J.D. asserts that in Romans 2, the obedience of the believer is crucial in bringing us reward (i.e. eternal life)

and tells us that God will render to every man according to his works. Well yes....if we took verses 6 & 7 by themselves, it does SEEM to say that those who do good works will thereby qualify for heaven. But as I mentioned in my OS, P #13, there are about 150 passages which condition salvation exclusively on faith or believing. Therefore, these few verses should not be pressed into service to vindicate J.D.'s position when the facts available militate against this interpretation. And neither is Paul denying what he elsewhere emphasizes; namely that salvation is a gift and not a reward (Rms 5:15-17; 6:23)

. So how do I resolve the alleged inconsistency? Simple.
11)

First of all, I agree with J.D. that "there is a natural and logical connection between faith and obedience" (P #7)

. But to surmise that our imperfect performance (Phil 3:12)

forms any of the ground of our justification is sheer lunacy (OS, P #2-4)

. It is only by trusting in "the obedience of the ONE (Jesus)

" that anybody has a right to adoption. Furthermore, the righteousness contemplated by God in justifying the ungodly to eternal life CANNOT be "works of faith", "works of grace", "patient continuance in well doing" (2:7)

or "suffering in such a way as to take up our cross daily" (J.D., P #14)

. Not only is situating our hopes on any one of these another gospel, but J.D. fails to realize that these virtues are evidences of GODLINESS! Anyone who finds themselves engaged in these activities ALREADY have been saved by grace through faith. Righteousness is not imputed to unbelieving or unregenerate persons! God never declares a change in status of people who are unchanged in nature. "Patient continuance in well doing" is merely an outgrowth of that fact (OS, P #5)

...not the key that unlocks heaven's gate.
12)

EYES AND FEET
J.D. then mentions "faith working in love" (Gal 5:6)

and tells us we should notice that "faith alone is not stated" (P #5)

as if he has proved the inner renewal wrought in us by the Holy Spirit alluded to here is the cherry on his sundae exonerating his justification by "faith plus works". But let me ask you.....do we not have both eyes and feet on one and the same body? And do they not have different functions? A man possess these body parts at ONE AND THE SAME TIME at birth, yet these body parts serve different purposes. In the same manner I propose that the biblical evidence supports that once God decrees a person justified by faith alone and immedately begins an inner renewal AT ONE AND THE SAME TIME, these powers of the soul are naturally distingushed as are eyes and feet. The distinctive operation of faith alone reaches out and accepts Christ as the righteousness needed for life eternal. Faith does not divide this righteousness, as Roman Catholicism attempts to do, between Christ on the one hand, and our inner renewal on the other. It ascibes it entirely to the merit of the Messiah. Thus, eyes and feet may "work together in love" in the same body, but it is only the eyes that see. Faith and works may be present in the believer, but it is faith alone that justifies.
13)

NO OTHER OPTIONS
"By the deeds of the law, there shall no flesh be justified" (Rms 3:28; Gal 2:16)

. Carefully notice that J.D. admits Paul refutes the idea of the moral law being able to justify anyone (P #11)

. I agree. Believers in OT times who adhered to the moral law were not thereby justified (Acts 13:39)

and I confidently assert it is EXACTLY the same situation with us today! To suggest that OT believers were not "infused with grace" at the time of their morally virtuous deeds (making those deeds non-meritorious for heaven)

and NT believes ARE infused (which makes all the difference)

is a canard of massive proportions! Bezaleel, the tribe of Dan, Moses, the chief priests, Gideon, David, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, ALL were under God's grace doing good works (Ex 31:26; 33:13, Ezra 1:15, Judges 6:17, Ps 51:11, Zech 12:10)

. Ergo, my opponent has to admit even though they adhered to the moral law doing good works under God's grace, this of itself did not justify them. Why in the world then will not J.D. admit also, that good works done in God's grace as we submit to the new "royal law" (Jms 2:8)

does not justify us either??? The only logical deduction from this is that we are justified by faith alone. There ARE no other options.
14)

THE FLY IN THE OINTMENT
The few passages in Romans previously cited are but a snapshot of the big picture; that is, that God will award eternal life to all those who have manifested a true conversion experience. Eternal life is spoken of in several ways in the NT. It is a present possession which we receive the moment we believe (Jn 5:24)

; a future possssion when we receive our glorified bodies (Rms 6:22)

; or it may be spoken of in terms of rewards for a life of faithfulness (Mk 10:30; Matt 25:31)

. J.D.'s fatal flaw in bringing up this latter usage is that he is forgetting that Protestants look foward to the reward aspect of Judgment Day and we quite agree that "God rewards works done under His grace" (P #10)

. The fly in the ointment is that J.D. is defining that reward as ETERNAL LIFE. Excuse me, but that cup of water in Matt 10:42 and 25:35 given to someone in the name of Christ who "shall in no wise lose his reward..." will J.D. say that this act of altruism by itself merits heaven? I don't think so. So we must resolve that the reward spoken of does not pertain directly to eternal life, but to something else. And in Luke 19, we have the answer. Some will be rewarded with rule over five cities, some over ten. Hence, rewards for faithful service is apparently linked with rule in Christ's kingdom and will be meted out in proportion to our devotion and self-expenditure.
15)

THE FIRST GOOD WORK JUSTIFIES BY FAITH ALONE
"This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent " (Jn 6:28)

. Thus, the first "good work" that anyone can possibly do is to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ. Getting back to Judgment Day, the crack in the mirror for the unsaved, will be that they failed to believe in Jesus as Lord (Jn 3:18)

. Theirs will be a verdict of a "non-justification by unbelief ALONE." Beyond that, their works will determine the degree of punishment, per Luke 12:47. Likewise, the verdict for the Christian will be justification by faith ALONE, and beyond that, in similar fashion, our works will determine the degree of reward we receive.
16)

I Cor 13
In P #15, J.D. declares that when Paul mentions "faith, hope and love", and stresses that the greatest of these is love, "faith alone theology simply does not fit", in the mind of Paul. I would ask J.D. to consider this: 1 Cor 13:13 begins by stating, "And NOW abideth faith, hope and love." I suggest that "now" is best understood in a temporal sense, for a similar "now" and "faith" are juxtaposed in Hebrews 1:11...."Now faith is the substance of things hoped for..." Because of the "temporary" nature of these two verses, a "temporary" interpretaton is reasonable. What I mean is, that Paul rightly concludes love is the greatest because faith and hope, being temporary, will one day vanish from sight, since we will not need these virtues in heaven. The benefits anticipated by them (such as being justified by faith alone)

will become for us, a reality. Love alone abides, therefore it is the greatest. (By the way, if you backtrack to verse 12, the temporary nature of verse 13 is confirmed. "For now we see through a glass darkly, but then face to face; now I know only in part, but then shall I know even as I am known.")

Surely, 1 Cor 13 in no way negates anything I have presented earlier.
17)

KEEPING THE COMMANDMENTS Since my word limit is almost up, the comments made about the book of James in P #18 will have to wait. In P #17 though, we note J.D.'s admirabe desire to keep the commandments. However, has my noble opponent actually kept all the commandments? Remember, if we fail in even one point of our commandment keeping, we are guilty of breaking the entire law (Jms 2:10)

. I will assume J.D. is not perfect and is just as guilty of breaking the Law as I am. Let's analyze J.D.'s desire to keep the commandments to secure his reservation in heaven. Of all the commandments, Jesus said the most important was to, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength" (Matt 22:37)

. Yet, can anyone look in the miror and say with honesty that they have loved God with their whole being even this very day?
In actuality, Roman Catholicism teaches that the breaking of a lesser commandment, such as adultery or murder, constitues a mortal sin. It then follows that the breaking of the GREATEST commandment (to love God fully)

is a mortal sin as well....especially on a daily basis. Sorry to say, but the consequential outworking of Catholic theology demands its followers to be in a perpetual state of mortal sin. No wonder many of the Catholics I meet have no peace of mind. But Jesus came to give us peace (Jn 14:27)

and it has been mentally debilitating to me to see just how Catholicism does NOT provide it. I sense great failure to understand that the law, as glorious as it is, shows us God's holy and inflexible standard, which sadly, none of us has ever lived up to, beginning with the first commandment. It was meant to be our "schoolmaster, to bring us to Christ (to show us our need for a Savior)

that we might be justified by faith" (Gal 3:24)

. By the sacrifice of Christ (the enmity between us and our Maker has been abolished)

even the law of commandments contained in ordinances..." (Eph 2:15, Rom 10:4)

. And if the commandments are abolished as the standard by which we will be judged, all that remains can only be to be justified by faith alone.
Jason Vanezia
crownofthorns@webtv.net

Notes:
1)

"If anyone says that the justice (righteousness)

is also not increased before God through good works...let him be anathema." (Canon XXIV)

2)

Also found @ www2.netcom.com/~matt1618 3)

"Justification by Faith Alone", edited by Don Kistler, in the chapter by Gerstner, p. 113.

Back to Home Page