[quote=hoser]Someone posted this to me, can you help me answert it?
"The major difference between your belief and the Protestant belief is the analytical view of justification vs. the synthetic view.
Correction to this poster: Catholics believe in the imparted righteousness of Christ-rightousness that belongs to Christ but He gives to us. Protestants believe in the imputed-that Christ’s righteousness is declared ours in a legal fashion only.
You, as a Catholic, believe that in order for one to be justified, on that day of judgment they must be deemed righteous.
This poster’s understanding is incomplete. It is Christ’s righteousness in us that Christ gives to us. That is the imparted part that I mentioned above.
What do you think God meant when He said “YOUR righteousness is but filthy rags.”
Which is exactly why we need Christ’s rightousness and not our own. Not imputed neither, but imparted.
The Protestant believes that in order for one to be justified, a synthesis must occur.
Correction to poster: Protestants believe in imparted (legal) righousness, not imputed rightousness.
We know that God needs no microscope to look inside us and find all kinds of unrighteousness and sin. Therefore, to be justified, our sinful and unrighteous state of being, on that day of judgment, must be covered by the cloak of Jesus’ righteousness.
Compare to what Jesus said in Matthew 23:27-28 ‘“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.”’ Now why anyone would think this is a preferable state is beyond me.
Not unlike the Catholic “treasury of merit” (stored “extra” righteousness from those who did more than enough to earn justification) where the Church would dip into that treasury and scoop out a serving of merit for those who need it.
All of which was Christ’s righousness to begin with.
To the Protestant, Jesus’ meritorious actions and infinite righteousness is enough to cover us all… us being those who truly have faith in Him as our Savior and LORD. I liken this “covering” by Christ’s righteousness to the covering of Adam and Eve’s nakedness.
Notice that in Genesis chapter 3, Adam and Even covered their nakedness as a responce to sin and God didn’t seem to pleased about it.
Now I think you would agree, that faith cannot come without grace. Is that correct? If so, as a Catholic and one who believes you can be graced and achieve salvation but can also lose it, then you must therefore also believe that God’s grace can return to Him void and rejected?"
Note Hebrews 10:26-29 ‘If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. *How much more severely * do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?’
I’ll let that Bible verse speak for itself.