I'm studying a lot about protestant beliefs, especially the doctrine of imputed righteousness.

What confuses me is that there are some protestants who deny that Mary was righteous, because the bible says that "There is none righteous, no not one," and then they declare themselves righteous because of the imputed righteousness of Christ which covers them like snow over a dunghill (quote of Martin Luther).

It seems to me that Mary had to be righteous in order to be the living tabernacle of Jesus for 9 months. If she wasn't righteous, then I don't see how anyone today can claim to be righteous.

Is there an explanation for this? I'm serious, and not trolling, so please help me in my research...Thanks

Appreciate you looking into these things and sharing.

I have to say this rabbit hole has not entered into any discussions for me before.

My kneejerk reaction is that in Romans 3, Paul seems to be mostly addressing Jews who should be considered greatly privileged. None (Jew or Gentile) are by nature righteous (not born with it) and it cannot be accomplished through works of the law.

Righteousness is only attainable through faith in Christ (Romans 3:22). As it relates to Mary, she would be considered righteous due to her belief (faith) in Christ, just as it was for her father Abraham, not just because she physically carried Jesus in her belly....or that she was the Lord's tabernacle

Well, it depends on your definition of "righteous".

Does it require that the person never sin at all? Or just that the person make atonement for their sins and generally aspire to do God's will?

For example, would you consider King David to be "righteous" despite the fact that he slept with a married woman, and then sent her husband on a suicide mission to cover it up?

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

Well, it depends on your definition of "righteous".

---

Yes. What causes a man to stand righteous before God? It must be Christ's satisfaction made in his death and his obedience to the law. Nothing else. We cannot make satisfaction to the justice of the law.

Thanks for the response. What I think Paul is saying is that he is alluding to Psalm 14 when he is talking about "none righteous," and when you go back to Psalm 14, that psalm is talking about atheists...

Another problem I have with the protestant position is that one guy told me that obedience to God has nothing at all to do with righteousness, because that would mean that we men are doing something to receive righteousness, and therefore robbing God of His glory, or something like that. I still don't get that...

So obedience to God doesn't play a role in getting us into heaven?

Thaddeus73 said:

---

So obedience to God doesn't play a role in getting us into heaven?

---

I don't know what you mean by "getting into heaven", but without obedience, no one will see the Lord (Heb. 12:14). But it is a sine qua non condition, it's not the cause.

I think getting into heaven, which is my salvation rather than damnation, is much more complicated than an intellectual belief of Luther like the doctrine of faith alone. IMHO, salvation comes from the heart, not from the head. The imitation of Christ and His virtues of love, forgiveness and mercy are the key. And we get there from here through obedience to Christ and His commandments. I just can't find "imputed righteousness" anywhere in the bible. But I can find love, mercy, forgiveness, and obedience to Christ everywhere...Am I wrong?

Further regarding obedience, it is a fruit or byproduct of genuine saving faith. It will 100% happen (to some degree, which is up to the person's free will) if that person has truly has faith in Christ.

Thaddeus73 said:

---

I think getting into heaven, which is my salvation rather than damnation, is much more complicated than an intellectual belief of Luther like the doctrine of faith alone. IMHO, salvation comes from the heart, not from the head. The imitation of Christ and His virtues of love, forgiveness and mercy are the key. And we get there from here through obedience to Christ and His commandments. I just can't find "imputed righteousness" anywhere in the bible. But I can find love, mercy, forgiveness, and obedience to Christ everywhere...Am I wrong?

---

You are describing sanctification where we are renewed. It waxes and wains, but all true believers are sanctified. The topic we are discussing is standing righteous before God. Think about what the law requires. What can you bring that will satisfy God's justice? "Except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, you cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven."

For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. 2 Cor. 5:21

For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. Rom. 5:19

Thaddeus73 said:

---

I'm studying a lot about protestant beliefs, especially the doctrine of imputed righteousness.

What confuses me is that there are some protestants who deny that Mary was righteous, because the bible says that "There is none righteous, no not one," and then they declare themselves righteous because of the imputed righteousness of Christ which covers them like snow over a dunghill (quote of Martin Luther).

It seems to me that Mary had to be righteous in order to be the living tabernacle of Jesus for 9 months. If she wasn't righteous, then I don't see how anyone today can claim to be righteous.

Is there an explanation for this? I'm serious, and not trolling, so please help me in my research...Thanks

---

I know many have responded, but I'll add my two cents.

I want to start by pointing out a potential problem I see with what you're asking is that you start with an end in mind. Namely that you're starting with Rome's conclusion on Mary as being "righteous in order to be the living tabernacle of Jesus." You're starting with a conclusion that is very narrowly tailored to Rome and then wondering how Protestants reconcile to that. The answer is simple. We don't. Mainly because Scripture is absolutely silent on it, and secondarily because the Church Fathers are inconsistent at best, but moreso against Romes position. I don't say this to be rude or argumentative, but to establish that the very foundation you are trying to utilize is not the foundation that Reformers or the historical church used.

The foundation that the Christian church then starts with is the foundation of Scripture with deference then to the Church Fathers arguments and views.

The question must be asked then. What does it mean to be Righteous? Does it mean to be sinless? Does it mean to be perfect?

Scripture seems rather clear on this, with Romans being the most explicit:

Romans 3 (and Psalm 14/53):
None is righteous, no, not one;
11 no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless;
no one does good,
not even one."
13 "Their throat is an open grave;
they use their tongues to deceive."
"The venom of asps is under their lips."
14 "Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness."
15 "Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16 in their paths are ruin and misery,
17 and the way of peace they have not known."
18 "There is no fear of God before their eyes

Romans 3:
21 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,

Romans 4:
4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. 5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:

Philippians 4
7 But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. 8 Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith

--------------------
What then can we draw from texts such as these?

1. Man's righteousness is not something found internally, but externally. It's "alien" to humankind.
2. Righteousness does not equate to "sinless." They must be different.
3. A man's claim to righteousness is never based on themselves, but entirely based on Jesus (Imputation).
4. Man does not play an active role (i.e. their actions do not cause righteousness), but we must be passive receivers of it.
--------------------

Finally then, we look at your question about Mary specifically.

Given what we know above, we do not have any sort of scriptural basis to separate Mary from the rest of mankind. We can also look to the church fathers for support, although there is limited evidence, especially during the first four centuries, for Mary being an exception.

So then what do we make of it? The humble answer I can give is "we don't know because Scripture does not tell us." We are free to speculate, and throughout history, that has happened, but there is no definitive answer.

Most Roman Catholic pop apologists will acknowledge that Mary did not need to be sinless for Jesus to be sinless, but given Rome's stance will simply claim that's the way God did it. Which of course opens the door to the idea that immaculate conception could be wrong, and that it hinges entirely on Rome's claim and nothing else.

I hope that helps as a start

Most of that is correct and derives from, essentially, "T" or "Total Depravity" in Calvinist terms. Which amounts to the fact that we are totally corrupt in our nature and unable to earn salvation but for God's salvific will.

There's just no need to dive into some mystery about whether Mary ever had intercourse with her husband etc. as it's just not relevant religiously.

Now, as to imputed righteousness as dogma/doctrine, here is a long form piece on it (NT Wright/Paul Helm, so yes, I mean long-form). Only part I'd snip:

Quote:

---

What has come to be regarded as Calvin's fun-
damental statement on the relation between justi-
fication and sanctification is the following:

Quote:

---

I trust I have now sufficiently shown how man's
only resource for escaping from the curse of the
law, and recovering salvation, lies in faith; and
also what the nature of faith is, what the benefits
which it confers, and the fruits which it produces.

The whole may be thus summed up: Christ given
to us by the kindness of God is apprehended
and possessed by faith, by means of which we
obtain in particular a twofold benefit; first, being
reconciled by the righteousness of Christ, God
becomes, instead of a judge, an indulgent Father;
and secondly, being sanctified by his Spirit, we
aspire to integrity and purity of life.

---

The double benefit that we receive embraces both
justification and sanctification, two inseparable
but distinct blessings.

---

I don't think that's too esoteric to understand really. But it has led to a lot of words in debate/discussion.

Quote:

---

Abraham was declared righteous before He was circumcised.

---

Was it God's declaring him righteous that made him righteous? Or was it his faith working through love that God recognized as his righteousness? Big difference. A declaration of someone's virtue doesn't make the person virtuous. Rather, it states what it sees in a person.

Thanks all...When I first learned about imputed righteousness and all of the debate around it, it really was foreign to me. We Catholics just strive to be holy as we possibly can be in our sinful bodies, through God's grace, and we figure that Jesus will decide who's righteous and who's not, at the end of our life. I think that this is all in accordance with what Paul preached in

1 Corinthians 4


Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition



The Ministry of the Apostles
4 This is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. 2 Moreover it is required of stewards that they be found trustworthy. 3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court. I do not even judge myself. 4 I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me. 5 Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then every man will receive his commendation from God.6 I have applied all this to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brethren, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another. 7 For who sees anything different in you? What have you that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if it were not a gift?

IMHO, going around saying whoever is justified (even yourself) and who is not goes against this scripture. Am I wrong on this? To sum up, "Bless them all, let God sort 'em out!"

Thaddeus73 said:

---

Thanks all...When I first learned about imputed righteousness and all of the debate around it, it really was foreign to me. We Catholics just strive to be holy as we possibly can be in our sinful bodies, through God's grace, and we figure that Jesus will decide who's righteous and who's not, at the end of our life. I think that this is all in accordance with what Paul preached in

1 Corinthians 4

---

Yes, but the counter is that it's a confusion of God's promise (Gospel) and expectations (Law).

As I pointed out above, our righteousness is not found within us. Nothing we do will make us righteous. We stand before God, full of sin. Under Scripture, even the most devout Roman Catholic is full of sin from the top of his/her head to the bottom of their foot.

But on the day of judgement, we will be found righteous because of Jesus. Our righteousness is imputed to us through His life, death, and resurrection.

I think you can also affirm that.

But that does not mean we are free to sin and continue about our lives as slaves to sin. No, we are certainly called to obey the Laws of God. We are called to follow what He has given to us. And in that, we grow "more holy" in the sense that we may outwardly (and inwardly) sin less. Theosis is a real concept within Protestantism, it's just seen differently than with the EO.

That does not mean our bodies will somehow be healed in this life. That's not possible. But that does not mean we simply give in to sin.

Thaddeus73 said:

---

Thanks all...When I first learned about imputed righteousness and all of the debate around it, it really was foreign to me. We Catholics just strive to be holy as we possibly can be in our sinful bodies, through God's grace, and we figure that Jesus will decide who's righteous and who's not, at the end of our life. I think that this is all in accordance with what Paul preached in

1 Corinthians 4


Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition



The Ministry of the Apostles
4 This is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. 2 Moreover it is required of stewards that they be found trustworthy. 3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court. I do not even judge myself. 4 I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me. 5 Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then every man will receive his commendation from God.6 I have applied all this to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brethren, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another. 7 For who sees anything different in you? What have you that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if it were not a gift?

IMHO, going around saying whoever is justified (even yourself) and who is not goes against this scripture. Am I wrong on this? To sum up, "Bless them all, let God sort 'em out!"

---

Yes, certainty of salvation is general with Catholics, but particular with Protestants. When we believe "in the forgiveness of sins", it is forgiveness of our sins in particular. Yours is a probable hope, ours is an infallible faith. We take the promises of God and apply them to ourselves.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Thaddeus73 said:

---

Thanks all...When I first learned about imputed righteousness and all of the debate around it, it really was foreign to me. We Catholics just strive to be holy as we possibly can be in our sinful bodies, through God's grace, and we figure that Jesus will decide who's righteous and who's not, at the end of our life. I think that this is all in accordance with what Paul preached in

1 Corinthians 4


Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition



The Ministry of the Apostles
4 This is how one should regard us, as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. 2 Moreover it is required of stewards that they be found trustworthy. 3 But with me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you or by any human court. I do not even judge myself. 4 I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not thereby acquitted. It is the Lord who judges me. 5 Therefore do not pronounce judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness and will disclose the purposes of the heart. Then every man will receive his commendation from God.6 I have applied all this to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brethren, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another. 7 For who sees anything different in you? What have you that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do you boast as if it were not a gift?

IMHO, going around saying whoever is justified (even yourself) and who is not goes against this scripture. Am I wrong on this? To sum up, "Bless them all, let God sort 'em out!"

---

Yes, certainty of salvation is general with Catholics, but particular with Protestants. When we believe "in the forgiveness of sins", it is forgiveness of our sins in particular. Yours is a probable hope, ours is an infallible faith. We take the promises of God and apply them to ourselves.

---

I disagree.

Quote:

---

Both then and now, Protestants have reacted to the Catholic belief in the meritorious nature of works for our final salvation with the central Reformation rallying cry "Sola fide!" Faith alone.

"Protestants dismiss all notion of merit in relation to works. Any claim to merit obscures divine grace, devalues the cross of Christ, and inevitably promotes human pride." (130) Though good works are necessary insofar as they illustrate and reveal that we have been justified, "they do not secure your justification or state of acceptance before God." (130) Not so for Catholics.

First, remember that no human can merit God's saving grace initially. Catholics and Protestants both agree that merit is not possible prior to justification. Allison and Castaldo explain, however, that "from the Catholic perspective, after a person has been justified, their works are meritorious and they become the reason why God finally accepts them as faithful." (130) Though merit doesn't initiate justification, it completes it.
Thus, while Protestants place good works in the category of sanctification separate from justification, Catholics seem to conflate the two.

---

RCC adherents/doctrine see more value in works/sacraments performed by people than Protestants in general. To some degree yes, that is a 'generalized' ideation of salvation where people can earn/work their way into God's grace, but the real disagreement is to the discernment of faith/trust/pistis itself.

Paul wrestled with acts of course himself, until God set his faith as He wanted it to be. Call it general or specific or anything else, but Paul didn't think he was responsible for his own salvation, imho. Nor was he worried about losing it.

Well Catholics are. That's my point. They may believe in the forgiveness of sins in general, but not necessarily their own.

The quote on merit is spot on. Catholics say the merit that attains favor with God is from within ourselves. Protestants say merits is found in Christ alone.

Thaddeus73 said:

---

I'm studying a lot about protestant beliefs, especially the doctrine of imputed righteousness.

What confuses me is that there are some protestants who deny that Mary was righteous, because the bible says that "There is none righteous, no not one," and then they declare themselves righteous because of the imputed righteousness of Christ which covers them like snow over a dunghill (quote of Martin Luther).

It seems to me that Mary had to be righteous in order to be the living tabernacle of Jesus for 9 months. If she wasn't righteous, then I don't see how anyone today can claim to be righteous.

Is there an explanation for this? I'm serious, and not trolling, so please help me in my research...Thanks

---

There were many flawed people that were in Jesus' line of ancestry.

I believe the only person who needed to be perfect and without sin was Jesus himself. And it's a good thing, too, because he is the only person who COULD.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

Well Catholics are. That's my point. They may believe in the forgiveness of sins in general, but not necessarily their own.

The quote on merit is spot on. Catholics say the merit that attains favor with God is from within ourselves. Protestants say merits is found in Christ alone.

---

I don't even know what the bolded is supposed to mean. And I think you are likely viewing "merit" as synonymous with "earning", which would be incorrect

Quote:

---

RCC adherents/doctrine see more value in works/sacraments performed by people than Protestants in general. To some degree yes, that is a 'generalized' ideation of salvation where people can earn/work their way into God's grace

---

The Catholic Church has never taught we earn/work out way into God's grace. The sacraments are God's work for us, not our work for God. Can't find "earn salvation" anywhere in the Bible, nor in the catechism. Good works are the fruit of our faith, per Colossians 1:10...And a very necessary fruit, otherwise we'll be cut down and thrown into the fire, per Jesus on the figless fig tree...

Thaddeus73 said:

---

Quote:

---

Abraham was declared righteous before He was circumcised.

---

Was it God's declaring him righteous that made him righteous? Or was it his faith working through love that God recognized as his righteousness? Big difference. A declaration of someone's virtue doesn't make the person virtuous. Rather, it states what it sees in a person.

---

Genesis 15:6, "Abram believed the Lord, and he (God) credited it to him (Abe) as righteousness."

Romans 4:3 says:
"Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness."
(This is Paul directly quoting Genesis 15:6.)

In short:
Abraham trusted what God promised him (especially about having a son and becoming the father of many nations), even though it seemed impossible humanly speaking. Because of that faith/belief, God credited righteousness to him he was declared right with God not because Abraham earned it through good works or following the law.

The doctrine of the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer and the imputation of the believer's sin to Christ through the exchange of faith alone, that uniquely Protestant doctrine is an invention of Martin Luther and has no precedent in the tradition whatsoever at all for ~1500 years. That is the conclusion not just of Catholic historians, but of Protestant historians like Alastair McGrath in his two-volume work, Eustitia Dei, The History of the Doctrine of Justification, which confirms that Luther's interpretation of justification is a complete theological novelty.

At the other end, if you want to look at Matthew J. Thomas' book, Paul's Works of the Law in Second-Century Reception, it's a great analysis of how the very earliest Christians understood Paul's statement that we are not justified by works of the law, and it's quite clear they did not mean what Luther meant by that phrase. Modern biblical scholarship, including much Protestant biblical scholarship comes to the same conclusion. Christer Stendahl, James Dunn, and in particular, NT. Wright. Wright's book, simply titled Justification speaks to this.

There is no distinction in Greek or Hebrew between "faith" and "belief". It is just as accurate to say "Abraham had faith in / was faithful to God, and it was credited to him as righteousness."

From the 4th Century Latin Vulgate by St. Jerome...




Definition of reputed

1
as in presumed
appearing to be true on the basis of evidence that may or may not be confirmed. this treatment is a reputed cure for colon cancer, but studies haven't confirmed that claim
Synonyms & Similar Words
Relevance

• presumed
• apparent
• probable
• supposed
• possible
• seeming
• assumed
• obvious
• alleged
• putative
• ostensible
• evident
• prima facie
• likely
• plausible
• visible
• ostensive
• distinct
• external
• demonstrable
• claimed
• superficial
• conceivable
• purported
• supposable
• imaginary
• manifest
• outward
• professed
• illusive
• specious
• deceptive
• misleading
• delusive
• clear
• illusory
• pseudo
• plain
• feigned
• fake
• pretended
• faked
• phony
• so-called
• delusory
• put-on

In the Catholic understanding of reputed, it means God recognized him as being righteous, and didn't "make" him righteous...

Thaddeus73 said:

---

From the 4th Century Latin Vulgate by St. Jerome...




Definition of reputed

1
as in presumed
appearing to be true on the basis of evidence that may or may not be confirmed. this treatment is a reputed cure for colon cancer, but studies haven't confirmed that claim
Synonyms & Similar Words
Relevance

• presumed
• apparent
• probable
• supposed
• possible
• seeming
• assumed
• obvious
• alleged
• putative
• ostensible
• evident
• prima facie
• likely
• plausible
• visible
• ostensive
• distinct
• external
• demonstrable
• claimed
• superficial
• conceivable
• purported
• supposable
• imaginary
• manifest
• outward
• professed
• illusive
• specious
• deceptive
• misleading
• delusive
• clear
• illusory
• pseudo
• plain
• feigned
• fake
• pretended
• faked
• phony
• so-called
• delusory
• put-on

In the Catholic understanding of reputed, it means God recognized him as being righteous, and didn't "make" him righteous...

---

Keep in mind that for Protestants, translations of the Tanakh to English from the Septuagint is preferred as it is the oldest source, rather than English translations from the vulgate. A semantic argument from the vulgate isn't going to be overly convincing.

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

The doctrine of the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer and the imputation of the believer's sin to Christ through the exchange of faith alone, that uniquely Protestant doctrine is an invention of Martin Luther and has no precedent in the tradition whatsoever at all for ~1500 years. That is the conclusion not just of Catholic historians, but of Protestant historians like Alastair McGrath in his two-volume work, Eustitia Dei, The History of the Doctrine of Justification, which confirms that Luther's interpretation of justification is a complete theological novelty.

At the other end, if you want to look at Matthew J. Thomas' book, Paul's Works of the Law in Second-Century Reception, it's a great analysis of how the very earliest Christians understood Paul's statement that we are not justified by works of the law, and it's quite clear they did not mean what Luther meant by that phrase. Modern biblical scholarship, including much Protestant biblical scholarship comes to the same conclusion. Christer Stendahl, James Dunn, and in particular, NT. Wright. Wright's book, simply titled Justification speaks to this.

---

This isn't accurate.

McGrath does not claim imputation language is an invention of Luther. He acknowledges that the church has historically employed imputation language, particularly in the context of Romans. It's unavoidable.

He does say that Luther's specific formulation, emphasizing forensic justification over alternatives, lacks a firm historical grounding. I don't think anybody denies this.

But that's a different discussion.

AgLiving06 said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

The doctrine of the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer and the imputation of the believer's sin to Christ through the exchange of faith alone, that uniquely Protestant doctrine is an invention of Martin Luther and has no precedent in the tradition whatsoever at all for ~1500 years. That is the conclusion not just of Catholic historians, but of Protestant historians like Alastair McGrath in his two-volume work, Eustitia Dei, The History of the Doctrine of Justification, which confirms that Luther's interpretation of justification is a complete theological novelty.

At the other end, if you want to look at Matthew J. Thomas' book, Paul's Works of the Law in Second-Century Reception, it's a great analysis of how the very earliest Christians understood Paul's statement that we are not justified by works of the law, and it's quite clear they did not mean what Luther meant by that phrase. Modern biblical scholarship, including much Protestant biblical scholarship comes to the same conclusion. Christer Stendahl, James Dunn, and in particular, NT. Wright. Wright's book, simply titled Justification speaks to this.

---

This isn't accurate.

McGrath does not claim imputation language is an invention of Luther. He acknowledges that the church has historically employed imputation language, particularly in the context of Romans. It's unavoidable.

He does say that Luther's specific formulation, emphasizing forensic justification over alternatives, lacks a firm historical grounding. I don't think anybody denies this.

But that's a different discussion.

---

Your statement mischaracterizes what I said. I never said McGrath said what you say I said about imputation language. The first sentence in my post is a characterization of the soteriological economics of sola fide, not something I attribute to McGrath. I said that McGrath states " that Luther's interpretation of justification is a complete theological novelty." And so it is.

But more fundamentally the point is that the idea of justification invented and promoted by Luther and adopted by all his progeny does not appear in the Christian lexicon until the early 1500s. You believe something that no orthodox Christian believed until Luther discovered it.

Quote:

---

Keep in mind that for Protestants, translations of the Tanakh to English from the Septuagint is preferred as it is the oldest source, rather than English translations from the vulgate

---

I reckon you're right, and therefore my reckoning of you're assertion has made you right, even though you may actually be wrong... (just kidding)...

So, what does the Septuagint say?

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

FTACo88-FDT24dad said:

---

The doctrine of the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer and the imputation of the believer's sin to Christ through the exchange of faith alone, that uniquely Protestant doctrine is an invention of Martin Luther and has no precedent in the tradition whatsoever at all for ~1500 years. That is the conclusion not just of Catholic historians, but of Protestant historians like Alastair McGrath in his two-volume work, Eustitia Dei, The History of the Doctrine of Justification, which confirms that Luther's interpretation of justification is a complete theological novelty.

At the other end, if you want to look at Matthew J. Thomas' book, Paul's Works of the Law in Second-Century Reception, it's a great analysis of how the very earliest Christians understood Paul's statement that we are not justified by works of the law, and it's quite clear they did not mean what Luther meant by that phrase. Modern biblical scholarship, including much Protestant biblical scholarship comes to the same conclusion. Christer Stendahl, James Dunn, and in particular, NT. Wright. Wright's book, simply titled Justification speaks to this.

---

This isn't accurate.

McGrath does not claim imputation language is an invention of Luther. He acknowledges that the church has historically employed imputation language, particularly in the context of Romans. It's unavoidable.

He does say that Luther's specific formulation, emphasizing forensic justification over alternatives, lacks a firm historical grounding. I don't think anybody denies this.

But that's a different discussion.

---

Your statement mischaracterizes what I said. I never said McGrath said what you say I said about imputation language. The first sentence in my post is a characterization of the soteriological economics of sola fide, not something I attribute to McGrath. I said that McGrath states " that Luther's interpretation of justification is a complete theological novelty." And so it is.

But more fundamentally the point is that the idea of justification invented and promoted by Luther and adopted by all his progeny does not appear in the Christian lexicon until the early 1500s. You believe something that no orthodox Christian believed until Luther discovered it.

---

Why would that be surprising though? If the standard is we throw out anything that gets refined later, there's a ton on the Roman Catholic side that goes by the wayside.

As we see throughout history, doctrine gets clarified and refined as issues arise. We don't often have the foresight to miss all the future arguments.

As we seem to agree, imputed righteousness is certainly in Scripture and the Church Fathers. We should all be able to accept that imputed righteousness as it relates to Christ is correct doctrine.

The clarification or development by Luther of an existing doctrine takes place in response to the errors of Rome. Is it new? Yes, because it's responding to theological claims that the historical church did not have to deal with or address. Does that make this a problem? No because at the end of the day, the question is not "what did the church fathers believe", but instead "What does Scripture say."

And as posted above, the Scripture is quite clear in imputed righteousness and it's role in our salvation.