No Imputed Righteousness In Augustine

[Robert R. Higby]

I have been affirming for many years that Augustine taught NO doctrine of the imputed RIGHTEOUSNESS of Christ to the elect but ONLY a doctrine of the immediate imputation of Adam's sin to all mankind. This is the ONLY doctrine of imputation that Gus affirmed.

Please read the following article:

http://www.understandingthebible.org/Augustine's_Mistake_and_Luther's_Rediscovery.htm

Comments?

[Whammer]

Faith is a gift of God to His elect sheep, it, in and of itself is a "fruit of the Spirit", that is the Spirit of regeneration like in Titus 3:4-6, so that faith is expressed by one who has been born again, because he was already justified. So "Faith" is counted/credited/imputed as righteousness to a believer because he was already Justified by the works of Jesus Christ. Christ's work and Christ's work alone is the foundation and source of every elect saint's Justification, and is grounds for being "born again" a "new creation", so here is how Rom. 5:1 is puctually correct.
Rom 5:1, (WEB), Being therefore justified, by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ; Rom 5:8-11, (WEB)
But God commends his own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we will be saved from God's wrath through him.
For if, while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we will be saved by his life. Not only so, but we also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.
Well then there is Rom. 6:1-11 and Col. 2:11-14.
Faith is a gift and a fruit of the Spirit in regeneration, faith is a fruit of justification, not the cause.
These ideas of imputation do not take into account the old man/new man at all. The proof of our justifcation IS our new birth, so we are born with our feet in the rock, and as we are grown in the Spirit, we learn to stand on the ROCK as well.
So faith is reckoned to us as righteousness as it is with everyone that is born anew, it is the 1st manifestation of the Holy Spirit in regeneration.
So I ask, how can a NEW CREATION that is born sinless, and being conformed to the Image of Christ (Rom. 8:29-30) be in need of anything further justify him? Those who wish to bring in the notion that a "positive righteousness" needs to be put to our accounts as new creations to further justify us, need to prove it scripturally.

[MCoving]

Yeah I read through the article and this quote that was written caught my attention first, pretty much what you were saying Bob that Augustine taught that righteouesness was a process and not imputed to the elect.
"A proper interpretation of the Greek and the story of Abraham, leads to the conclusion that 'to justify' means 'to declare righteous'. But Augustine rejected that option and mistakenly decided to justify meant 'to make righteous' which is totally different. So although Augustine concluded that the basis of justification is God's grace, he went on to teach that justification is both an event and a process. In other words he included sanctification inside justification"

I hear Augustine preaching on progressive sanctification here, and I can see that in churches today. I think this grave error also leads to one being able to loose their salvation. Because if one isn't justified immediately and its a process then we are not right with God when we have faith, the first time God opens our eyes and shows us His grace. But its over time that we are justified by our actions for God, our good works. This one wrong thinking can cause a multitude of errors in theology. Though I guess Augustine did say we are justified but yet this justice increases.. which makes absolutely no common sense. You either are or your not.

Another good quote: " If Augustine were around to speak to we would want to ask him when a believer might be justified enough to warrant God's acceptance. The need to answer this question led him to believe in purgatory, an extra-ordinarily unscriptural way out of the problem."

Faith as Bryan was talking about, the belief in Jesus Christ and what HE did at the cross is enough. God gives faith to people as His approval that they are His, the Holy Spirit is the stamp of approval in the CHristians lives. And at the cross is when Jesus made us right with God, when we were justified. It doesn't have to do with continueing the process in our life, for it was finished at the cross. And our walk with God is a result of that justification at the cross, its not part of it.

And then of course Aquinas seemed to take this belief even further, as I said earlier Augustines no imputed righteouesness to the elect is the basis for man errors to come.I find it interesting though how one could find Scripture to support this gradual justification that Augustine talks about, that in time we are gradually accepted by God. At the time of faith, and the Holy Spirit coming into our lives, we then have the mind of CHrist, and we are in Christ and He is in us, at that point in time we are accepted by God. I mean even while we were sinners Christ died for us.

And this is a really sad Catholic belief "Moreover, on the issue of assurance of salvation, they also stated 'no one can know with the certainty of faith, which cannot be subject to error, that he has obtained the grace of God'. (Chap.9 of the decrees)"

Because we as believers can be certain of Gods gift of Grace to us.. and the Bible makes that 100% clear!

[Craig kennedy]

I have been affirming for many years that Augustine taught NO doctrine of the imputed RIGHTEOUSNESS of Christ to the elect but ONLY a doctrine of the immediate imputation of Adam's sin to all mankind. This is the ONLY doctrine of imputation that Gus affirmed.

Please read the following article:

http://www.understandingthebible.org/Augustine's_Mistake_and_Luther's_Rediscovery.htm

Comments?

Hi Bob,

I enjoyed reading this Article you have DIRECTED our attention to and found it to be instructive and helpful.

It is not hard to see how Augustine's postulation that Justification is BOTH an EVENT and a PROCESS led to the error of CONFOUNDING Justification and Sanctification! This error, of course, has spawned the Roman Catholic falsehood that Salvation is BASED ON GOD'S GRACE but that Justification can, in some sense, be 'added' to by the meritorious 'works' of the redeemed sinner.

God used Luther to recapture the true doctrine that God DECLARES an Elect person righteous by the righteousness of Christ alone! This righteousness is an 'alien' (EXTERNAL, OUTSIDE the Elect sinner) righteousness; it is NEVER imparted or infused to the Elect but CREDITED to the Elect sinner in the eternal counsels of God. O Yes, I totally agree!

God has worked powerfully in my heart and mind to see these truths and I truthfully CONFESS them as my very own understandings of these issues. It is obvious to me, now, that there is NO "free will"; NO Universal Atonement where Christ died for the Goats as well as the Sheep; NO "free offer" of the Gospel where God "begs" sinners to come to Him and 'rewards' them with Regeneration because of their supposed Faith. I have come this far, by God's grace. I still have much to learn, though, in the ways of God. I have NOT 'ARRIVED' by any means and I will always lean on the strong arm of God for my support and DIRECTION alone. I do not trust anything of the flesh and I put no confidence or admiration in TOTALLY RUINED AND CORRUPTED HUMAN NATURE! However, I can confidently go this far and, at this time, confess these truths heartily.

I am sure God will TEACH me much more in days to come. In the meantime, this Article serves as a SUBSTANTIAL rebuttal of Tridentine Dogma and Spirituality and the 'churchianity' of much modern, contemporary evangelicalism!

To God be the Glory!

In Christ,

Craig

[GraceAmbassador]

Brethren:

Correct me if I am wrong, please, but it appears to me that, increasingly, as much as there was a revival of Calvinistic doctrine in the last 10 years, there is a growing interest in Luther's Justification by Faith Alone. It also seems evident that, the more we study Luther, the more we see God's Sovereign power in bringing Calvin to the scene. Even the quoted article demonstrates that! It seems as if Luther's theology is completed in some fashion by Calvin's theology and Calvin's theology has its foundation on Luther's theology. Is this another example of "Paul planted, Apollos,watered but God gave the increase? I think so.

Through the ages one thing has been evidently clear: God has had His servants, to, in His own time, bring back His doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone, Declared Righteousness and His Sovereign Will in dispensing the Grace of receiving such faith to those whom He chooses!

I have said this many times in the past in this forum and allow me to repeat it now: When Jesus told His disciples "I have much to tell you now but you cannot bear it" I don't think He was speaking if His death because He had described and mentioned His death a couple of times; I don't think He was speaking of some mystery that we will never know about... He was speaking about "justification by faith alone; Salvation by grace alone." Even today, such truths are hard for some who identify themselves as "disciples of Christ", followers of Christ, to bear! We should thank God every second of our lives for having revealed to us such truths in a way that the Holy Spirit gives us strength to bear them,

Does anyone else think so?

Milt

[wildboar]

The problem was that although Augustine was a great Latin scholar he knew hardly any Greek. So he was unable to get to grips with the meaning of the Greek word for 'justify' in Paul's letters. Additionally he only had a Latin version of the Old Testament, not the original Hebrew. A proper interpretation of the Greek and the story of Abraham, leads to the conclusion that 'to justify' means 'to declare righteous'. But Augustine rejected that option and mistakenly decided to justify meant 'to make righteous' which is totally different. So although Augustine concluded that the basis of justification is God's grace, he went on to teach that justification is both an event and a process. In other words he included sanctification inside justification. He once said in a sermon \"We have been justified; but this justice increases as we advance ...\". Accordingly Augustine thought the believer became more and more justified. This is not just a theological nicety, but goes to the very heart of how a person is saved. (See further work on this issue in \"Doctrine for Everyone\", No.4 'How Roman Catholic belief on justification differs from Protestant belief.' (Click to reach the page)

I would be interested to see evidence that Augustine actually rejected the Biblical position that justification is a declaration of righteousness. As far as I can tell he didn't reject the position that justification is a declaration of righteousness. I don't recall any instance where Augustine actually says someone is wrong who holds to a belief that justification is a declaration. What I do find in Augustine is the use of the term "justification" to speak of what later theologians would refer to separately as "justification" and "sanctification." Trying to figure out where Augustine would have stood during the controversies of the Reformation is as fruitless as trying to figure out where Calvin would have stood on the issue of the limited atonement. I think this article does a better job of putting Augustine's position in context.

Even the quoted article demonstrates that! It seems as if Luther's theology is completed in some fashion by Calvin's theology and Calvin's theology has its foundation on Luther's theology.

I don't see how the article shows that. On the issue of justification I don't see any examples in the article where Calvin further developed the doctrine.

I have said this many times in the past in this forum and allow me to repeat it now: When Jesus told His disciples \"I have much to tell you now but you cannot bear it\" I don't think He was speaking if His death because He had described and mentioned His death a couple of times; I don't think He was speaking of some mystery that we will never know about... He was speaking about \"justification by faith alone; Salvation by grace alone.\" Even today, such truths are hard for some who identify themselves as \"disciples of Christ\", followers of Christ, to bear!

John 16:12-16 "I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 "However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. 14 "He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. 15 "All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you. 16 " A little while, and you will not see Me; and again a little while, and you will see Me, because I go to the Father."

I agree that it's not the death of Christ that is being spoken of. It could refer broadly to a great number of things--not that the revelations are new but the Holy Spirit guides the church in interpretation of the Scriptures. I guess justification by faith alone for both Jew and Gentile is a very real possibility but I think from the context the doctrine of the Trinity is more likely in view. Although if the statement is intended to be taken more broadly both of these doctrines as well as many others could be in view.

There were a number of different positions that were held throughout church history on justification--some of them were identical or at least very similar to the historic Protestant/Lutheran position. Rev. Weedon has provided some helpful quotations from the church fathers. Chrysostom and St. Mark the Ascetic make some very clear statements.

In Luther's day there was some pretty extreme works-righteousness being popularly taught, far worse than even what the Council of Trent teaches. If Luther had lived in an earlier period of time and was just positively stating his views his writings may not even have been questioned. But works righteousness of some form or another, even by those who claim to subscribe to justification by faith alone always sneaks in through the back door. It's popular. Even the most hardcore Calvinists try to find ways to sneak their works in, whether they call it doctrine or whatever. Some Lutherans have bought into the nonsense that the church's purpose is to function as a missionary society and sneak their good works in that way. Our sinful nature is always prone to think that there is something in us that merits justification.

I listened to an interview with one of the members of Westboro Baptist Church. They're the ones who like to protest military funerals with messages about how God is destroying the USA because of homosexuality. The interviewer rightly pointed out that they were preaching repentance but they never got around to preaching the forgiveness of sins. The lady being interviewed kept avoiding answering his questions directly and instead tried to get in an argument over the limited atonement. She was defending the limited atonement as well as some other Calvinistic doctrines but it was clear from here statements that she really believed she was saved by her obedience to God's law (even though she admitted she was a sinner.)

[Craig kennedy]

Brethren:

Correct me if I am wrong, please, but it appears to me that, increasingly, as much as there was a revival of Calvinistic doctrine in the last 10 years, there is a growing interest in Luther's Justification by Faith Alone. It also seems evident that, the more we study Luther, the more we see God's Sovereign power in bringing Calvin to the scene. Even the quoted article demonstrates that! It seems as if Luther's theology is completed in some fashion by Calvin's theology and Calvin's theology has its foundation on Luther's theology. Is this another example of "Paul planted, Apollos,watered but God gave the increase? I think so.

Through the ages one thing has been evidently clear: God has had His servants, to, in His own time, bring back His doctrine of Justification by Faith Alone, Declared Righteousness and His Sovereign Will in dispensing the Grace of receiving such faith to those whom He chooses!

I have said this many times in the past in this forum and allow me to repeat it now: When Jesus told His disciples "I have much to tell you now but you cannot bear it" I don't think He was speaking if His death because He had described and mentioned His death a couple of times; I don't think He was speaking of some mystery that we will never know about... He was speaking about "justification by faith alone; Salvation by grace alone." Even today, such truths are hard for some who identify themselves as "disciples of Christ", followers of Christ, to bear! We should thank God every second of our lives for having revealed to us such truths in a way that the Holy Spirit gives us strength to bear them,

Does anyone else think so?

Milt

Yes, I for one DO agree! I also think so!

Cheers, In Christ Craig

[Gregs Wife]

... He was speaking about "justification by faith alone; Salvation by grace alone." Even today, such truths are hard for some who identify themselves as "disciples of Christ", followers of Christ, to bear! We should thank God every second of our lives for having revealed to us such truths in a way that the Holy Spirit gives us strength to bear them,

Does anyone else think so?

I do. Thank you for stating it so well!

[GraceAmbassador]

John 16:12-16 \"I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 \"However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. 14 \"He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. 15 \"All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you. 16 \" A little while, and you will not see Me; and again a little while, and you will see Me, because I go to the Father.\"

I agree that it's not the death of Christ that is being spoken of. It could refer broadly to a great number of things--not that the revelations are new but the Holy Spirit guides the church in interpretation of the Scriptures. I guess justification by faith alone for both Jew and Gentile is a very real possibility but I think from the context the doctrine of the Trinity is more likely in view. Although if the statement is intended to be taken more broadly both of these doctrines as well as many others could be in view.

I have no problem with your position above, however, if you check the history of the doctrine of "Justification by faith alone" and the history of the so-called Christian denominations, you will find that, as the Jewish minded disciples, in their early understanding of Jesus' doctrine, such doctrine is the hardest for any of these denominations to accept. They always come up with some "caveat", either by adding a "confession", an "outward demonstration", "self righteousness" and, as Paul said of old: "Who has bewitched them?" Of course you know that for the "bewitching" to be present, a WITCH must be available; thus, in my very humble opinion, all deviations of "Justification by faith alone" because they attempt to dominate and control God and men in Salvation, and, in character witchcraft is a belief that thrives in controlling "god" and men's actions and thoughts, these deviations are works of witchcraft and its defenders are nothing but WITCHES!

Thanks for your thoughts!

Milt

[Robert R. Higby]

Milt,

I agree that Calvin advanced the truths on this issue discovered by Luther but also am convicted that many others since him advanced such truths far in advance of even Calvin. Dort improves upon Calvin but was defective as we have been discussing. The historic supralapsarians came closest to the gospel of the New Testament but even their doctrine needs further refinement to 'ditch the garbage' of the many centuries of apostasy since the apostles.

WB:I would be interested to see evidence that Augustine actually rejected the Biblical position that justification is a declaration of righteousness. As far as I can tell he didn't reject the position that justification is a declaration of righteousness. I don't recall any instance where Augustine actually says someone is wrong who holds to a belief that justification is a declaration. What I do find in Augustine is the use of the term "justification" to speak of what later theologians would refer to separately as "justification" and "sanctification."

For me, the fact that he did not present the doctrine is evidence that he rejected it. Why? He presented the doctrine of IMPUTED GUILT with such thoroughness that if he had believed the doctrine of imputed righteousness in the same manner (which is infinitely more important and actually TAUGHT in scripture) he could not have helped but teach it exhuberantly.

If any have doubts about Augustine's passionate belief in justification by internal transformation of character, I can only exhort you to read the City of God and the Enchiridion. If you MUST have quotes and don't want to read for yourself I can supply them. They are MOST abundant! But I should not have to.

[wildboar]

For me, the fact that he did not present the doctrine is evidence that he rejected it. Why? He presented the doctrine of IMPUTED GUILT with such thoroughness that if he had believed the doctrine of imputed righteousness in the same manner (which is infinitely more important and actually TAUGHT in scripture) he could not have helped but teach it exhuberantly.

If any have doubts about Augustine's passionate belief in justification by internal transformation of character, I can only exhort you to read the City of God and the Enchiridion. If you MUST have quotes and don't want to read for yourself I can supply them. They are MOST abundant! But I should not have to.

I just don't think that Augustine was conceiving of justification as a separate thing or using it to refer to the same thing we are. It's a bit like trying to take what the Belgic Confession speaks of as "regeneration" and read a modern definition into it or taking the KJV references to the "reprobate" and read them as if they are referring to the same group of people that modern theologians are when they speak of the "reprobate." I don't think he can rightly be said to reject or accept something that he wasn't presented with. If him and Chrysostom were in a room together and debate ensued it would be one thing but when Augustine is speaking of "justification" as something that includes a wider variety of things it's not the same thing.

[Saint Nicholas]

I would be interested to see evidence that Augustine actually rejected the Biblical position that justification is a declaration of righteousness.

Charles please stick to the topic at hand. The issue is "NO IMPUTATION" by Augustine of Hippo. No one who has honestly studied Augustine's soteriology of Grace and Justification would ever deny that Augustine denied that Justification was a declaration of Righteousness. However, the disagreement with Augustine is "ON WHAT BASIS OR GROUND IS THAT DELCLARATION DETERMINED?)

Augustine taught that Justification and sanctification are one process of inward renewal that enables man to cooperate with justifying/sanctifying graces to merit justification. When man sins he fall from justifying grace.

The only way that the sinner could actually be declared "just/righteous" according to Augustine, is when he the sinner is inherently sinless. Thus the doctrine (the logical outcome of Augustine's soteriology) of purgatory neccessarily taught that if one died in a state of grace (although not sinless yet), salvific suffering and merits can be achieved to MAKE the man inherantly sinless.

The whole goal of Augustine's soteriology neccessitates that the sinner must equally be as righteous as Christ, not by imputation as Paul the Apostle teaches (a reckoning/accounting), but a real moral change ie sinless perfection.

This is the difference Chuck. Please try not to confound the issue. Again I will repeat "THE ISSUE IS NOT THAT AUGUSTINE DENIED OR REJECTED THAT JUSTIFICATION IS A DECLARATION OF RIGHTEOUSNESS"

So please do not raise this diversion again!

Nicholas

[Craig kennedy]

Charles please stick to the topic at hand. The issue is "NO IMPUTATION" by Augustine of Hippo. No one who has honestly studied Augustine's soteriology of Grace and Justification would ever deny that Augustine denied that Justification was a declaration of Righteousness. However, the disagreement with Augustine is "ON WHAT BASIS OR GROUND IS THAT DELCLARATION DETERMINED?)

Augustine taught that Justification and sanctification are one process of inward renewal that enables man to cooperate with justifying/sanctifying graces to merit justification. When man sins he fall from justifying grace.

The only way that the sinner could actually be declared "just/righteous" according to Augustine, is when he the sinner is inherently sinless. Thus the doctrine (the logical outcome of Augustine's soteriology) of purgatory neccessarily taught that if one died in a state of grace (although not sinless yet), salvific suffering and merits can be achieved to MAKE the man inherantly sinless.

The whole goal of Augustine's soteriology neccessitates that the sinner must equally be as righteous as Christ, not by imputation as Paul the Apostle teaches (a reckoning/accounting), but a real moral change ie sinless perfection.

This is the difference Chuck. Please try not to confound the issue. Again I will repeat "THE ISSUE IS NOT THAT AUGUSTINE DENIED OR REJECTED THAT JUSTIFICATION IS A DECLARATION OF RIGHTEOUSNESS"

So please do not raise this diversion again!

Nicholas

An excellent post, Nicholas!

Yes, it is these considerations that have led me - POWERFULLY under God's SOVEREIGN DIRECTION - to embrace the scriptural view that NO SIN OR GUILT IS EVER IMPUTED TO GOD'S ELECT!

Why do I believe this? On a whim - certainly NOT! God has shown me the truth of Romans 4:8. I like the KJV translation of this verse. It accurately states the matter:

"Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will NOT IMPUTE sin."

Plain and clear words? O Yes, I think so! These words are a Quotation from and CONSISTENT WITH PSALM 32:1-2. Again, I prefer the KJV translation here:

"Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered.

Blessed is the man unto whom the Lord imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile."

In the face of these scriptural FACTS Augustine's mere theory that Justification and Sanctification are one process of inward renewal that enables man to "co-operate" with justifying/sanctifying graces to merit justification, falls to the ground. It can be safely rejected as false teaching and dogma.

All of this has been an eye-opener to me. I am now firmly persuaded by God that I belong to the CLASS OF PEOPLE delineated in Romans 4:8 and Psalm 32:1-2. As such I KNOW that my Righteousness is the IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS OF CHRIST only; that I was, as one of God's Elect:

1 Justified in the Counsels of God ...FROM ALL ETERNITY

2 Imputed with the DECLARED RIGHTEOUSNESS OF CHRIST...IN ETERNITY.

This is the ONLY view that does justice to the scriptural testimony!

I, accordingly, reject Augustine's teaching on these themes with clear-headed DECISIVENESS.

Cheers, In Christ Craig

[wildboar]

Charles please stick to the topic at hand. The issue is "NO IMPUTATION" by Augustine of Hippo. No one who has honestly studied Augustine's soteriology of Grace and Justification would ever deny that Augustine denied that Justification was a declaration of Righteousness. However, the disagreement with Augustine is "ON WHAT BASIS OR GROUND IS THAT DELCLARATION DETERMINED?)

I apologize, I misspoke or miswrote or whatever. But my point was simply that Augustine was not thinking in those catagories or dealing with those particular issues that people on both sides of the debate are trying to squeeze him into.

[trav]

Charles please stick to the topic at hand. The issue is "NO IMPUTATION" by Augustine of Hippo. No one who has honestly studied Augustine's soteriology of Grace and Justification would ever deny that Augustine denied that Justification was a declaration of Righteousness. However, the disagreement with Augustine is "ON WHAT BASIS OR GROUND IS THAT DELCLARATION DETERMINED?)

Augustine taught that Justification and sanctification are one process of inward renewal that enables man to cooperate with justifying/sanctifying graces to merit justification. When man sins he fall from justifying grace.

The only way that the sinner could actually be declared "just/righteous" according to Augustine, is when he the sinner is inherently sinless. Thus the doctrine (the logical outcome of Augustine's soteriology) of purgatory neccessarily taught that if one died in a state of grace (although not sinless yet), salvific suffering and merits can be achieved to MAKE the man inherantly sinless.

The whole goal of Augustine's soteriology neccessitates that the sinner must equally be as righteous as Christ, not by imputation as Paul the Apostle teaches (a reckoning/accounting), but a real moral change ie sinless perfection.

This is the difference Chuck. Please try not to confound the issue. Again I will repeat "THE ISSUE IS NOT THAT AUGUSTINE DENIED OR REJECTED THAT JUSTIFICATION IS A DECLARATION OF RIGHTEOUSNESS"

So please do not raise this diversion again!

Nicholas

What you have stated here regarding what Augustine taught lines up perfectly with what my copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, see Chapter 3 article 2 "Grace and Justification". What a bunch of crap! Since this is what Augustine believed and taught he obviously knew nothing of the True Christ, Augustine was ignorant of and did not submit to the Righteousness that comes from God. He was part of the same Whore who gladly gives credit to him in her catechism.

[Saint Nicholas]

What you have stated here regarding what Augustine taught lines up perfectly with what my copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, see Chapter 3 article 2 "Grace and Justification". What a bunch of crap! Since this is what Augustine believed and taught he obviously knew nothing of the True Christ, Augustine was ignorant of and did not submit to the Righteousness that comes from God. He was part of the same Whore who gladly gives credit to him in her catechism.

Well said, and I agree! Most mainline denominational Protestant churches, along with Evangelicals and Pentecostals have abandoned the Pauline doctrine of Justification (imputation) by Grace ALONE, through Faith ALONE, in Christ ALONE.

Ecumenical concords such as ECT I , ECT II, and Lutherans and Catholics together are proof that they are embracing the Tridentine Council of Trent's soteriology of Grace and Justification.

I could post numerous articles of Protestant ministers and pew warmers who are leaving their churches to join the Roman Catholic Church thus proving their unregenerate and dead state.

The Gospel is a Rock of Offense to those who are perishing (dead in their sins. Unregenerate) Dead men hate the Gospel because it robs them of their pious good works. Augustinian and Roman Catholic soteriology elevates man and his good works to the status of Righteous (temporarily that is) until they sin which is always. Then back to square one again.

Federal Vision along with the New Perspective on Paul advocates, have reinstated similar ecclesiastical schemes as to the Papacy.

The separated children are returning to their whore mother Rome both literally and or spiritually. Dumb protestants such as Lutherans, Episcopalians, Anglicans, Presbyterians, and some evangelical groups are now involved in mild forms of Marian devotion.

You see my brother, the guilty and rebellious children want to be like their mother, and seek her forgivness and fellowship.

Nicholas

[trav]

Well said, and I agree! Most mainline denominational Protestant churches, along with Evangelicals and Pentecostals have abandoned the Pauline doctrine of Justification (imputation) by Grace ALONE, through Faith ALONE, in Christ ALONE.

Ecumenical concords such as ECT I , ECT II, and Lutherans and Catholics together are proof that they are embracing the Tridentine Council of Trent's soteriology of Grace and Justification.

I could post numerous articles of Protestant ministers and pew warmers who are leaving their churches to join the Roman Catholic Church thus proving their unregenerate and dead state.

The Gospel is a Rock of Offense to those who are perishing (dead in their sins. Unregenerate) Dead men hate the Gospel because it robs them of their pious good works. Augustinian and Roman Catholic soteriology elevates man and his good works to the status of Righteous (temporarily that is) until they sin which is always. Then back to square one again.

Federal Vision along with the New Perspective on Paul advocates, have reinstated similar ecclesiastical schemes as to the Papacy.

The separated children are returning to their whore mother Rome both literally and or spiritually. Dumb protestants such as Lutherans, Episcopalians, Anglicans, Presbyterians, and some evangelical groups are now involved in mild forms of Marian devotion.

You see my brother, the guilty and rebellious children want to be like their mother, and seek her forgivness and fellowship.

Nicholas

Hence we have the Scott Hahn's, James Akin's, and Francis Beckwith's.

[Robert R. Higby]

Charles: I apologize, I misspoke or miswrote or whatever. But my point was simply that Augustine was not thinking in those catagories or dealing with those particular issues that people on both sides of the debate are trying to squeeze him into.

Naturally, my honest question is, if he did not think in these categories--why did he teach the doctrine of the IMPUTED GUILT of Adam to the human race with such precision and eloquence? This certainly shows that he understood what IMPUTATION is and he also most certainly understood that IMPUTATION in the New Testament is a Pauline concept taught almost exclusively in terms of a crediting of Christ's righteousness to elect believers.

--Bob

[Mickey]

I cannot recollect reading many (if any) clear affirmations of Imputed Righteousness till Calvin without the authors contradicting themselves in some form or fashion with their love for religious observances that cross the line into idolatry.

If I remember correctly even Calvin has some questionable commentary (that requires more investigation than I am willing to commit to) where it appears he didn't "ditch all of the garbage".

[Robert R. Higby]

Thanks for your observations Mike!

I don't think Calvin contradicted himself on affirming the imputed righteousness of Christ. However, he certainly affirmed OTHER things (in a sacramental fashion) that were contradictory to the glorious truth of the imputation of Christ's grace. But I welcome any challenges to what I have said and am completely willing to discuss them.

Thanks!

--Bob