The Catholic Church - Builder of Civilization, Episode 4: The Galileo Case

Question about Romans 8 and Romans 7

from comment 470  http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/04/catholic-and-reformed-conceptions-of-the-atonement/

Or Romans 8:3-4, which talks about punishing sin in the flesh? How does this fit in your scheme?

The meaning is that through the grace that comes to us through Christ’s sacrifice, God did to sin what the law could not do to sin, that is, subdue and destroy sin, breaking its power, so that the righteous requirement of the law could be fulfilled in us who no longer live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit, through infused grace and agape. Here St. Paul writes metaphorically as though sin were a person, but strictly speaking sin is not a person. Sin is ‘condemned’ not in the sense that sin is punished for doing something wrong (because sin itself is not an agent and has no will), but in the sense of being conquered, defeated, and destroyed through the redemptive work of Christ by which He made satisfaction for our sins.

Also, regarding the necessity of the atonement, Jesus makes statements about it being necessary (couldn’t have been done another way); John 3:14 for instance is an example. How do you respond to that?

Again, see comment #19 above, where the different senses of ‘necessity’ are distinguished.


also from comment 527 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/08/imputation-and-paradigms-a-reply-to-nicholas-batzig/#comment-162393     dealing withRomans 7 and *

\St. Paul here is describing the struggle with concupiscence (“law of the flesh”) which, though not itself sinful, inclines us to commit sin. This is not Lutheran nominalism – unless one brings that philosophical predisposition to the reading of Romans 7. He is not simultaneously in a state of mortal sin and “saved.” That is an impossibility since being “saved” means having sanctifying grace – and mortal sin drives out sanctifying grace.

The resolution of the tension in Romans 7 is found in the next chapter: “therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” — that is, for he who is filled with sanctifying grace. Being “in Christ Jesus” is just having sanctifying grace.

God is not a nominalist. God is truth, and those whom He saves really are saved – filled with sanctifying grace, which drives out mortal sin — though not concupiscence. God does not simply declare us righteous despite our sin (which would be contrary to the truth of our sinful condition), He actually makes us righteous with the infusion of a share in the Divine life.

I do agree that God is above philosophy, as He is above all creatures. But He is not above Himself and cannot tell a lie – cannot say a thing is that which it is not.

and from part of comment 531 at the same link:

 Paul is saying that there is ‘no condemnation for those who are in Christ,’ but he does not say that one cannot willfully separate himself from Christ through sin. Someone that is in Christ has Sanctifying Grace abiding in their soul, but this can be lost through Mortal Sin, which is a willful separation of one’s self from Christ. In essence, by committing Mortal Sin, you are turning away from Christ through personal action, thus it destroys charity in the will (thereby causing you to lose Sanctifying Grace). Such a person is no longer ‘in Christ’ and therefore in a state of condemnation. There is no contradiction; you cannot be both ‘in Christ’ and condemned, but neither can you commit Mortal Sin and remain ‘in Christ,’ until you repent and are restored. At least, that is my understanding of it.

Consider John 15 when Christ is speaking to the disciples:

““I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. 2 Every branch of mine that bears no fruit, he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit. 3 You are already made clean by the word which I have spoken to you. 4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me. 5 I am the vine, you are the branches. He who abides in me, and I in him, he it is that bears much fruit, for apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned. 7 If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you will, and it shall be done for you. 8 By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit, and so prove to be my disciples. 9 As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you; abide in my love. 10 If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love. 11 These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be full.”

Notice, every branch of his that bears no fruit is “taken away” and if one does not abide in Christ “he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned.”

This passage is perfectly consonant with the agape infusion paradigm, yet I cannot see how it could be coherently understood from an imputation standpoint. How can someone who is a ‘branch of mine’ (Christ’s words) be taken away because he lacks fruit. Furthermore, he says that keeping his commandments is a requirement for abiding in His love and for those that do not abide in him they are cast away and burned. If Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us (such that God only sees Christ’s perfect righteousness and not our sins), and this imputation cannot be lost through sinning of any sort, then this passage is completely incoherent. God removes and casts forth (or at least is threatening to here) someone for violations that He is going to somehow will Himself not to see? That makes no sense.

Also consider Hebrews 10:

“26 For if we sin deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27 but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire which will consume the adversaries. 28 A man who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy at the testimony of two or three witnesses.29 How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God, and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace? 30 For we know him who said, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” 31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.”

One is not sanctified by the blood of the covenant unless they are ‘in Christ.’ So, if this person who ‘sins deliberately’ has received knowledge of the truth and has been sanctified by the blood of the covenant and now there ‘no longer remains a sacrifice for sins’ how else would you interpret this other than someone who had formerly been ‘in-Christ’ and then subsequently falling away through sin? See Hebrews 10:19-39 for context; the whole passage is an exhortation to perseverance.

Finally, what about 1 John 5:

“If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that.17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.”

Note, other translations translate ‘mortal sin’ here as ‘sin unto death’ (KJV) or ‘sin leading to death’ (ESV) lest you be inclined to think ill of the Catholic translation.

I would say that 1 John 5:16-17 could not be any more clear that there is indeed ‘sin which is not mortal’ and ‘sin which is mortal’ that can be committed by a Christian; so clearly there are two types of sin (although the passage does not describe what exactly constitutes either). I don’t see how this passage could be read in any coherent or meaningful way from a Reformed perspective. Imputation leaves no room for any ‘sin unto death’ because you cannot lose your justification through sin (since you are covered extra nos by Christ’s righteousness).