The Catholic Doctrine of Merit: The "Not a Righteousness of my Own" Objection

As discussed in previous posts (such as HERE), the Catholic understanding of justification differs from the Protestant view primarily with respect to the kind of righteousness that is received in justification. On the Catholic view, we receive a real, ontological righteousness that inheres in our soul and makes us a new creation. By contrast, on the Protestant view, we are merely imputed with the perfect, alien righteousness of Christ (the iustitia Christi aliena). We are credited with being as righteous as Christ even though, intrinsically, we are unchanged. On the Catholic view, because the righteousness received in justification is a real righteousness inhering in our soul and is distinct from Christ's personal and perfect righteousness (and hence is finite), it follows that the righteousness received in justification—referred to in Catholic theology as sanctifying grace—can be increased. And, according to Catholic teaching, good works done through God's grace contribute to growing in sanctifying grace, growing in righteousness, growing in justification (cf. Romans 2:13, James 2:24). I have argued for this doctrine HERE. On the Protestant view, however, the righteousness received in justification cannot be increased. This is because, on the Protestant view, in justification we are imputed with Christ's perfect righteousness. Since Christ's righteousness does not increase, therefore, our righteous standing before God does not and cannot increase. Hence, good works cannot contribute in any way to justification, not even to a growth in justification.

This basic reasoning furnishes the following objection to the Catholic doctrine that good works wrought by God's grace contribute to an increase in justification: Saying that good works contribute to an increase in our justification is incompatible with the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s perfect righteousness. Justification consists in the imputation of Christ’s personal and perfect righteousness to our account so that when God looks at us in the context of the Last Judgement, He sees Christ instead of us. Justification fulfills the just requirement of the law in us in that God credits us with Christ's perfect accomplishment of the law (cf. Romans 8:4). Christ is our righteousness (cf. 1 Corinthians 1:30, 2 Corinthians 5:21). Our righteousness is not a righteousness of our own but is rather the righteousness of God through faith in Christ (cf. Philippians 3:9). Justification is a purely forensic declaration whereby an external righteousness is imputed (i.e., credited or reckoned) to us (cf. Genesis 15:6, Romans 4:3, Galatians 3:6). As Martin Luther taught, “I feel in myself nothing but sin; and yet I am righteous and holy, not in myself, but in Christ Jesus who of God is made for me wisdom and righteousness and sanctification” (“Sermon for the Feast of the Beheading of John the Baptist”, quoted in A Lutheran’s Case for Roman Catholicism, pg. 16). John Calvin fleshes out these ideas as follows:

A man is said to be justified in the sight of God when in the judgment of God he is deemed righteous, and is accepted on account of his righteousness; for as iniquity is abominable to God, so neither can the sinner find grace in his sight, so far as he is and so long as he is regarded as a sinner. Hence, wherever sin is, there also are the wrath and vengeance of God. He, on the other hand, is justified who is regarded not as a sinner, but as righteous, and as such stands acquitted at the judgment-seat of God, where all sinners are condemned. As an innocent man, when charged before an impartial judge, who decides according to his innocence, is said to be justified by the judge, as a man is said to be justified by God when, removed from the catalogue of sinners, he has God as the witness and assertor of his righteousness. In the same manner, a man will be said to be justified by works, if in his life there can be found a purity and holiness which merits an attestation of righteousness at the throne of God, or if by the perfection of his works he can answer and satisfy the divine justice. On the contrary, a man will be justified by faith when, excluded from the righteousness of works, he by faith lays hold of the righteousness of Christ, and clothed in it appears in the sight of God not as a sinner, but as righteous. Thus we simply interpret justification, as the acceptance with which God receives us into his favor as if we were righteous; and we say that this justification consists in the forgiveness of sins and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ (Institutes of the Christian Religion III, 11, 2).

Similarly, the Westminster Confession presents the following summary of the Reformed doctrine of justification:

Those whom God effectually calleth he also freely justifieth; not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous: not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ’s sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God (Westminster Confession, XI.I).

And since Christ’s righteousness is perfect, it cannot increase. Thus, once we are justified, we cannot increase in justification. It follows, therefore, that good works do not contribute to an increase in justification.

In response, the main argument presented by the objector can be semi-formalized as follows:

1. If the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness is true, then good works do not contribute to an increase in justification.
2. The doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness is true.
3. Therefore, good works do not contribute to an increase in justification.

Now, as the saying goes, one man’s modus ponens is another man’s modus tollens. We can readily affirm the conditional expressed in the first premise of the argument. But rather than affirm the antecedent, we will simply deny the consequent as follows:

1. If the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness is true, then good works do not contribute to an increase in justification.
2^*. Good works do contribute to an increase in justification.
3^*. Therefore, the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness is false.

In deciding which of these two arguments to accept, we need to determine the relative warrant for the second premises in each. With respect to 2^*, I have already provided argumentation in support of its truth HERE. With respect to 2, the objector has cited alleged support from Scripture for its truth. Let us examine the cited passages:

1. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit (Romans 8:3-4).
   
   
2. He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom, our righteousness and sanctification and redemption (1 Corinthians 1:30).
   
   
3. 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 Corinthians 5:21).
   
   
4. and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own, based on law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith (Philippians 3:9).
   
   
5. And he believed the Lord; and he reckoned it to him as righteousness (Genesis 15:6).
   
   
6. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.” … But the words, “it was reckoned to him,” were written not for his sake alone, but for ours also. It will be reckoned to us who believe in him that raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, who was put to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification (Romans 4:3; 4:23-25).
   
   
7. Thus Abraham “believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.” … “He who through faith is righteous shall live” (Galatians 3:6; 3:11; cf. Habakkuk 2:4, Romans 1:17, Hebrews 10:38).

(1) With respect to the first cited passage, the Protestant interpretation is that this passage teaches the doctrine of imputed active obedience, which holds that Christ’s perfect obedience to the law is legally imputed to us when we are justified, and we are credited thereby with having perfectly fulfilled the law ourselves. As John Calvin taught, commenting on Romans 8:4 as well as Romans 5:19:

Here the only fulfillment to which [Paul] refers is that which we obtain by imputation. Our Lord Jesus Christ communicates his righteousness to us, and so, by some wondrous ways in so far as pertains to the justice of God, transfuses its power into us. That this was the Apostle’s view is abundantly clear from another sentiment which he had expressed a little before: “As by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous,” (Rom. 5:19). To declare that we are deemed righteous, solely because the obedience of Christ is imputed to us as if it were our own, is just to place our righteousness in the obedience of Christ.  (Institutes of the Christian Religion III, 11, 23).

Lutherans are in agreement with Calvin on this point:

[J]ustification before God…relies…upon Christ alone, and in Him upon His complete obedience by which He has fulfilled the Law for us, which [obedience] is imputed to believers for righteousness (Formula of Concord III, 30).

In response, there is nothing in the context of Romans 8:4 that suggests imputation. Rather, the context is one of walking with the Spirit (8:4), setting the mind on the Spirit rather than on the flesh so that we can submit to God’s law and please God (8:6-8), being made alive through righteousness on account of the Spirit dwelling in us (8:10), and putting to death the deeds of the flesh so that we may live (8:13). The entire context, therefore, is about actually living uprightly and submitting to God’s law. Calvin’s interpretation, therefore, is contrived and implausible. Imputation is being read into the text by the objector. There is nothing in the text itself that suggests imputation.

A similar point applies to Calvin’s interpretation of Romans 5:19. There isn’t anything in the text that suggests imputation. On the contrary, the parallel between Adam making us sinners and Christ making us righteous necessitates that we interpret “made” the same way with respect to being made sinners and being made righteous. We are not imputed with the sin of Adam; rather, we inherit original sin, a deprivation of original righteousness (cf. Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, pg. 121-122; cf. Ecclesiastes 7:29). For us to be treated legally as guilty on account of, and held to be responsible for, Adam’s personal sin would be a violation of justice. As God teaches Ezekiel, “The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself” (Ezekiel 18:20; cf. Deuteronomy 24:16; Summa Theologica I-II, 87, 8). Original sin is not a sin of fault (as in personal sin) but is rather a “sin of nature,” that separates the soul from God and is the cause of concupiscence, i.e., the inclination towards personal sin. It is a deprivation of original righteousness that would have been inherited by our nature had Adam’s personal sin not squandered it (cf. CCC 404-405; Reality: A Synthesis of Thomistic Thought, pg. 136-137). Calvin himself actually seems to more or less agree with this understanding of original sin (cf. Institutes II, 1, 8). Because of original sin, we are not conceived in righteousness as we were intended to be; instead, we are conceived in sin and iniquity (cf. Psalm 51:5) and stand in need of being washed clean and given a clean heart and a right spirit (cf. Psalm 51:7-10). (As an aside, those who die in a state of original sin without having committed any personal sins will be deprived of the beatific vision and be in Hell, though they will be spared from the positive pains of Hell; cf. Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, pg. 125, 508-510. It is an open question whether there are human beings who have died or will die in such a state). Thus, given the parallelism, we must conclude that we are not simply imputed with righteousness; rather, we are actually made righteous. The righteousness that we were deprived of because of Adam’s disobedience is restored to us because of Christ’s obedience. And this righteousness makes us “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4) and allows us to be “doers of the law” (Romans 2:13) so that “the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit” (Romans 8:4). The Protestant argument, therefore, has been answered.

(2) With respect to the second cited passage, the interpretation that the objector has in mind is not plausible. The objector understands the passage as saying that justification consists in being legally imputed with Christ’s personal righteousness. After all, the passage clearly teaches that Christ just is our righteousness. The problem with this interpretation is that the passage also says that Christ is our sanctification. But no Protestant believes that sanctification consists in the legal imputation of Christ’s personal holiness to our account. Rather, sanctification entails an inward transformation by which we grow in intrinsic holiness over time. Furthermore, are we likewise to interpret the passage as saying that Christ’s personal wisdom is imputed to us? What would that even mean? And what would be the point? On the objector’s interpretation, therefore, the passage proves too much, as it were. Thus, if Paul can say that Christ is our sanctification without thereby committing him to a purely forensic view of sanctification, then he can likewise say that Christ is our righteousness without thereby committing him to a purely forensic view of justification. A more plausible interpretation of the passage is that Paul is teaching that Christ is the source of our wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption. These things all flow from Christ as gifts merited by Him on our behalf. This interpretation fits right in with the Council of Trent’s teaching that Christ is the meritorious cause of our justification (cf. Decree on Justification, Ch. VII).

(3) With respect to the third cited passage, this verse has been used by Protestants to try to prove the doctrine of the so-called “Great Exchange” (alternatively, “double imputation”), which holds that our sins were legally imputed to Christ, who was punished by God the Father for those sins in our place (cf. Institutes II, 16, 5-6), and Christ’s righteousness was then legally imputed to us (cf. Institutes III, 11, 23). Thus, we exchanged our guilt with Christ for His righteousness. There are two components to this so-called Great Exchange: the doctrine of penal substitution and the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s personal righteousness, the latter having already been explained. The doctrine of penal substitution holds that the atonement essentially consisted in God treating Christ as a guilty party as our substitute and then punishing Christ for our sins, which were imputed to Him. John Calvin summarizes the doctrine of the Great Exchange as follows:

Our acquittal is in this that the guilt which made us liable to punishment was transferred to the head of the Son of God (Is. 53:12). We must specially remember this substitution in order that we may not be all our lives in trepidation and anxiety, as if the just vengeance which the Son of God transferred to himself, were still impending over us. The cross was cursed not only in the opinion of men, but by the enactment of the Divine Law. Hence Christ, while suspended on it, subjects himself to the curse. And thus it behoved to be done, in order that the whole curse, which on account of our iniquities awaited us, or rather lay upon us, might be taken from us by being transferred to him…[I]n order to accomplish a full expiation, he made his soul… a propitiatory victim for sin (as the prophet says, Is. 53:5, 10), on which the guilt and penalty being in a manner laid, ceases to be imputed to us. The Apostle declares this more plainly when he says, that “he made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him,” (2 Cor. 5:21). For the Son of God, though spotlessly pure, took upon him the disgrace and ignominy of our iniquities, and in return clothed us with his purity. To the same thing he seems to refer, when he says, that he “condemned sin in the flesh,” (Rom. 8:3), the Father having destroyed the power of sin when it was transferred to the flesh of Christ. This term, therefore, indicates that Christ, in his death, was offered to the Father as a propitiatory victim; that, expiation being made by his sacrifice, we might cease to tremble at the divine wrath. It is now clear what the prophet means when he says, that “the Lord has laid upon him the iniquity of us all,” (Is. 53:6); namely, that as he was to wash away the pollution of sins, they were transferred to him by imputation…[W]ere not Christ a victim, we could have no sure conviction of his being…our substitute-ransom and propitiation (cf. Institutes of the Christian Religion, II, 16, 5-6, boldface added).

To simplify, the argument for penal substitution from 2 Corinthians 5:21 is that the verse says that Christ was made “to be sin,” which seems to indicate that Christ in some way became a sinner. Now it can’t be that He truly became a sinner because the verse also says that Christ “knew no sin.” Hence, it must be that God simply treated Christ as if He were a sinner for the purpose of the atonement. As an aside, Christ’s perfect obedience to the law is referred to as His active obedience (obedientia activa Christi), and His suffering the punishment for our sins is referred to as His passive obedience (obedientia Christi passiva) (cf. Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, pg. 240).

The trouble is, however, that penal substitution is false (cf. Eleonore Stump’s Atonement, pg. 76-78). First, there are no verses (including this one) that state that Christ was punished as a legally guilty party in our place. This is the closest verse to supporting penal substitution in Scripture, and yet its support is highly dubious. Given the failures of Romans 8:4 and 1 Corinthians 1:30 to support the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, we should be skeptical of the present verse’s ability to support penal substitution. For we’ve already seen that Paul can say that Christ is our righteousness without committing him to a purely forensic view of justification whereby Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us. Given this, we have no reason to think that Paul saying that Christ was made “to be sin” must commit him to penal substitution. Second, penal substitution is a violation of justice. Consider the following argument against penal substitution:

1. It is unjust to punish an innocent person.
2. Jesus is an innocent person.
3. Therefore, it is unjust to punish Jesus. (i, ii)
4. God cannot do anything unjust.
5. Therefore, God cannot have punished Jesus. (iii, iv)
6. If God cannot have punished Jesus, then penal substitution is false.
7. Therefore, penal substitution is false. (v, vi)

One could reply to this by saying that, for the sake of the atonement, Christ was not innocent. Rather, God imputed our sin to Him, thus making Him guilty before Him. This is, after all, the whole idea of penal substitution. So, premise 2 is false, at least for the duration of the atonement. The trouble with this reply is that we can construct another argument against this that is just as plausible as the previous:

1. It is unjust to impute guilt to an innocent person (i.e., it is unjust to treat an innocent person as a guilty person).
2. Jesus is an innocent person.
3. Therefore, it is unjust to impute guilt to Jesus (i.e., it is unjust to treat Jesus as a guilty person).

Another point to be made is that it is likely that Christ being made “to be sin” is a turn of phrase meaning “to be a sin offering.” This is the meaning that the phrase has in the Septuagint (cf. Leviticus 4:21; 5:12; 6:25), and the vast majority of Paul’s citations of the Old Testament come from the Septuagint. Thus, this is likely Paul’s meaning in this verse. The Suffering Servant prophecy of Isaiah also foretells that Christ will be an “offering for sin” (Isaiah 53:10). Continuing with the Suffering Servant prophecy, it is true that some English translations of Isaiah 53:5 render the Hebrew מוּסַ֤ר (mū·sar) as "punishment" (see, for instance, the NIV translation), but such "punishment" need not be understood as an act of retribution against a guilty party. It can instead be understood merely as harsh and undesirable treatment. Of course, it could also be taken as retribution against a guilty party, but the text, by itself, does not demand such an interpretation. Thus, given this fact in conjunction with the fact that we have strong, independent reasons to reject penal substitution, we are quite justified in rejecting the interpretation of מוּסַ֤ר in Isaiah 53:5 as retribution against a guilty party.

Furthermore, Christ’s sacrifice on the cross was the typological fulfillment of the Old Testament animal sacrifices (cf. Hebrews 10:1-18). And there is no concept of imputed guilt with respect to the sacrificial victims (i.e., the animals) in the Old Testament. Penal substitution, therefore, is foreign to the Old Testament. Therefore, if Christ is the perfection of the Old Testament sacrificial system, then penal substitution is a poor fit with respect to the atonement. In contrast to the doctrine of penal substitution, Christ instead became a sin offering on our behalf so that He might merit for us justification by which we receive the gift of righteousness and renewal from God (a righteousness that is a gift to us distinct from God’s personal righteousness).

With respect to the other component of the Great Exchange, the objector understands “so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” as teaching the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. But we’ve already seen that Christ being made “to be sin” doesn’t entail imputation. Given this, us becoming “the righteousness of God” doesn’t plausibly entail imputation either. This expression, just like the similar expression in 1 Corinthians 1:30, is compatible with us receiving a righteousness from God that is nevertheless distinct from His personal righteousness.

(4) With respect to the fourth cited passage, the objector’s interpretation is that the verse teaches that justification gives us a righteousness that is not our own but rather the righteousness of God. Hence, this verse teaches the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. However, the verse does not simply say that it is a righteousness that is not our own without qualification; rather, the verse says that it is not a righteousness of our own based on law. In other words, we don’t justify ourselves by obedience to the law by our own efforts and will. Instead, we are gifted a righteousness from God out of His mercy that becomes ours by virtue of infusion.

As St. Augustine teaches, it is

“the ‘righteousness of God,’—not that whereby He Himself is righteous, but that with which He endows man when He justifies the ungodly…It is not, therefore, by the law, nor is it by their own will, that they are justified; but they are justified freely by His grace,—not that it is wrought without our will; but our will is by the law shown to be weak, that grace may heal its infirmity; and that our healed will may fulfill the law, not by compact under the law, nor yet in the absence of law” (On the Spirit and the Letter, Ch. XIII).

Commenting on this and another similar passage from Augustine, Robert C. Koons explains, “We are justified by a grace that is infused into us, healing our wills and enabling us to fulfill the law [cf. Romans 8:4]. We are not justified under the law, but neither are we justified in the absence of or apart from law…Justification is a matter of our being made (not merely being imputed to be) righteous [cf. Romans 5:19]” (A Lutheran’s Case for Roman Catholicism, pg. 142-143). This is precisely the teaching of the Council of Trent:

“[T]he sole formal cause [of justification] is the justice of God; not that by which he himself is just, but that by which he maketh us just, that, to wit, with which we, being endowed by him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and we are not only reputed, but are truly called, and are, just…Thus, neither is our own righteousness established as our own as from ourselves; nor is the righteousness of God denied or repudiated: for that righteousness which is called ours, because we are justified from its being inherent in us, that same is [the righteousness] of God, because it is infused into us of God, through the merit of Christ” (Decree on Justification, Ch. VII, XVI).

If anyone shall say, that men are justified without the righteousness of Christ, by which he merited for us to be justified; or that it is by that [justice] itself that they are formally just; let him be anathema (On Justification, Canon X).

If anyone shall say, that men are justified either by the sole imputation of the righteousness of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is shed abroad in their hearts by the Holy Spirit, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, by which we are justified, is only the favor of God; let him be anathema (On Justification, Canon XI).

(5-7) With respect to the fifth, sixth, and seventh cited passages, the objector’s interpretation is that “reckoned” (logizomai in the Greek) denotes a legal or business-like crediting of something. In the same vein, the Greek for “justified” (dikaióō) generally means “to acquit” or “pronounce righteous.” So, the idea is that, in justification, we are legally declared righteous and credited (or imputed) with an external righteousness, specifically the personal righteousness of Christ. We are justified extra nos (“outside of us”), as Luther put it. Moreover, we receive this righteousness passively through faith alone. Good works play no role in justification whatsoever. Justification is strictly separate from and precedes regeneration and sanctification. As Lutheran theology teaches:

Accordingly, the word justify here means to declare righteous and free from sins, and to absolve one from eternal punishment for the sake of Christ's righteousness, which is imputed by God to faith, Phil. 3:9. For this use and understanding of this word is common in the Holy Scriptures of the Old and the New Testament. Prov. 17:15: He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the Lord. Is. 5:23: Woe unto them which justify the wicked for reward, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him! Rom. 8:33: Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth, that is, absolves from sins and acquits.

However, since the word regeneratio, regeneration, is sometimes employed for the word iustificatio, justification, it is necessary that this word be properly explained, in order that the renewal which follows justification of faith may not be confounded with the justification of faith, but that they may be properly distinguished from one another.

For, in the first place, the word regeneratio, that is, regeneration, is used so as to comprise at the same time the forgiveness of sins for Christ's sake alone, and the succeeding renewal which the Holy Ghost works in those who are justified by faith. Then, again, it is [sometimes] used pro remissione peccatorum et adoptione in filios Dei, that is, so as to mean only the remission of sins, and that we are adopted as sons of God. And in this latter sense the word is much and often used in the Apology, where it is written: Iustificatio est regeneratio, that is, Justification before God is regeneration. St. Paul, too, has employed these words as distinct from one another, Titus 3:5: He saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Ghost. As also the word vivificatio, that is, making alive, has sometimes been used in a like sense. For when man is justified through faith (which the Holy Ghost alone works), this is truly a regeneration, because from a child of wrath he becomes a child of God, and thus is transferred from death to life, as it is written: When we were dead in sins, He hath quickened us together with Christ, Eph. 2:5. Likewise: The just shall live by faith, Rom. 1:17; Hab. 2:4. In this sense the word is much and often used in the Apology.

But again, it is often taken also for sanctification and renewal, which succeeds the righteousness of faith, as Dr. Luther has thus used it in his book concerning the Church and the Councils, and elsewhere.

But when we teach that through the operation of the Holy Ghost we are born anew and justified, the sense is not that after regeneration no unrighteousness clings any more to the justified and regenerate in their being and life, but that Christ covers all their sins which nevertheless in this life still inhere in nature with His complete obedience. But irrespective of this they are declared and regarded godly and righteous by faith and for the sake of Christ's obedience (which Christ rendered the Father for us from His birth to His most ignominious death upon the cross), although, on account of their corrupt nature, they still are and remain sinners to the grave [while they bear about this mortal body]. Nor, on the other hand, is this the meaning, that without repentance, conversion, and renewal we might or should yield to sins, and remain and continue in them (Formula of Concord, III, 17-22).

There are multiple problems with this line of argument.

First, the objector seems to be setting up a false dichotomy between imputation of righteousness and infusion of righteousness (i.e., being made inherently righteous). Both imputation and infusion can be true. In Catholic teaching, God counts us as righteous because he also makes us righteous (cf. Romans 5:19). This can be understood either as God first imputing us with righteousness, which then results in us being made righteous by the power of His declarative word, or as God first making us righteous and then in virtue of that, imputing a righteous standing to us (cf. The Drama of Salvation, pg. 147-148). On the Catholic view, God’s reckoning of righteousness to us corresponds to the intrinsic reality of righteousness in us, a righteousness that He infuses into us as a gift. The reckoning is analytic rather than synthetic (cf. Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, pg. 188). The righteousness we receive in justification, therefore, is not a mere legal and external righteousness but rather also an ontological and intrinsic righteousness. Trent Horn summarizes this as follows:

Catholics believe in a restorative view of justification rather than a purely forensic or legal view. God certainly declares us to be righteous, but just as God’s declaration “Let there be light” (Gen 1:3) created actual light, God’s declaration of our justification creates actual righteousness in those he justifies (The Case for Catholicism, pg. 207).

Cardinal John Henry Newman elaborates on this idea as follows:

God’s word, I say, effects what it announces. This is its characteristic all through Scripture…Thus in the beginning He said, “Let there be light, and there was light.” … So again in His miracles, He called Lazarus from the grave and the dead arose; He said, “Be thou cleansed,” and the leprosy departed; He rebuked the wind and the waves, and they were still; He commanded the evil spirits, and they fled away…It would seem, then, in all cases that God’s word is the instrument of His deed. When, then, He solemnly utters the command, “Let the soul be just,” it becomes inwardly just (Lectures on the Doctrine of Justification, quoted in Scripture and the Mystery of the Family of God, pg. 115).

Second, logizomai can mean attributing a property to something precisely because it actually has that property. And on the Catholic view as has just been explained, God “reckons” the justified man as righteous because the justified man actually is righteous. God’s reckoning matches the reality. Justification is not a mere legal fiction in which God attributes righteousness to someone who in reality lacks righteousness. (To give an example of a legal fiction, in civil law, corporations are often imputed with the status of being a person in the context of a court of law. A corporation, however, is, of course, not actually a person and so this imputation constitutes a legal fiction). This would be an affront to God’s veracity. Luther’s doctrine of simul iustus et peccator (“at the same time righteous and sinner”), therefore, is false. Our sins are not merely covered but positively blotted out. We are made a new creation (cf. 2 Corinthians 5:17, Galatians 6:15). Grace and sin stand in contrast to each other as light and darkness, life and death (cf. Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, pg. 271). Where there is one, there cannot be another (cf. 2 Corinthians 6:14, Colossians 2:13). As the Council of Trent teaches, “[W]e are not only reputed, but are truly called, and are, just, receiving justice within us” (Decree on Justification, Ch. VII). Paul also uses logizomai, for instance, in Romans 8: “I consider [logizomai] that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us” (Romans 8:18). Here, Paul is “considering” or “reckoning” that our present sufferings pale in comparison to the glory of eternity. Clearly, we are not to understand this reckoning as a mere imputation or legal fiction; rather, Paul reckons that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed because this is really, truly, and intrinsically the case. (A similar point can be made with respect to 1 Corinthians 4:1). Catholic teaching is that the same thing is true of Paul’s usage of logizomai with respect to justification: the reckoning matches the reality. To use an everyday example, I might say after drinking homemade lemonade, “I reckon this is the sweetest lemonade I’ve ever had.” Clearly, I am not simply imputing a status to the lemonade. It is not the case that the lemonade is intrinsically sour, but I am crediting it with sweetness. Rather, I am asserting that the lemonade really has the quality of being the sweetest I’ve had. The sweetness of the lemonade is an objective quality of the lemonade that I am recognizing.

Some Protestants, such as William Lane Craig, reply to the charge that their view of justification makes of justification a legal fiction by insisting that a real change takes place when God declares us righteous, that change being a change in status. Our status before God really changes. We really and truly change from being declared guilty in the eyes of God to being declared not guilty in the eyes of God. So, a purely forensic justification is not a legal fiction. It’s a legal reality. But this reply is unconvincing. For consider the aforementioned example of a corporation being treated as a person in the eyes of the court. Suppose there is a time t1 at which the court does not recognize a corporation as a person, and suppose that there is a later time t2 at which the court does recognize a corporation as a person. There has thus been a real change in status on the part of the corporation. It went from being declared not a person in the eyes of the court to being declared a person in the eyes of the court. Thus, that a corporation is a person turns out not to be a legal fiction after all! Clearly this argument has gone wrong. But if this argument is wrong, then so is Craig’s. The point therefore stands that a purely forensic justification is a legal fiction, which contradicts God’s veracity (cf. Eleonore Stump’s Atonement, pg. 75-76). The Protestant John Wesley, one of the leading and founding figures of Methodism, objected to purely forensic justification along these same lines:

Least of all does justification imply that God is deceived in those whom he justifies; that he thinks them to be what, in fact, they are not; that he accounts them to be otherwise than they are. It does by no means imply that God judges concerning us contrary to the real nature of things; that he esteems us better than we really are, or believes us righteous when we are unrighteous...[or] judges that I am righteous, because another is so...Let any man to whom God hath given understanding weigh this without prejudice, and he cannot but perceive that such a notion of justification is neither reconcilable to reason nor Scripture (Sermons on Several Occasions, 43; quoted in Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification, pg. 273).

Third, if Genesis 15:6 is supposed to be proof of justification by faith alone, then it seems with equal justification (no pun intended), we could understand another Old Testament passage as teaching justification by good works alone. At the very least, this Old Testament passage demonstrates that justification by faith alone is false. Good works contribute to justification. The passage in question is from Psalms:

Then Phin’ehas stood up and interposed, and the plague was stayed. And that has been reckoned to him as righteousness from generation to generation for ever (Psalm 106:30-31).

This passage references the righteous deed of Phin’ehas as recorded in the book of Numbers:

While Israel dwelt in Shittim the people began to play the harlot with the daughters of Moab. These invited the people to the sacrifices of their gods, and the people ate, and bowed down to their gods. So Israel yoked himself to Ba′al of Pe′or. And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel; and the Lord said to Moses, “Take all the chiefs of the people, and hang them in the sun before the Lord, that the fierce anger of the Lord may turn away from Israel.” And Moses said to the judges of Israel, “Every one of you slay his men who have yoked themselves to Ba′al of Pe′or.”

And behold, one of the people of Israel came and brought a Mid′ianite woman to his family, in the sight of Moses and in the sight of the whole congregation of the people of Israel, while they were weeping at the door of the tent of meeting. When Phin′ehas the son of Elea′zar, son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose and left the congregation, and took a spear in his hand and went after the man of Israel into the inner room, and pierced both of them, the man of Israel and the woman, through her body. Thus the plague was stayed from the people of Israel. Nevertheless those that died by the plague were twenty-four thousand.

And the Lord said to Moses, “Phin′ehas the son of Elea′zar, son of Aaron the priest, has turned back my wrath from the people of Israel, in that he was jealous with my jealousy among them, so that I did not consume the people of Israel in my jealousy. Therefore say, ‘Behold, I give to him my covenant of peace; and it shall be to him, and to his descendants after him, the covenant of a perpetual priesthood, because he was jealous for his God, and made atonement for the people of Israel’” (Numbers 25:1-13).

Consider also the teaching of 1 Maccabees:

“Remember the deeds of the fathers, which they did in their generations; and receive great honor and an everlasting name. Was not Abraham found faithful when tested, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness? Joseph in the time of his distress kept the commandment, and became lord of Egypt. Phin’ehas our father, because he was deeply zealous, received the covenant of everlasting priesthood” (1 Maccabees 2:51-54, boldface added).

The word “reckoned” in Psalm 106:31 is translated from logizomai from the Septuagint translation, which are the same word and the same translation, respectively, that Paul uses when quoting Genesis 15:6 in Romans and Galatians. In fact, the entire phrase “reckoned to him as righteousness” is the very same phrase used in Genesis 15:6 (and the same phrase used in 1 Maccabees 2:52). Here, however, it is not faith that is reckoned as righteousness but rather a good work (the same is true with respect to 1 Maccabees 2:52). So, what is being taught here exactly? How are we to understand and interpret this passage? According to the Westminster Confession (the quintessential Reformed Protestant constitution):

The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly (I.IX).

This interpretational doctrine is sometimes referred to as tota Scriptura (“Scripture in totality”). The basic idea is that the entire Bible is the unified, written word of God. Consequently, when reading a particular passage of Scripture, we should interpret it in a way that is in harmony with what we know is taught in other parts of Scripture. After all, God cannot lie and cannot contradict Himself (cf. Titus 1:2, 2 Timothy 2:13). Moreover, the less clear parts of Scripture should be interpreted in terms of the clearer parts.

This is similar to the Catholic interpretational doctrine of the analogy of faith: “By ‘analogy of faith’ we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation” (CCC 114). “In difficult texts, the teachings of tradition and the analogy of faith must lead the way. The Catholic exegete, conscious of his faith, recognizes the intimate relationship between Scripture and Tradition; he strives to explain Scriptural passages in such a way that the sacred writers will not be set in opposition to one another or to the faith and teaching of the Church” (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, quoted in What Is the "Analogy of Faith?" | Catholic Answers). Furthermore, this concept of the deep unity of Scripture is in line with the teaching of the Catholic Church: “Different as the books which comprise it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God’s plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart” (CCC 112). It should be said, however, that tota Scriptura, in conjunction with the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura, entails that obtaining an infallible interpretation of Scripture is effectively impossible. There is no such problem from the Catholic perspective, since we reject sola Scriptura. Discussing this further, however, would take us too far afield for present purposes.

Back to the issue at hand, given tota Scriptura, we should interpret Psalm 106:31 in terms of other parts of Scripture. Since the phraseology in Psalm 106:31 is the same as that in Genesis 15:6, we ought to interpret Psalm 106:31 in terms of Genesis 15:6. Genesis 15:6, in turn, has been interpreted for us by St. Paul in Romans 4 and Galatians 3. According to Paul, “it was reckoned to him as righteousness” indicates justification before God. God is recognizing the righteousness of Abraham on account of his faith. Thus, we should similarly understand “it was reckoned to him as righteousness” in Psalm 106:31 as indicating justification before God. God is recognizing the righteousness of Phin′ehas on account of his righteous deed. This interpretation is reinforced when we look at the additional parallels between Phin′ehas in Numbers 25 and Abraham in Genesis 15. In Genesis 15, Abraham believed and trusted in God’s promise that he would have many descendants. And it is because of this faith that he was reckoned righteous by God. According to St. Paul’s commentary:

In hope he believed against hope, that he should be the father of many nations; as he had been told, “So shall your descendants be.” He did not weaken in faith when he considered his own body, which was as good as dead because he was about a hundred years old, or when he considered the barrenness of Sarah’s womb. No discomfort made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew stronger in his faith as he gave glory to God, fully convinced that God was able to do what he had promised. That is why his faith was “reckoned to him as righteousness.” But the words, “it was reckoned to him,” were written not for his sake alone, but for ours also. It will be reckoned to us who believe in him that raised from the dead Jesus our Lord (Romans 4:18-22).

A similar commentary can be given with respect to Phin′ehas in Numbers 25. In a trying and rather depraved set of circumstances, Phin′ehas zealously defended the rights of God in executing the shameful Israelite man and Mid′ianite woman. In response to this, God stayed the plague that He had sent upon the Israelites for their transgressions. Additionally, God blessed Phin′ehas and credited him with having made atonement for Israel. That is why, according to Psalm 106:31, his deed was “reckoned to him as righteousness.” But the words, “it was reckoned to him,” were written not for his sake alone, but for ours also. It will be reckoned to us who, out of faith working through love (cf. Galatians 5:6), perform righteous works in the name of Him that raised from the dead Jesus our Lord. After all, “Was not Abraham our father justified by works [cf. 1 Maccabees 2:52], when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, ‘Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness’; and he was called the friend of God. You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:21-24).

Given all of this, if Genesis 15:6 teaches justification by faith alone, then Psalm 106:31 teaches justification by works alone. Obviously, justification by works alone is anathema (cf. Titus 3:4-7). Hence, Genesis 15:6 must not teach justification by faith alone. Abraham was indeed justified by his faith in Genesis 15. But he was also justified by his works in Genesis 22, just as Phin′ehas was in Numbers 25. Faith is necessary and sufficient to initiate the process of justification, but good works are additionally necessary to consummate it. Faith is “completed by works,” as St. James teaches. The Council of Trent teaches that “faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation, and the root of all justification (Decree on Justification, Ch. VIII), and that, through good works wrought in faith, we can “increase in the justice received through the grace of Christ” (ibid., Ch. X). So, it is true to say that justification is by faith and works. Although initial justification has nothing to do with works, ongoing justification does. But it is the grace of God merited by Christ through and through that accomplishes the entire process of justification and salvation. Thus, while sola fide is false, sola gratia and solo Christo are true.

Finally, three positive arguments against the truth of 2 can be given. The first argument, which has been defended by Jimmy Akin, is as follows:

1. If the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness is true, then we will all have the same degree of glory in Heaven as Christ (this follows because if God looks at us and sees Christ instead, then He must, as a matter of justice, reward us equally with Christ).
2. We will not all have the same degree of glory in Heaven as Christ (cf. Philippians 2:8-9, Ephesians 1:20-21).
3. Therefore, the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness is false.

Akin concludes that “[t[he righteousness that we receive in justification is thus a gift to us that is distinct from [Christ’s] personal righteousness” (The Drama of Salvation, pg. 144-145). This is right in line with Paul’s teaching that we are “created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness” (Ephesians 4:24, emphasis added).

The second argument is rooted in Romans:

For the judgement following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brings justification. If, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous (Romans 5:16-19).

This passage shows that when we are justified, we are not merely declared righteous, but we are also made righteous. Notice the parallelism in this passage. In order for a Protestant to maintain that we are merely declared righteous, he would also have to maintain that we are merely declared sinners. For in one and the same sentence, St. Paul teaches that we were made sinners through Adam, and we are made righteous through Christ. Basic rules of interpretation dictate that we understand made in the same way both times that it is used in this sentence. Thus, since we are not only declared sinners but are really made sinners, so too are we not merely declared righteous but are really made righteous. To be sure, we are declared righteous (“one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal”), but such a declaration, by the power of God’s word—which never returns to Him empty (cf. Isaiah 55:11)—, actually makes us inwardly righteous as well. As Richard A. White concludes, “Our righteousness in Christ is not only legal but real, just as our sinfulness in Adam was not only legal but real” (Scripture and the Mystery of the Family of God, Ch. V: “Justification as Divine Sonship: Is ‘Faith Alone’ Justifiable?”, pg. 126). Justification, therefore, consists in being infused with an inner, inherent righteousness.

The third argument is rooted in Titus (this is a recapitulation of a previous post):

[W]hen the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life (Titus 3:4-7).

This passage is a perfect encapsulation of the basics of the doctrine of salvation and justification. In particular, all of the essential aspects of justification as taught by the Council of Trent are contained in this sublime passage of Sacred Scripture. The Council of Trent identifies five essential aspects of justification:

1. The final cause (causa finalis) is the honour of God and of Christ (primaria) and the eternal life of men (secundaria).
2. The efficient cause (causa efficiens), more exactly, the main efficient cause (i.e., principalis), is the mercy of God [“who gratuitously washes and sanctifies, sealing, and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the earnest of our inheritance” (Decree on Justification, Ch. VII)].
3. The meritorious cause (causa meritoria) is Jesus Christ; who as mediator between God and man, has made atonement for us and merited the grace by which we are justified.
4. The instrumental cause (causa instrumentalis) of the first [i.e., initial] justification is the Sacrament of Baptism.
5. The formal cause (causa formalis) is God’s justice, not that by which He is Himself just, but by which He makes us just, that is, sanctifying grace (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, pg. 270-271).

Now, according to the teaching of St. Paul in the above passage of Titus, we are saved in virtue of God’s mercy, by (emphasis added) the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, which is given to us through the merits of Christ our Savior, so that (emphasis added) we might be justified by grace and become heirs as God’s adopted children in hope of eternal life. Washing, renewal, and regeneration are indicative of an inner sanctification. Furthermore, “washing” is almost certainly a reference to the sacrament of Baptism, as even Martin Luther recognized in his Small Catechism: “[W]ith God’s Word it is a Baptism, a grace-filled water of life, a bath of new birth in the Holy Spirit, as St. Paul said to Titus in the third chapter.” And, according to St. Paul in this passage, we are saved by this washing, renewal, and regeneration. Hence, we are saved by an inner sanctification (cf. Romans 6:22, 2 Thessalonians 2:13).

We know that this inner sanctification is a necessary component of justification because we are said to be saved by washing, renewal, and regeneration (i.e., sanctification) so that we might be justified (cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14). This inner sanctification inhering in our soul is that in virtue of which we stand in a state of justification. This inner sanctification identifies, therefore, the formal cause of justification, and is referred to in Catholic theology as sanctifying grace. As aforementioned, “washing” is a reference to Baptism. This identifies the instrumental cause of justification. This salvific sanctification that is received in the washing of Baptism is wrought within us by God, in virtue of His mercy, through the Holy Spirit who sanctifies. This identifies the efficient cause of justification. This sanctification by the Holy Spirit is given to us through Christ our Savior. This identifies the meritorious cause of justification. Finally, we are justified so that we might have eternal life. This identifies the final cause of justification. Thus, all of the essential aspects of justification defined by the Council of Trent are presented in this passage of Scripture.

From all of this, it follows that justification does not consist in a mere external imputation of Christ’s righteousness; rather, as the Council of Trent decreed:

[J]ustification…is not merely the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the inward man, through the voluntary reception of the grace and gifts, whereby man from unjust becomes just, and from an enemy a friend, that so he may be an heir according to the hope of eternal life [Titus 3:7] (Decree on Justification, Ch. VII).

If anyone shall say, that men are justified without the righteousness of Christ, by which he merited for us to be justified; or that it is by that [justice] itself that they are formally just; let him be anathema (On Justification, Canon X).

If anyone shall say, that men are justified either by the sole imputation of the righteousness of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is shed abroad in their hearts by the Holy Spirit [Romans 5:5], and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, by which we are justified, is only the favor of God; let him be anathema (ibid., Canon XI).

Justification and sanctification, therefore, are two sides of the same coin and are not to be separated as they are by Protestants. As Robert C. Koons observes in his commentary on this passage of Titus, “Notice how closely justification by grace (in verse 7) is identified with rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit in verse 6. There is no shadow of the Protestant distinction between justification, regeneration, and sanctification here” (A Lutheran’s Case for Roman Catholicism, pg. 127).

Commenting further on the unity of justification and sanctification, Koons explains that the distinction between, and separation of, justification and sanctification are read “into, rather than out of, the Scriptures. In many places, the words sanctify and renew are used interchangeably with justify and save” (ibid., pg. 21, emphases in original). As examples of this, Koons cites Acts 26:17-18, 1 Corinthians 6:11, 2 Thessalonians 2:13, Hebrews 10:10-14; 13:12, and 1 Peter 1:1-2. Jimmy Akin cites, as a further example, Romans 6:1-7. As he explains:

At the end of this passage [Romans 6:1-7], Paul states that he who has died has been “freed” from sin, and the context is obviously one of sanctification. Paul is discussing why we must not “continue in sin,” how we have “died to sin,” and how we must not “still live in it.” He explains that “our old self was crucified with him” so that “the sinful body might be destroyed” and we might “no longer be enslaved to sin.” It is on this basis that Paul says, “he who has died is freed from sin.” The context here is so obviously one of sanctification that every modern translation renders the last sentence of the passage as saying that one who has died through baptism into Christ’s death has been “freed” from sin.

But that is not what the passage says in Greek. Instead of the word freed, the Greek text says that he “has been justified” (dedikaiotai; a perfect passive form of dikaióō, “justify”). What Paul actually wrote was, “He who has died has been justified from sin. Yet, because of the context of sanctification, modern translators render this “freed.” … We therefore see that, in Paul’s thought, being justified from sin can include being freed from sin through sanctification. For Paul, there is not the rigid division between justification and sanctification that many suppose (The Drama of Salvation, pg. 140-141).

Overall, then, the objection from the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness fails. The Catholic understanding of justification remains unscathed.