1)You said:
While there is a declarative aspect to justification (but not the only aspect), Scripture also teaches that we are actually made righteous when God justifies us.
Can you show one example where the verb "to justify" refers to a "making just", rather than declaring just?
While I don�t know of any passages that use the verb form of �justify� in a context that would necessitate an infused righteousness, Romans 5:17-19 uses the noun form, �justification,� in just such a context.
�If, because of the one man�s trespass, death exercised dominion through that one, much more surely will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness exercise dominion in life through the one man, Jesus Christ. Therefore just as one man�s trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man�s act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all. For just as by the one man�s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man�s obedience the many will be made righteous.� � Romans 5:17-19
As I explained in my rebuttal, this passage clearly teaches an infused righteousness. First of all, Paul says that Jesus� sacrifice makes us just in the same way that Adam�s sin made us sinners, so we must be made actually righteous when we are justified. Secondly, in the last two sentences, Paul says the same thing twice. In the first sentence, he says that Jesus� sacrifice justifies us, but in the second sentence, he says that Jesus� sacrifice makes us righteous. Paul uses the two descriptions interchangeably because justification makes us actually righteous.
2) In 2 Corinthians 5:21 Paul says that god made Him who knew no sin, to be sin for us, so that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him. Transference of righteousness from Christ to us, and sin to Christ is said to happen the same way. Doesn't this prove that our sins are imputed to Christ and His righteousness is imputed to us? Or, doesn't your position necessitate our sins being infused into Christ?
�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
Paul does not say that Christ had our sins transferred to Him in the same way that His righteousness is transferred to us. All he says is that Christ bore our sins so that He may impart His righteousness to us; there is no indication that these two transfers occur in the same manner.
3) Doesn't the fact that Paul uses both "works" and "works of the Law" interchangebaly show that we're not justified by works in general, and the works of the Mosaic law in particual?
When Paul speaks of the �works of the Law,� he is speaking of the whole Law, both moral and ceremonial (Robert Sungenis does a good job of explaining this in his book Not By Faith Alone), so the term �works of the Law� is synonymous with �works.� Throughout his epistles, when Paul speaks of the inability of works to save us, he is referring to legally earning salvation without needing God�s grace, which we Catholics believe is impossible.
4) Romans 4:6 says God credits righteousness apart from works...How can this be true in Roman Catholic theology? Can you tell a men he his blessed with righteousness apart from works?
We are credited with righteousness apart from works because God makes us righteous even though we don�t deserve it. Remember, when Paul speaks of works in a negative sense, he is referring to works that can legally earn salvation without God�s grace.
5) In Romans 11;6, doesn't Paul contrast works and grace? isn't he saying that if salvation is by grace, then it can not be of works?
Again, we must remember that when Paul speaks of works in a negative sense, he is referring to works that can legally earn salvation without God�s grace. With this in mind, we can clearly see how grace and works are opposites in this sense.
