The Old Testament passages that Mark brought up do use the word "justify" in a declarative sense, but he fails to recognize that in these verses, to declare just means to recognize someone as inherently just. Take Deuteronomy 25:1, for example. The judges justify the person because he actually exhibits righteousness; he really IS not guilty. The other passages he brings up merely show that it is wrong to apply the term "justified" to someone who really isn't. 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.
Luke 1:6 describes Zechariah and Elizabeth as "righteous before God, living blamelessly according to all the commandments and regulations of the Lord." We can see that they were described as righteous not because God merely declared them to be so, but because they actually exhibited righteousness by following God's commands. Other passages which speak of people in this way are Genesis 6:9 and Job 1:1.
"Everyone who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous." - 1 John 3:7
This verse has two interesting aspects:
1) We are called righteous because we do good, not because God merely declares us righteous.
2) Jesus is described as "Jesus Christ the righteous" (1 John 2:1), and here John says that we are righteous in the same way He is. Christ was not merely declared just, and neither are we.
In my opening statement I pointed out that in Matthew 5:20, Jesus tells us that our righteousness must exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees to enter heaven, and the surrounding context makes it clear that this righteousness is an actual, not merely declared, righteousness.
In Romans 8:30-34, Paul contrasts justification with condemnation, and Mark concludes that since the condemned don't have evil infused into them, neither do the justified have righteousness infused into them. This interpretation, however, assumes the Protestant belief to begin with, but you can also interpret this passage as being consistent with Catholic teaching. God justifies us by infusing righteousness into us and eradicating sin from our souls, and when that lifelong process is done, nobody will be able to bring a charge against us or condemn us because we will be totally righteous.
First, I would like to correct what I see as a misunderstanding of Catholic justification in this part of Mark's opening statement.
Clearly then in Roman Catholic dogma, the ground of our justification is not the completed work of Jesus Christ done in our behalf, but rather, it is the faithful doing of works "in God", that ultimately merits eternal life for us.
As I explained in my opening statement, we can be saved only by the grace of God because of Christ's sacrifice. God has promised to reward our works because of His love for us, not because they are intrinsically worth anything. In fact, even the good works we do come from God; they would be impossible without His grace. God loves us so much that He has promised to reward us by making us righteous if we accept His grace and let it work through us.
Mark gives four reasons why he believes the ground of justification in Catholic theology is wrong.
The first is that justification happens because we are united to Christ (Acts 13:39; Romans 8:1; 1 Corinthians 6:11; Galatians 2:17).
I don't see how that contradicts Catholic theology; I agree that we can only be justified if we are in God's grace.
Secondly, Scripture declares that Christ's sacrificial work accomplished our justification (Romans 3:24; 5:9; 8:33-34).
Again, I don't see how this contradicts Catholic theology. The Catechism even says this in paragraph 1992, which I quoted in my opening statement.
The righteousness of Christ's life and death is our standing before God, none of these texts point to our deeds as our grounds for being justified.
That's not what they say. The verses Mark brought up just say that we are justified by Christ's sacrifice, and we Catholics agree! What they do NOT say, however, is if Christ's righteousness is imputed or infused into us, and Mark makes the unjustifiable assumption that they teach an imputed righteousness.
Thirdly, we are said to be justified by "the righteousness of God" (Romans 1:17; 3:21, 22; 10:3; Philippians 3:9).
There is no way to tell, from the phrase itself, whether "the righteousness of God" is imputed to us or infused into us, so both are plausible interpretations.
Finally, we are said to be justified by the righteousness of Christ (Romans 5:17-19).
Again, this passage does not specify whether this righteousness is imputed to us or infused into us.
Here Paul lays out the wonderful truth that just as Adam's sin was imputed to us resulting in our condemnation, so the righteousness of the God-Man Jesus Christ is imputed to us as our ground for justification.
Paul says no such thing; he does not mention imputation. If Adam's sin were merely imputed to us, then we would not be actually sinful, but we are. If anything, this comparison works against the Protestant position. In verses 18-19, Paul says, "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." He's saying that we are justified because Christ's sacrifice actually makes us righteous, just as we were condemned because Adam's sin actually made us sinners.
While the work "reckon" (Greek: "logizomai") can indicate what a person does not have but is considered as having, it does not always mean that. Take Leviticus 17:4 (which Mark incorrectly cited), which says, "he shall be held guilty of bloodshed; he has shed blood." Here, the man is being held (considered, reckoned) guilty because he really is guilty, not because he really isn't.
Another passage that uses the word this way is 2 Samuel 4:2, which says, "They were sons of Rimmon a Benjaminite from Beeroth--for Beeroth is considered to belong to Benjamin." Beeroth was not merely considered to be part of Benjamin even though it wasn't; rather, it was considered to be a part of Benjamin because it really was.
Another passage is 2 Samuel 19:19-20, which says, "May my lord not hold me guilty or remember how your servant did wrong�For your servant knows that I have sinned." Here, David's servant pleads with him not to hold him guilty for his sin. Would David have considered him guilty for a sin he didn't commit? Of course not.
As for Mark's charge that it would be blasphemy to say that Christ had our sins infused into Him, I agree. However, I see no reason why the concept of infused righteousness necessarily leads to the belief that Christ had our sins infused into Him. Regardless of how Christ's sacrifice merited justification for us, there is no reason why God can't infuse righteousness into us.
"For 'no human being will be justified in his sight' by deeds prescribed by the law, for through the law comes the knowledge of sin. For we hold that a person is justified by faith apart from works prescribed by the law." - Romans 3:20, 28
Here, Paul is not saying that works don't justify us; rather, he is saying that we cannot be justified by the law apart from God's grace, and, as I said before, we Catholics agree.
"Now to one who works, wages are not reckoned as a gift but as something due. But to one who without works trusts him who justifies the ungodly, such faith is reckoned as righteousness." - Romans 4:4-5
Here, the works that Paul is talking about are works that will legally earn justification apart from God's grace (as a wage) and obligate Him to save us. However, as I have said, we Catholics don't believe that we can be saved that way.
"So also David speaks of the blessedness of those to whom God reckons righteousness irrespective of works: 'Blessed are those whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the one against whom the Lord will not reckon sin.'" - Romans 4:6-8
Here, Paul quotes from Psalm 32, so to completely understand what he's saying, we have to read this passage in context.
"Happy are those whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Happy are those to whom the LORD imputes no iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no deceit. While I kept silence, my body wasted away through my groaning all day long. For day and night your hand was heavy upon me; my strength was dried up as by the heat of summer. Then I acknowledged my sin to you, and I did not hide my iniquity; I said, 'I will confess my transgressions to the LORD', and you forgave the guilt of my sin." - Psalm 32:1-5
According to Robert Sungenis, David is talking about being forgiven for committing adultery with Bathsheba. I haven't yet figured out how he knows this (and I suspect that it may be an inference), but I'll work with it anyway. If, as Paul says (and we know he's right), David was speaking of justification, then we can conclude that he was justified after his adultery was forgiven. Before this, however, he was a man after God's heart (1 Samuel 13:14, Acts 13:22), so he must have already been justified before this sin, which means that he was re-justified here. We learn two things from this: 1) We can lose and regain justification, and 2) We cannot do anything to earn justification; it all comes from God's loving grace.
Let's take a look at what Psalm 51, the other Psalm David wrote after his adultery, and see what it says about salvation.
"Do not cast me away from your presence, and do not take your holy spirit from me. Restore to me the joy of your salvation, and sustain in me a willing spirit." - Psalm 51:11-12
David makes it clear that he was re-justified after being forgiven for his adultery; he asks God not to take the Holy Spirit away from him and to restore him to salvation.
In thinking about whether or not David wrote Psalm 32 after his adultery, I have come to the following conclusions:
1) As I said, David was a man after God's heart. I can't think of any other instance in David's life that could've possibly merited the description given in Psalm 32, so Sungenis is probably right.
2) Even if this Psalm was not written after he committed adultery, it still wouldn't threaten the Catholic position. All he's saying is that we are justified by God's grace aside from any good works we do, and we Catholics agree.
3) Again, even if this Psalm was not written after his adultery, Psalm 55 is still very clear that David was pleading for re-justification.
