Objectivity is a matter of perspective.

Lutero said:
Cathy, you asked:
Question1 : And we are guilty, so the declaration is simply stating what is objectively true, correct? 

Answer: Correct. The parallel would be the same. Objectivity is a matter of perspective. Imputation is not “subjective” to the point of deception. The facts being declared are objective, namely: “Because of your union with Christ and because He took your place accomplishing what you could not, therefore Christ is your righteousness though you have transgressed the Law (and continue to do so in this life).” Those are objective truths because you really are united with Christ and Christ really accomplished what is rightly your obligation and punishment at calvary (because of His love and mercy to you). I’ll explain this fully in the next posts.

Question 2: Is God’s declaration of guilt pointing out something inherent in us? In other words, is that declaration “calling it as we are”? When God sees us, is He actually seeing us how we are, i.e. guilty?

Answer: Yes. Please see above answer. I guess the next question is: If it is the case, then when He declares us righteous, is the righteousness that can reverse the verdict is ours inherently? The answer is “No”. How can it be inherent when we have been found guilty? The righteousness that justifies the wicked belongs to our Savior… He is the one who “did not know sin who became sin that we might become the righteousness of God in Him (note that the righteousness belongs to God with the participle “of” (i.e. of God) and that it is located “in” (another participle) Christ)” (2 Cor 5:21). It was Jesus’ all along. As the scripture says, “Christ is our Righteousness” (1 Cor 1:30) and that our “righteousness is not our own” (Phil 3:9). More to this in the next posts.

Cathy replies:

Lutero, you said:
“Objectivity is a matter of perspective.”
I must say, this struck me as an oxymoron. Almost like “married bachelor”.
Along with that you said:
“Imputation is not “subjective” to the point of deception. ”
This strikes me as the “no true Scotsman” falacy. As if you are saying imputation is “sort of” subjective, or that though subjective it at the same time is not deceptive.....Or how is the Reformed conception of imputation bringing God more glory? If as you say, God can make us inherently righteous, so that we actually are righteous, then what does it matter if that takes place as part of justification or after justification? Either way it is 100% a work of God and He is glorified.

De Maria said:

Lutero, Cathy said to you:
I must say, this struck me as an oxymoron. Almost like “married bachelor”.

Lutero, This is the same problem I’ve been having with all of your posts. Let me just take an example from the very first comment you made here. You said:

• Answer: The theological term “Imputation” is a concept not a word.

  1. Not a word? If its in the dictionary, its a word, right?
  2. As far as I know, every word known to man represents an concept (i.e. an idea).
  3. So it seems illogical to deny that “imputation” is a word. And redundant to say that this particular word is also a concept.
  4. I welcome anyone to correct me if I’m wrong.
  
  

  That has been stressed by the Reformed scholars.

  What has?
  
  

  It may be conveyed in different verbs when discussing the concept. Prominently, logizomai in several passages in the Scripture.
  
  

  Isn’t this what other Catholics have said? You have confirmed his argument. They didn’t say that logizomai wasn’t used to express the concept of imputation. The whole point, as I understand it, is that neither logizomai nor imputation are used in Scripture to express an idea or concept of “transference” of righteousness for a simple claim of faith alone. Those words have only been used to express a “crediting” or “meriting” or “reckoning” or “recognizing” of someone’s true state of being.
  
  

  Again, I welcome that anyone should correct me if I’ve misunderstood what has been previously said.  Anyway, since no one else seemed to have trouble with your comments, I kept silence, thinking maybe something was going over my head. But then Cathy said what I was thinking.
  
  

  Sincerely,
  
  

  De Maria