Guilt is the consequence of sin.

Lutero said:

De Maria,
1. Please define guilt.
2. The Reformed view is that although the elect have been deemed guilty in and of themselves, they have been declared righteous in Christ. Sorry for the confusion, but I thought you would understand where we were coming from by now. The elect are guilty but because Christ has assumed all of their debt due to sin, they are no longer enslaved to guilt or sin, but they are free in Christ.
3. You obviously don’t like the sentence ‘Christ is guilty in the sense of assuming the debt of punishment of the elect’ but I think that is because you don’t realize that I am defining guilt as the debt of punishment. This is one of the two senses of guilt that Dr. Bryan Cross explained to me in the other thread.
4. So, in light of Acts 9:4-5, how can you say it is impossible that Christ accept the punishment that the elect deserve? It is said that Saul persecutes Christ by persecuting Christians. It is then plausible that the Father could punish the elect by punishing Christ (cf. Romans 8:3).
Peace,

Let's break it down in response:

De Maria,

1. Please define guilt.

guilt (glt)
n.
1.
a. The fact of being responsible for the commission of an offense. See Synonyms at blame.
b. Law The fact of having been found to have violated a criminal law; legal culpability.
c. Responsibility for a mistake or error.

2. The Reformed view is that although the elect have been deemed guilty in and of themselves,

Our view is different, as you know. We don’t consider human beings guilty of sin until and if they commit sin. For instance, many children die in the womb without an opportunity to commit any sin. They are free of any guilt because they have not committed any sin. The same is true for any person who has not achieved the ability to reason.
If we look at the definitions of guilt above, we find that there is actual guilt and legal guilt. In man, the two can be different. But God is perfect and makes no error. For God, a and b are the same.

they have been declared righteous in Christ. Sorry for the confusion, but I thought you would understand where we were coming from by now.

I do. I’m simply saying we find that view to be wrong.

The elect are guilty

That is the Reformed view. We don’t believe the elect are automatically guilty. They are not guilty until they have committed a sin.

but because Christ has assumed all of their debt due to sin, they are no longer enslaved to guilt or sin, but they are free in Christ.

You are conflating the Old and New Testament. Christ died to redeem the sins of those who died under the authority of the Old Testament:

Hebrews 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

But as an example for those who He is redeeming in the New:

1 Peter 2:21
For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:

When we accept the grace of faith, we can choose to be washed of our sins calling upon His name:

Acts 22:16
And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

3. You obviously don’t like the sentence ‘Christ is guilty in the sense of assuming the debt of punishment of the elect’ but I think that is because you don’t realize that I am defining guilt as the debt of punishment.

You have hit upon the key problem. You said, “ I am defining guilt as the debt of punishment.”
You don’t have that authority. Guilt is the consequence of offense. Guilt is the consequence of sin. If you commit sin, you are guilty of committing that sin. If you don’t, you are not. No one, not even God, can arbitrarily call someone guilty without lying.

By the way, it is the same way with righteousness. God can’t arbitrarily call someone righteous if they are not righteous.

This is one of the two senses of guilt that another Catholic explained to me in the other thread.

You misunderstood what he said.

4. So, in light of Acts 9:4-5, how can you say it is impossible that Christ accept the punishment that the elect deserve?

Christ accepted the punishment because He paid our debt. Christ sacrificed Himself and laid down His life in order to take it up. He was not judged guilty of any sins or of anything else.

It is said that Saul persecutes Christ by persecuting Christians. It is then plausible that the Father could punish the elect by punishing Christ.

Saul is not God. Saul was mistaken when he persecuted innocent Christians. God can’t make mistakes.

(cf. Romans 8:3)

That says that God condemned sin. Not that God condemned Christ for sin. Nor that God condemned Christ for guilt of anything.

Peace,

And to you,

Sincerely,

De Maria