Repentance, remission, and justification

A recent exchange I had with a Catholic apologist (indeed, a sedevacantist!):

Here St. Paul says that washing of regeneration (i.e. internal change within the believer done by the Holy Spirit) is how God justifies the sinner. This means that justification involves an ontological change within the believer, not merely a legal declaration. This also refutes the Protestant claim that sanctification is separated from justification and happens after it - to the contrary, in Titus 3:4-7 St. Paul says that sanctification is the basis for justification.

i) At most, your conclusion only follows if the relationship between v6 and v7 is chronological, where justification is the effect of spiritual renewal. But more likely Paul is saying that inheriting eternal life is the combined effect of spiritual renewal and justification by grace.

ii) And even if there's a chronological sequence, that's entirely consistent with Calvinism: justification is contingent on faith while faith is contingent on regeneration. 

This is also why Paul says in Romans 6:16 that obedience leads to righteousness - exactly as the Catholic Church teaches.

To the contrary, the Catholic church teaches infant baptismal justification. But the justification of infants is hardly contingent on their prior obedience.

It is also consistent with his teaching in Romans 4:3-5. Abraham's faith was counted to him as righteousness. This faith was something that Abraham possessed within himself, i.e. God counted his ontological state as his righteousness.

You're equivocating. Paul doesn't equate faith with righteousness; indeed, he distinguishes them. Righteousness is "credited" to Abraham by virtue of faith, as if faith is righteousness. Paul is speaking in shorthand. Faith in what? Faith in Christ. The merit of Christ's vicarious atonement is credited to the believer (Rom 3:21-26; 5:6-11).

Moreover, Scripture clearly teaches that justification is a process. In 1 John 1:9 we learn that me must confess our sins as a condition to be forgiven. That proves that forigveness of sins occurs not in a single moment when we 'accept Christ', but is continuous as we repent of subsequent sins and confess them - it is a process which is conditional.

You fail to distinguish between the atonement and the application of the atonement.

There is not a single passage of Scripture which explicitly says that obedience/righteousness/perfect life of Jesus Christ is imputed to a believer.

You're ignoring the elephant in the room: vicarious atonement.

It is more than just chronological relationship.

Actually, I'd say it's a teleological relationship rather than a chronological relationship.

But Reformed theology insists that regeneration (i.e. the internal change done by the Holy Spirit within the believer) comes after justification.

I have no idea where you came up with that. In Reformed theology, justification is a consequence of faith while faith is a consequence of regeneration. So you've got the causal sequence out of order.

Furthermore, you have not explained why St. Paul teaches that obediance leads to righteousness, while in reformed theology righteousness comes from imputation of Christ's righteousness, obediance (sanctification) being only the result of justification. That goes against Romans 6:16.

i) You're assuming that Paul always uses the "righteous" vocabulary the same way, but that varies according to context. In Rom 6:16, I think "righteousness" denotes eschatological vindication rather than vicarious righteousness.

ii) I don't know where you get the idea that in Reformed theology, sanctification is the result of justification. Rather, sanctification is an outgrowth of regeneration. Justification is categorically different from regeneration or sanctification in Reformed theology. Justification is an ascribed status whereas sanctification is a process of moral and spiritual transformation. 

Your next paraphrase is simply a repetition of your original assertion, which I critiqued.

Nowhere does St. Paul say that perfect record of Christ's obedience is imputed to the believer as his righteousness.

Well, I didn't frame my position in those terms, so you're shadowboxing with someone else. 

Your next paragraph illogically assumes that "one-time forensic justification" must be unconditional (i.e. irrespective of contrition).

Penal substitution is not taught explicitly in Scripture either.

Even if true, that's an arbitrary demand. Logical implication is sufficient.

…especially since Romans 4:3-5 is a standard Protestant prooftexts allegedly proving the doctrine of imputation.

I already addressed that.
Your next paragraph illogically assumes that "one-time forensic justification" must be unconditional (i.e. irrespective of contrition).

In Reformed view justification can never be lost and all sins are forgiven in the moment of justification.

What makes you think that in Reformed theology, all sins are forgiven in the moment of justification?

1) Future sins are not forgiven in the moment when we are justified. We have to continuously confess them and repent in order to be forgiven. Thus, justification is a life-long process.

That's a repetition of your failure to distinguish justification from the application thereof.

2) If we stop confessing our sins, they will not be forgiven (since 1 John 1:9 sets confession of sins and repentance as condition for forgiveness). Thus, justification and salvation are conditional and can be lost by one's failure to confess and repent.

You're confusing conditionality with uncertainty. That only follows if the condition may not be met. But in the case of the elect, God ensures the satisfaction of the condition. 

It is rather ironic in light of Protestant demands of explicit prooftexts for Marian dogmas, logical implications of which are present in Scripture (like Mary's perpetual virginity in Luke 1:34).

I, for one, never said we need "explicit" prooftexts for Marian dogmas. 

How does Lk 1:34 entail the perpetual virginity of Mary? Not to mention in partu virginity. 

But logical implication must be demonstrated from the text, not from presuppositions which Protestants carry into texts like 2 Corinthians 5:21.

You're just asserting that that's a presupposition which Protestants bring to 2 Cor 5:21 rather than an implication of 2 Cor 5:21.

Comparing and contrasting justification and damnation in Rom 6:16 proves my point, because damnation is the eschatological counterpart to eschatological vindication. Both refer to the final judgment.

"In Reformed view justification…all sins are forgiven in the moment of justification".

Really? "God doth continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified" (WCF 11:5).

Future sins are not forgiven in the moment when we are justified. We have to continuously confess them and repent in order to be forgiven. Thus, justification is a life-long process.

i) If 1 Jn 1:9 is inconsistent with justification as a permanent, unrepeatable, once-for-all-time status, the contradiction wouldn't originate in Reformed theology. Rather, this would mean Paul and John have contradictory paradigms. Reformed theology simply reproduces that contradiction by affirming both Pauline and Johannine paradigms. 

ii) You may claim the Reformed interpretation of Pauline justification is mistaken, but you can't legitimately do so by simply quoting a different Bible writer. Paul and John must be understood on their own terms. It's hermeneutically illicit to use John as the interpretive grid through which you filter Paul. To disprove the Reformed interpretation of Pauline justification, you need to demonstrate how that misinterprets Paul in the context of Paul's exposition of his own position. 

iii) This is an issue of systematic theology. How to harmonize the "theologies" of different Bible writers. In this case, the Bible itself doesn't explain how Paul and John are reconcilable. Therefore, any harmonization will be philosophical.

Is it even meaningful to say a sin is forgiven before it's committed? At that stage there's no actual sin to forgive. Here's how Reformed theologians finesse the issue:

Justification means the forgiveness of all past and present sins, and the judicial ground for the forgiveness of future sins, Anthony Hoekema, Saved by Grace, 180. 

Remission is extended to all the sins entirely of believers, of whatever kind they may be, future as well as past and present, but in their own order…All sins (future as well as past) cannot be said to be remitted at the same time…All our sins are remitted by God, whether past or present or future, but with respect to the time in which they are committed; so that past and present are actually remitted, the future when they are committed will most certainly be remitted according to God's promise, Turretin, Institutes, 2:665.