"Infused" or "Imputed"?

[fhansen]

You said the one who is sinful is of the devil.

I didn't say it; John did.

I told you there is no personal devil, supernatural or otherwise.

Now that was you saying that.

 

[he-man]

I didn't say it; John did.

Now that was you saying that.

Don't know the meaning of devil? H8163 HAIRY, GOAT, KID, ROUGH, SATYR, Lev. 17:7; 2Ch 11:15; διαβολος G1228 accuser, slanderer [H7854] The Greek from Oxford University Press 2004; Satan Latin and Greek from Hebrew satan, literally 'adversary' plot against. Is. 45:7 I form light and creat darkness, I make peace and creat evil. I am God, I do all these things. Job 5:18, 21,22 God wounds God controls circumstances of destruction. Jude 1:5 Mt. 22:7; 1CO:9,10; Heb. 11:28, Ps. 9:5.Ps. 5:6

 

[fhansen]

Don't know the meaning of devil? H8163 HAIRY, GOAT, KID, ROUGH, SATYR, Lev. 17:7; 2Ch 11:15; διαβολος G1228 accuser, slanderer [H7854] The Greek from Oxford University Press 2004; Satan Latin and Greek from Hebrew satan, literally 'adversary' plot against. Is. 45:7 I form light and creat darkness, I make peace and creat evil. I am God, I do all these things. Job 5:18, 21,22 God wounds God controls circumstances of destruction. Jude 1:5 Mt. 22:7; 1CO:9,10; Heb. 11:28, Ps. 9:5.Ps. 5:6

So your point is that God is the devil?

 

[he-man]

So your point is that God is the devil?

Do you think God is goat? God
created everything. God created the destroyer to destroy and to carry out His purpose. Who do you think killed all the firstborn in Egypt? Who do you think destroyed Sodom? Who do you think stopped the angel of God from destroying everything? What does διαβολος mean? G7854 says satan is from G7853 Ps 38:20; 71:13; 109:4, 20,29. Do you have a BDB Lexicon? Heb 10:27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgement and firey indignation, which shall devour the ADVERSARIES. Verse 30 says 'vengeance belongeth to me, I will recompense, saith the Lord.

 

[fhansen]

Oh, ok-lexicons are handy; sounds like you have it figured out.

 

[DeaconDean]

Well, um, I listed two of them already in that post!

These two ( 1 John 3:8-9. Isa 5:20) or two others?

The scriptures in two places, by two Apostles use Abraham as examples.

Paul in Romans 4-5, and James in chapter 2.

But what most don't take into consideration is both Apostles, in using Abraham, set him forth as their example, use different stages in his life.

Here, I will quote from my research paper:

"The standpoint which divides most is one single verse from James:

“Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith alone.” –Jas. 2:24 (KJV)

Martin Luther wrote in his preface to James and Jude: “James does nothing more than drive a man to the Law and its works.” And this is apparent in some faiths teachings. However, Luther also admits that James wanted to guard against those who relied on faith exclusively but wasn’t quite up to the task.

During the first century, it is commonly held that James was the bishop of the church in Jerusalem. And Paul was a missionary. History dictates that during the early church, two viewpoints developed early on. Paul is well known for his battles with “legalists.” They were the type who said faith in God was correct, but what was also required was a submission to the “Law.”

Luther also was quick to point out that James called the “Law” a “perfect law of liberty.” (cf. Jas. 1:25) Paul viewed it as a Law that brings slavery, (Gal. 5:3) wrath, (Rom. 4:15) sin, (Rom. 7:7) and death (Rom. 7:10).

When men are turned away from their own self-efforts, the next step is to run in the complete opposite direction. If they cannot trust in their own self-righteousness, if they cannot be justified by their own works, then it is just a minor shift to reject works of any kind, and there is no such thing as ungodly living or ungodly practice. This is the door which leads down the path to antinomianism. They turn the grace of God into lasciviousness. (Jude 1:4) And this is very apparent in what it was spreading during the early church.

It has been argued that Paul and James are not contradictory, but rather, complimentary. This can be seen by the statements by these men in that Paul says you are justified by faith, verse James’ teaching that you are justified by works and not by faith alone. Arthur W. Pink wrote:

“Unless the subject and scope of James’ Epistle be clearly seen, the apprehension of many of its statements can only issue in God-dishonoring, grace-repudiating, soul-destroying error. To this portion of the Word of God, more than any other, have legalists appealed in their opposition to the grand truth of justification by grace, through faith, without works. To the declarations of this Epistle have they turned to find support for their Christ-insulting, man-exalting, Gospel-repudiating error of justification by human works. Merit-mongers of all descriptions cite James 2 for the purpose of setting aside all that is taught elsewhere in Scripture on the subject of justification. Romanists, and their half-brothers the Arminians, quote "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only" (v. 24), and suppose that ends all argument.”[*]

What is maintained is, that Paul addresses the fact of how a man can be justified before God, and James addresses how a man can be justified before man. Paul addresses our justification of persons, while James addresses our justification of profession. The one is by faith alone, while the other worketh by love and produces obedience. (Pink)

Both men use Abraham as an example. And the supposition that James addresses the empty profession rests on the fact that when James says:

“Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?” –Jas. 2:21 (KJV)

Whereas Paul says:

“For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.” –Rom. 4:3 (KJV)


A fact that most seen to overlook at are the differences between what Paul is quoting from, and what James quotes, rather, bases their statements on. Paul uses Gen. 15:6 as his basis in Romans 4, and James uses Gen. 22:1-19 for his basis. Abraham was seventy-five years old when he believed God in Genesis 15. However, Abraham was 100 years old when Isaac was born. (cf. Gen. 22:6) Tradition has it that Isaac was around twenty-five when Abraham took him to the mountain for the sacrifice. If the Catholics and Arminians are correct, then it logically means that Abraham had to wait fifty years in order to actually be justified! No! We merely point out that the offering of his son, gave evidence to Abraham’s faith in God.

Professing to be a Christian when one is not may secure a standing before men, it may improve his moral and social prestige, he may be able to join a church, and help promote his commercial interests, but can it save him? What is the use to fein to be charitable when works of charity are withheld? What good does it bring to calling oneself a Christian when empty stomachs are met with good words? How can a person claim to be a Christian and clothe the naked by good wishes? What does it profit to profess to be a believer when there is no true piety?

Neither can a person be saved by a mere empty hollow confession of the Gospel. To say that I am a Christian and am unable to appeal to any good works and spiritual fruits as proof of it, profits neither the person nor those who listen. Without the essential element of “faith worketh by love” (cf. Gal. 5:6), no matter how much reading or studying, no amount of head knowledge, no amount of preaching and teaching one can do, they are no more than “sounding brass and tinkling symbol.” Without love, those professors will be the ones pleading their works but will be told: “Depart, I never knew ye.”

[*] Arthur W. Pink, The Doctrine of Justification, Chapter 9, Its Evidence, book on-line, accessed 5/31/09, found on the World-Wide-web at: 9. Its Evidence

And guess what?

Earlier I posted:

This word draws directly from the Hebrew word “tsadag” (tsaw-dak). Which is rendered in the OT as “justify”, “righteous”, “just”, “justice”, “cleansed”, “cleanse ourselves”, “righteousness”.

And here it is, in Genesis 15:6, here is our Hebrew word: "tasdag".

In Genesis 15:6, before Abraham even had a child, he believed the promise of God, and it was counted as "righteousness/justified".

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[fhansen]

These two ( 1 John 3:8-9. Isa 5:20) or two others?

The scriptures in two places, by two Apostles use Abraham as examples.

Paul in Romans 4-5, and James in chapter 2.

But what most don't take into consideration is both Apostles, in using Abraham, set him forth as their example, use different stages in his life.

Here, I will quote from my research paper:

"The standpoint which divides most is one single verse from James:

“Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith alone.” –Jas. 2:24 (KJV)

Martin Luther wrote in his preface to James and Jude: “James does nothing more than drive a man to the Law and its works.” And this is apparent in some faiths teachings. However, Luther also admits that James wanted to guard against those who relied on faith exclusively but wasn’t quite up to the task.

During the first century, it is commonly held that James was the bishop of the church in Jerusalem. And Paul was a missionary. History dictates that during the early church, two viewpoints developed early on. Paul is well known for his battles with “legalists.” They were the type who said faith in God was correct, but what was also required was a submission to the “Law.”

Luther also was quick to point out that James called the “Law” a “perfect law of liberty.” (cf. Jas. 1:25) Paul viewed it as a Law that brings slavery, (Gal. 5:3) wrath, (Rom. 4:15) sin, (Rom. 7:7) and death (Rom. 7:10).

When men are turned away from their own self-efforts, the next step is to run in the complete opposite direction. If they cannot trust in their own self-righteousness, if they cannot be justified by their own works, then it is just a minor shift to reject works of any kind, and there is no such thing as ungodly living or ungodly practice. This is the door which leads down the path to antinomianism. They turn the grace of God into lasciviousness. (Jude 1:4) And this is very apparent in what it was spreading during the early church.

It has been argued that Paul and James are not contradictory, but rather, complimentary. This can be seen by the statements by these men in that Paul says you are justified by faith, verse James’ teaching that you are justified by works and not by faith alone. Arthur W. Pink wrote:

“Unless the subject and scope of James’ Epistle be clearly seen, the apprehension of many of its statements can only issue in God-dishonoring, grace-repudiating, soul-destroying error. To this portion of the Word of God, more than any other, have legalists appealed in their opposition to the grand truth of justification by grace, through faith, without works. To the declarations of this Epistle have they turned to find support for their Christ-insulting, man-exalting, Gospel-repudiating error of justification by human works. Merit-mongers of all descriptions cite James 2 for the purpose of setting aside all that is taught elsewhere in Scripture on the subject of justification. Romanists, and their half-brothers the Arminians, quote "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only" (v. 24), and suppose that ends all argument.”[*]

What is maintained is, that Paul addresses the fact of how a man can be justified before God, and James addresses how a man can be justified before man. Paul addresses our justification of persons, while James addresses our justification of profession. The one is by faith alone, while the other worketh by love and produces obedience. (Pink)

Both men use Abraham as an example. And the supposition that James addresses the empty profession rests on the fact that when James says:

“Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?” –Jas. 2:21 (KJV)

Whereas Paul says:

“For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.” –Rom. 4:3 (KJV)


A fact that most seen to overlook at are the differences between what Paul is quoting from, and what James quotes, rather, bases their statements on. Paul uses Gen. 15:6 as his basis in Romans 4, and James uses Gen. 22:1-19 for his basis. Abraham was seventy-five years old when he believed God in Genesis 15. However, Abraham was 100 years old when Isaac was born. (cf. Gen. 22:6) Tradition has it that Isaac was around twenty-five when Abraham took him to the mountain for the sacrifice. If the Catholics and Arminians are correct, then it logically means that Abraham had to wait fifty years in order to actually be justified! No! We merely point out that the offering of his son, gave evidence to Abraham’s faith in God.

Professing to be a Christian when one is not may secure a standing before men, it may improve his moral and social prestige, he may be able to join a church, and help promote his commercial interests, but can it save him? What is the use to fein to be charitable when works of charity are withheld? What good does it bring to calling oneself a Christian when empty stomachs are met with good words? How can a person claim to be a Christian and clothe the naked by good wishes? What does it profit to profess to be a believer when there is no true piety?

Neither can a person be saved by a mere empty hollow confession of the Gospel. To say that I am a Christian and am unable to appeal to any good works and spiritual fruits as proof of it, profits neither the person nor those who listen. Without the essential element of “faith worketh by love” (cf. Gal. 5:6), no matter how much reading or studying, no amount of head knowledge, no amount of preaching and teaching one can do, they are no more than “sounding brass and tinkling symbol.” Without love, those professors will be the ones pleading their works but will be told: “Depart, I never knew ye.”

[*] Arthur W. Pink, The Doctrine of Justification, Chapter 9, Its Evidence, book on-line, accessed 5/31/09, found on the World-Wide-web at: 9. Its Evidence

And guess what?

Earlier I posted:



And here it is, in Genesis 15:6, here is our Hebrew word: "tasdag".

In Genesis 15:6, before Abraham even had a child, he believed the promise of God, and it was counted as "righteousness/justified".

God Bless

Till all are one.

That was a fairly well-balanced presentation IMO. But in any case no matter how we cut it the truth remains: faith without works is dead, faith without works is dead. Neither Paul, obviously, nor James were legalists. For myself the following from your post contains much that is relevant here:

"Unless the subject and scope of James' Epistle be clearly seen, the apprehension of many of its statements can only issue in God-dishonoring, grace-repudiating, soul-destroying error. To this portion of the Word of God, more than any other, have legalists appealed in their opposition to the grand truth of justification by grace, through faith, without works. To the declarations of this Epistle have they turned to find support for their Christ-insulting, man-exalting, Gospel-repudiating error of justification by human works. Merit-mongers of all descriptions cite James 2 for the purpose of setting aside all that is taught elsewhere in Scripture on the subject of justification. Romanists, and their half-brothers the Arminians, quote "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only" (v. 24), and suppose that ends all argument."[*]

What is maintained is, that Paul addresses the fact of how a man can be justified before God, and James addresses how a man can be justified before man. Paul addresses our justification of persons, while James addresses our justification of profession. The one is by faith alone, while the other worketh by love and produces obedience.”

While I don’t agree with the first two sentences of the last paragraph, the last sentence says much. What connects Paul & Jame’s teachings is the virtue of love. James is not a legalist and Paul does not teach faith alone, which is why he could say, in 1 Cor 13, “…if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.” And, “now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.” Also, “love is the fulfillment of the law”, Rom 13:10. This is because Paul knew that love, not faith, is the definition of justice for man, which is why the Greatest Commandants are what they are. IOW, faith is not the equivalent of justice for man; love is what faith is meant to lead to, and love, by its nature, produces righteous acts, such as those mentioned in Eph 2:10 and Matt 25:31-46 as well as the works of mercy James refers to in chap 1:27 and the beginning of chap 2, because love is righteousness for man.

Either way, the central point is that justice for man-his justification-can never be divorced from acting justly, from being just IOW, by possessing the virtue of love, received by grace. These words from Micah 6:8 are universally true, then and now: “And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.” And God’s purpose is to actually accomplish this in us-that’s the purpose of the New Covenant in fact, to not only forgive injustice, but to restore and even increase His justice in fallen man.

"The only thing that counts is faith working through love.” Gal 5:6
So this is the true “Romanist” position, regardless of how well or poorly church members and leaders may happen to teach or live it at any given point in time: “Thou shalt love”. But we often want to shirk from even that, very right and good, obligation, even as we need God's help in achieving it.

 

[DeaconDean]

Like I said, Paul's position was Abraham's faith showed justification to God.

James' position show's justification before men.

How can you say your a "Christian" when belly's are left empty, or backs have no clothes.

Yes, out of your love for God, works should flow. Nobody has ever doubted that.

What most of us here disagree on is the Catholic position that you have to "work" on justification.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[he-man]

Like I said, Paul's position was Abraham's faith showed justification to God.

James' position show's justification before men.

How can you say your a "Christian" when belly's are left empty, or backs have no clothes.

Yes, out of your love for God, works should flow. Nobody has ever doubted that.

What most of us here disagree on is the Catholic position that you have to "work" on justification.

God Bless

Till all are one.

James 2:14 ..can faith save man without works? 17 Even so, faith if it has not works, is dead being alone.

 

[TheSeabass]

Accredited or imputed does NOT mean transfer where the righteousness of Christ is transferred to the sinner while the sinner does nothing (faith only). The bible shows that when the sinner obeys, the sinner is 'transferred' or place in Christ and being in Christ , he then is clothed by Christ's perfect righteousness (Gal 3:27).

 

[he-man]

Accredited or imputed does NOT mean transfer where the righteousness of Christ is transferred to the sinner while the sinner does nothing (faith only). The bible shows that when the sinner obeys, the sinner is 'transferred' or place in Christ and being in Christ , he then is clothed by Christ's perfect righteousness (Gal 3:27).

The question is have you been reconciled? 2Co 5:20

 

[TheSeabass]

The question is have you been reconciled? 2Co 5:20

Yes.

 

[DeaconDean]

James 2:14 ..can faith save man without works? 17 Even so, faith if it has not works, is dead being alone.

And?

I have already answered that question.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[fhansen]

Like I said, Paul's position was Abraham's faith showed justification to God.

James' position show's justification before men.

How can you say your a "Christian" when belly's are left empty, or backs have no clothes.

Yes, out of your love for God, works should flow. Nobody has ever doubted that.

What most of us here disagree on is the Catholic position that you have to "work" on justification.

God Bless

Till all are one.

In Catholicism salvation is a package deal, beginning with our first response to God’s calling, through baptism which initiates us into the Kingdom, and stretching throughout whatever time we’re given to work out our salvation with He who works in us until our last days. It’s all a matter of grace, and what we do with it, whether that grace be the gift of faith, or hope, or love, or any other virtue, or any of the gifts of the spirit, and any specific works that God has prepared for us to do.

The Spirit is always urging us to strive, to advance. But we can bury our talents, and we can even turn back away from God altogether. God’s purpose isn’t just to save a bunch of wretched souls for, but to produce something of great value in us, ultimately to bring to completion the beings He created us to be. And that is necessarily done with our consent and cooperation, according to His wisdom.

 

[HighCherub]

Imputed Righteousness is fixed on a premise of predestination, in which Christ has imputed his righteousness onto the Elect- as such, the person cannot lose their salvation.

Infusion is fixed on a premise of free will, in which one infuses their self with Christ, and remain so long as they don't deprive their self with sin.

 

[DeaconDean]

In Catholicism salvation is a package deal, beginning with our first response to God’s calling, through baptism which initiates us into the Kingdom, and stretching throughout whatever time we’re given to work out our salvation with He who works in us until our last days. It’s all a matter of grace, and what we do with it, whether that grace be the gift of faith, or hope, or love, or any other virtue, or any of the gifts of the spirit, and any specific works that God has prepared for us to do.

The Spirit is always urging us to strive, to advance. But we can bury our talents, and we can even turn back away from God altogether. God’s purpose isn’t just to save a bunch of wretched souls for, but to produce something of great value in us, ultimately to bring to completion the beings He created us to be. And that is necessarily done with our consent and cooperation, according to His wisdom.

As I have said before, I respect your right to believe as the Catholic church teaches, even though I disagree with it.

But by the same token, I must be allowed to believe as Baptists believe, even though you disagree with it.

I don't believe baptism removes sin, it does not initiate us into the church per se, but it is symbolic of our being united with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection. (cf. Rom. 6: 3-5)

I don't believe that "justification" like "sanctification" is progressive.

And I don't believe we are "infused". If we were, we'd be like Christ, not able to sin.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

Imputed Righteousness is fixed on a premise of predestination, in which Christ has imputed his righteousness onto the Elect- as such, the person cannot lose their salvation.

Infusion is fixed on a premise of free will, in which one infuses their self with Christ, and remain so long as they don't deprive their self with sin.

And lets not forget that "justification" just like "righteousness" is "imputed as well.

Funny, the Latin Vulgate, the "official" bible of the Catholic Church, uses the same latin word as the Greek.

Both carry the same meaning. I have shown that previously.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[fhansen]

As I have said before, I respect your right to believe as the Catholic church teaches, even though I disagree with it.

But by the same token, I must be allowed to believe as Baptists believe, even though you disagree with it.

I don't believe baptism removes sin, it does not initiate us into the church per se, but it is symbolic of our being united with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection. (cf. Rom. 6: 3-5)

I don't believe that "justification" like "sanctification" is progressive.

And I don't believe we are "infused". If we were, we'd be like Christ, not able to sin.

Or like Adam in Eden, still in a state of justice, yet still able to sin.

 

[fhansen]

Imputed Righteousness is fixed on a premise of predestination, in which Christ has imputed his righteousness onto the Elect- as such, the person cannot lose their salvation.

Infusion is fixed on a premise of free will, in which one infuses their self with Christ, and remain so long as they don't deprive their self with sin.

Actually the infusion is said to be from God, just as imputation is said to be.

 

[DeaconDean]

Or like Adam in Eden, still in a state of justice, yet still able to sin.

I disagree in that Adam, even though in a state of Innocence, did not sin until after God created for him "an helpmate".

There are a number of references in scripture to the first Adam and the second.

But there is also a world of difference between the two.

One cannot broach this subject without talking about free will. I really don't want to go this route as it detracts from my original post.

Scripture talks about the two Adams.

Adam was created in a state of innocence, but not holiness.

The second Adam, Christ, was, is, and always will be, holy.

When speaking of Adam before the fall, yes, Adam was innocent. But in him his "free will" was not the same as Christ's.

Arthur W. Pink illustrates it best:

"In unfallen Adam the will was free, free in both directions, free toward good and free toward evil. Adam was created in a state of Innocency, but not in a state of holiness, as is so often assumed and asserted. Adam’s will was therefore in a condition of moral equipoise: that is to say, in Adam there was no constraining bias in him toward either good or evil, and as such, Adam differed radically from all his descendants, as well as from "the Man Christ Jesus."

Arthur W. Pink, The Sovereignty of God, Chapter VII, The Sovereignty of God and Human Will

"So, too, with the Lord Jesus it was far otherwise: He also differed radically from unfallen Adam. The Lord Jesus Christ could not sin because He was "the Holy One of God." Before He was born into this world it was said to Mary, "The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that Holy Thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God" (Luke 1:35). Speaking reverently then, we say, that the will of the Son of Man was not in a condition of moral equipoise, that is, capable of turning toward either good or evil. The will of the Lord Jesus was biased toward that which is good because, side by side with His sinless, holy, perfect humanity, was His eternal Deity."

Ibid

But back to the subject at hand.

You are correct in that whether you believe as Catholicism teaches and your "infused" or if you believe as I do that you are "imputed" God is the one who does it.

But against the theory of "infusion" stands a very simple fact.

Water is water until you add something to it.

Put a pot of water on to boil, and then add tea, what do you have?

While "technically" it is water, it has been "infused" with the very essence of the tea leaves. So that it no longer is water but tea.

I know it is a poor example, but nonetheless, it is true.

That is why I stand opposed to "infusion".

God Bless

Till all are one.