Imputed vs. Infused Righteousness.

[TOmNossor]

This thread is to discuss Imputed vs. Infused Righteousness.



I want to discuss the answer to three questions.

• 1. Do you personally think that one must believe in Imputed or Infused Righteousness to be Christian (specify which one)? Or is this particular theological debate unimportant towards the determining of who is Christian?
• 2. Do you think that one who embraces the incorrect righteousness formula is going to not be saved? By this I mean that if one follows the teachings of the Bible and interprets the Bible to say Imputed Righteousness will they be saved? Or if one follows the teachings of the Bible and interprets the Bible to say Infused Righteousness will they be saved?
• 3. Which do you feel is the true nature of Justification?

Some basic definitions (feel free to elaborate or correct)



Imputed righteousness means that Christ's righteousness is attributed to us when we repent and believe the good news. As Paul put it Rom 4, God justifies the ungodly. It is the belief that Christ’s righteousness is reckoned/imputed to the believing sinner, as if it was the sinner’s own. God declares the sinner just/righteous, when it fact, he is not.



Infused righteousness” links justification to regeneration and sanctification of the soul. In other words, God by grace “makes” one just/righteous. Paul calls this the “new creation (2 Cor. 5:17); Jesus being “born again” (John 3:5-7); John says, “Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous” (1Jn 3:7); and Peter, speaks of “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4).



My answers to the questions:

1. Does not matter for the definition of Christian.

2. Does not matter for the salvation of the person. As long as true faith exist the person will walk the path.

3. I believe in Infused Righteousness.



Things that I put forth and that I can back up with Bible or Scholars or Quotes.



1. I have many Biblical quotes that speak of the importance of works. The most reasonable interpretation IMO of these combined with the quotes we will see from Romans is Infused Righteousness.

2. No one in all of history before Martin Luther interpreted the Bible as teaching Imputed Righteousness. His teaching was theological novem put forth for the first time by Martin Luther.

3. Martin Luther was very clear that he had no use for certain parts of the Bible. It is my opinion that his selective use of Biblical books leads to a less consistent position than would a full view of the Bible.


I hope you enjoy.

Charity, TOm

 

[Ben_Hur]

1. Doesn't matter.

2. Doesn't matter. We are saved by grace through faith...

3. Imputed Righteousness.

 

[Pat VH]

This thread is to discuss Imputed vs. Infused Righteousness.



I want to discuss the answer to three questions.

• 1. Do you personally think that one must believe in Imputed or Infused Righteousness to be Christian (specify which one)? Or is this particular theological debate unimportant towards the determining of who is Christian?
• 2. Do you think that one who embraces the incorrect righteousness formula is going to not be saved? By this I mean that if one follows the teachings of the Bible and interprets the Bible to say Imputed Righteousness will they be saved? Or if one follows the teachings of the Bible and interprets the Bible to say Infused Righteousness will they be saved?
• 3. Which do you feel is the true nature of Justification?

Some basic definitions (feel free to elaborate or correct)



Imputed righteousness means that Christ's righteousness is attributed to us when we repent and believe the good news. As Paul put it Rom 4, God justifies the ungodly. It is the belief that Christ’s righteousness is reckoned/imputed to the believing sinner, as if it was the sinner’s own. God declares the sinner just/righteous, when it fact, he is not.



Infused righteousness” links justification to regeneration and sanctification of the soul. In other words, God by grace “makes” one just/righteous. Paul calls this the “new creation (2 Cor. 5:17); Jesus being “born again” (John 3:5-7); John says, “Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous” (1Jn 3:7); and Peter, speaks of “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4).






<snip>

I haven't run across the term "infused righteousness" before. My understanding is that Christ's righteousness is imputed to us when we are regenerated (justification) and then the rest of our life is a journey toward sanctification. So using your terms, couldn't infusion follow imputation?

Pat

p.s. I have heard that Luther changed his mind about the Book of James later in his life.

 

[TOmNossor]

Ben_Hur,



Thank you for your answer. I really have no reason to try and debate the merits of Infused vs. Imputed righteousness as you will see in my next post (I assume that you do not either, but I will be glad to talk about it if you want to for some reason).



I am happy that while we may disagree on how God will do what God does (like we could really know anyway), we will not let this be a reason to separate ourselves.



Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

I haven't run across the term "infused righteousness" before. My understanding is that Christ's righteousness is imputed to us when we are regenerated (justification) and then the rest of our life is a journey toward sanctification. So using your terms, couldn't infusion follow imputation?

Pat

p.s. I have heard that Luther changed his mind about the Book of James later in his life.

Pat VH,



Wow! You are in some poor company now. I agree with you completely. I posted this on another board a few months ago.



*******************************************************

Here is how I see it.

If we do not allow the terms Justification and Sanctification to be important distinctions between one part of the journey and another, I think the above difference begins to evaporate. This assumes the Catholic (believes in infused righteousness) and the Protestant (believes in imputed righteousness) both behave similarly and both continue to move down the path that would lead to Catholic salvation. Without this assumption, I think we have some “once saved always saved” problems. Another assumption that I think is important is that we are not talking about a Calvinist pre-destination position, because then it might not be a free choice to begin the J and S.

A Catholic and a Protestant both choose to follow God, have faith in God, to be believers. This is a free choice. It is a choice predicated upon a knowledge of God and this knowledge comes from the Holy Spirit, but both humans make the choice.
A Protestant would call this initial Sanctification. A Catholic would call this the free decision to partake in the process of Justification by inviting Christ into ones life.

Here I think ways are parted some. The Protestant after making this decision is imputed with righteousness. This is Justification; this is a legalist thing. It means that they no longer carry the weight of their sins because Christ atoned for them.
The Catholic is now on a path where the Spirit infuses righteousness and the result is a partnership with God (involving continued grace assisted choices) that produces good works and a change from the fallen state to a state that may result in salvation.

The Protestant is also on a path though. They now participate in ongoing Sanctification. The infused righteousness results in good works.


Provided both Catholic and Protestant stay on the path, the end result according to each religion is salvation.

Where the Protestant to become truly wicked it would be evidence that they really were not saved to begin with. If the Catholic departs from the path, they also risk damnation.








I have seen a Protestant and a Catholic come to this conclusion on another board. I have also seen a different Catholic who sent emails to a Protestant come to the same conclusion. Anyway, thank you for you response.

Oh yea. I had not heard Luther changed his mind about James. Luther at one point in time embraced a subset of the Bible to a greater extent than the rest, the rest was good, and James was not good. I have not studied enough to know if he later changed his mind.

Charity, TOm

 

[Pat VH]

Pat VH,



Wow! You are in some poor company now. I agree with you completely. I posted this on another board a few months ago.



*******************************************************

Here is how I see it.

If we do not allow the terms Justification and Sanctification to be important distinctions between one part of the journey and another, I think the above difference begins to evaporate. This assumes the Catholic (believes in infused righteousness) and the Protestant (believes in imputed righteousness) both behave similarly and both continue to move down the path that would lead to Catholic salvation. Without this assumption, I think we have some “once saved always saved” problems. Another assumption that I think is important is that we are not talking about a Calvinist pre-destination position, because then it might not be a free choice to begin the J and S.

A Catholic and a Protestant both choose to follow God, have faith in God, to be believers. This is a free choice. It is a choice predicated upon a knowledge of God and this knowledge comes from the Holy Spirit, but both humans make the choice.
A Protestant would call this initial Sanctification. A Catholic would call this the free decision to partake in the process of Justification by inviting Christ into ones life.

Here I think ways are parted some. The Protestant after making this decision is imputed with righteousness. This is Justification; this is a legalist thing. It means that they no longer carry the weight of their sins because Christ atoned for them.
The Catholic is now on a path where the Spirit infuses righteousness and the result is a partnership with God (involving continued grace assisted choices) that produces good works and a change from the fallen state to a state that may result in salvation.

The Protestant is also on a path though. They now participate in ongoing Sanctification. The infused righteousness results in good works.


Provided both Catholic and Protestant stay on the path, the end result according to each religion is salvation.

Where the Protestant to become truly wicked it would be evidence that they really were not saved to begin with. If the Catholic departs from the path, they also risk damnation.








I have seen a Protestant and a Catholic come to this conclusion on another board. I have also seen a different Catholic who sent emails to a Protestant come to the same conclusion. Anyway, thank you for you response.

Oh yea. I had not heard Luther changed his mind about James. Luther at one point in time embraced a subset of the Bible to a greater extent than the rest, the rest was good, and James was not good. I have not studied enough to know if he later changed his mind.

Charity, TOm

*******
If you want to read a Protestant view of the difference between imputed and infused (it's coming back to me) righteousness, I suggest you look at the book "Faith Alone" by R.C. Sproul. He explains the difference in it.

Pat

 

[mtucker]

1. Do you personally think that one must believe in Imputed or Infused Righteousness to be Christian (specify which one)? Or is this particular theological debate unimportant towards the determining of who is Christian?"

"Must" is the wrong term. It implies that the individual must see to it that this event occours. It is rather a component of salvation; not a condition. Abraham's righteous was imputed, legally considered righteous. The born-again believer's spirit is regenerated, and an iherant part of that regeneartion is that this new spirit is righteous. The NT term justification is a term of infusion, as it mean to be made righteous, not declared or considered, etc.

2. Do you think that one who embraces the incorrect righteousness formula is going to not be saved? By this I mean that if one follows the teachings of the Bible and interprets the Bible to say Imputed Righteousness will they be saved? Or if one follows the teachings of the Bible and interprets the Bible to say Infused Righteousness will they be saved?"

I don't think it matters one bit. Although, I would like to see more Christians gain knowledge of the truth of their inherant righteous state.

3. Which do you feel is the true nature of Justification?

Well, I already answered this one, but let me say it again. The word justification means made righteous.

 

[pmarquette]

Semantics.... words we use trip over meanings they are given ....
1. Irrespective of what we call the " new birth " whether : epiphany , born again , incorruptible seed ,being fully persuaded, etc. there must be a yielded heart and vessel ( a willing servant )

2. After the experience or event [ change in heart ] there should be some evidence ( sanctification , metanoia , turn around , change , evidence of change ) .

3. As Paul spoke a change from the milk of the infant christian [ Ephesians 4.11 ], to the meat of the seasoned soldier of christ [ Ephesians 4.12 ; Mt. 25.32-42 ]

both of them : the work of the cross is original sin , and the curse of the Law ; the work of the Holy Spirit is sanctification and works of the kingdom ...

 

[TOmNossor]

Pat VH,

Wow!



Now I guess you and I are in good company.

I have not read that book. I am so far under unread books I may never catch up.



I listen to Christian talk radio. I believe the program is Empower your Mind. I think it is hosted by RC Sproul. Today Dr. RC Sproul Jr. was talking to the host who was his father (I was quite confused by this, but at least one of them is the RC Sproul). He spoke about obedience to God and how some Christians forget the importance of this. He then used the term double imputation. He said, that our sins are imputed upon Christ, but we must have his righteousness imputed upon us. We do this by obedience.



So, I conclude that you and I are in great company!



Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Edward Van Halen and Pmarquette,



I think we are in agreement that it does not matter for the definition of who is or is not a Christian.

I also think that we are in agreement that much of this is semantics.

Thanks for your responses.



Charity, TOm

 

[Philip]

1. Do you personally think that one must believe in Imputed or Infused Righteousness to be Christian (specify which one)? Or is this particular theological debate unimportant towards the determining of who is Christian?

Unimportant

2. Do you think that one who embraces the incorrect righteousness formula is going to not be saved? By this I mean that if one follows the teachings of the Bible and interprets the Bible to say Imputed Righteousness will they be saved? Or if one follows the teachings of the Bible and interprets the Bible to say Infused Righteousness will they be saved?

That is for God to decide. However, having the wrong understanding could lead to other problems.

3. Which do you feel is the true nature of Justification?

Infused is closer, but I do not entirely agree with it. Infused righteousness, as I understand it, is forensic in nature.

1.I have many Biblical quotes that speak of the importance of works. The most reasonable interpretation IMO of these combined with the quotes we will see from Romans is Infused Righteousness.

Agreed.

2. No one in all of history before Martin Luther interpreted the Bible as teaching Imputed Righteousness. His teaching was theological novem put forth for the first time by Martin Luther.

Agreed.

 

[Philip]

I haven't run across the term "infused righteousness" before. My understanding is that Christ's righteousness is imputed to us when we are regenerated (justification) and then the rest of our life is a journey toward sanctification. So using your terms, couldn't infusion follow imputation?

Infusion and Imputation are not compatable. Infused Righteousness requires human participation in the process of sactification -- one must use the grace given to them to be saved. Imputed Righteousness completely rejects the suggestion that human participation is needed.

Question: Is it possible to be justified but never sanctified?

p.s. I have heard that Luther changed his mind about the Book of James later in his life.

Luther, at the insistence of Melanchthon, agreed to leave James in the Bible. He did not, to my knowledge, change his opinion of the book.

 

[Philip]

bump

 

[TOmNossor]

Phillip,

Sorry for not responding earlier. We agree in most respects. We seemed to agree that ones belief (WRT Imputed vs. Infused) as long as ones faith and behavior where in-line with the teachings of the Bible would not matter concerning the title of Christian nor the salvation of the individual.

I would also agree that some groups misunderstand Luther and believe that sola fida is a faith confession and nothing more. This leads to those who say they believe but this is not evidenced by works. Luther would say that works would always follow true faith (if I understand correctly).



Where we disagree ever so slightly is here:



Phillip:

Infusion and Imputation are not compatable. Infused Righteousness requires human participation in the process of sactification -- one must use the grace given to them to be saved. Imputed Righteousness completely rejects the suggestion that human participation is needed.



TOm:

Imputed and Infused (if I understand correctly) refer to Justification. One who follows Luther and believes in Imputed Righteousness for Justification (if continuing to follow Luther) will see works as part of Sanctification. Again, there are those who walk away with only part of the teaching and thus say something like, “I have been saved by my faith so I could kill you right now and it wouldn’t matter.” (This is attributed to an unnamed Minister). I believe this to be a misunderstanding and not something that Luther would have embraced.



www.catholic-defense.com/...usness.htm



This is a dialog between a Catholic and a Protestant where the Catholic came to the conclusion that I have agreed with.



Charity, TOm

 

[skylark1]

From a different thread:

This question in my mind again links to Infused Righteousness. A good way to express this is that upon having true faith your sins are Imputed upon Christ. After this as the Grace of Christ works in your life his Righteousness is Infused into you. (R.C. Sproul called this double Imputation) This is a process. At the end of the process you will say as Christ did, &#8220;Nevertheless, thy will be done&#8221; in every decision you ever have before you. You will have completely given your one possession YOUR WILL to God.

I thought that it would be best to respond to this here. How is this different than sanctification, or is it the same thing?

"The word sanctification (hagiasmos) means "to set apart." Another form of the word is often translated "hply." The work of God in the sanctification of believers has three aspects: positional (2Thes 2:13), experiential (1 Thes 5:23), and ultimate (Eph 5:26-27), reflecting the past present, and future aspects of salvation. In Romans 8:1-11, Paul notes the reality of positional sanctification as the believer is in union with Christ, having been justified and declared righteous. Then He describes how this sanctification is worked out progressively in the life of the believer who walks according to the Spirit. Positional and ultimate sanctification are entirely the work of God. Progressive sanctification requires the cooperation of the believer, who is commanded to be filled with the Spirit."

http://www.biblicalresources.org/Sanctification.htm

Is progressive sanctification the same as infused righteousness, and positional sanctification the same as imputed righteousness?

 

[TOmNossor]

I believe that Protestant Justification + Sanctification is almost identical to Catholic Justification + Sanctification. If you blur the words the process is almost identical.

I think I prolly said this more clearly earlier in this thread.





Charity, TOm

 

[ah_muse]

This thread is to discuss Imputed vs. Infused Righteousness.



I want to discuss the answer to three questions.

• 1. Do you personally think that one must believe in Imputed or Infused Righteousness to be Christian (specify which one)? Or is this particular theological debate unimportant towards the determining of who is Christian?
• 2. Do you think that one who embraces the incorrect righteousness formula is going to not be saved? By this I mean that if one follows the teachings of the Bible and interprets the Bible to say Imputed Righteousness will they be saved? Or if one follows the teachings of the Bible and interprets the Bible to say Infused Righteousness will they be saved?
• 3. Which do you feel is the true nature of Justification?

Charity, TOm

By being born into God's family and being placed in Christ, you are righteous and holy. You receive the GIFT of righteousness (Romans 5:17). The Lord Jesus is your righteousness. When you receive Him, your spirit is filled with righteousness. What you are at the spirit level determines your real identity. When you do not behave righteously, you are being inconsistent with who you are.

By being born into God's family and being place in Christ, you are fully accepted by God. You are accepted because you are in Christ (Ephesians 1:6). Because Christ has received you and He is fully accepted by the Father, you are fully accepted as well. You don't need to change a thing about yoruself for God to accept you. Your acceptance isn't based on what you do, but on who you are. You can just be yourself, allowing the nature of Christ within your spirit to flow through your personality and out of your life.

In the Old Testament, God responded to the faith of believers by imputing righteousness to them. In Romans 4:3 we see that God "counted" (literally imputed) righteousness to Abraham because of his faith. Righteousness was credited to Lot because God saw faith in his heart, in spite of his contradictory actions.

God showed Lot great mercy. He did live in Old Testament times. He didn't have Christ living inside him as Christians do today. There is a big difference between Lot and believers today. God only imputed righteousness to Old Testament saints, but He imparts righteousness to Christians when they are saved. Imputing righteousness was a legal verdict, but imparting righteousness is a literal event that happens to New Testament saints.
In these days of grace, Christians are literally given the righteousness of Christ. Lot had righteousness credited to him, but Christians have righteousness created in them when they are saved.

Regarding embracing doctrines/formulas, following teachings, and interpreting scriptures - nobody in the New Testament was more committed to studying the Bible than the Pharisees. They could quote long passages from memory. They knew the content of their Bible because they poured over it daily. But Jesus had a word to say about their kind of Bible study, "You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life" (John 5:39-40). Jesus was pointing out that their approach to the Bible was nothing more than an academic discipline. They knew their Bible, but there was no life in their empty religious routines.

Justification: Christians are saved from sin's penalty by Christ's death and are saved from it's power by His life.
Romans 5:10
For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!

 

[TOmNossor]

Ah_muse,

I infer from what you said, that you believe that the answer to question #3 is imputed righteousness. We could discuss this some if it is important to you, but I am more interested in your answer to question number 1&2.

Charity, TOm

 

[ah_muse]

#1) What someone believes about doctrine does not determine who is Christian.
#2) What someone believes about doctrine does not determine if they will be saved.
#3) Justification/Righteousness/Salvation is a gift from God. It is the process by which sinful human beings are made acceptable to a holy God. It is NOT imputed. The Old Testament imputing of righteousness does not apply to New Testament Christians.

Christianity is unique because of its teaching of justification by grace (Rom 3:24). Justification is God's declaration that the demands of His Law have been fulfilled in the righteousness of His Son. The basis for this justification is the death of Christ.

2 Corinthians 5:19 NIV
that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.
2 Corinthians 5:19 NKJV
that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

This reconciliation covers all sin:
Hebrews 10:14
For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.

Justification then, is based on the work of Christ, accomplished through His blood (Rom. 5:9) and brought to His people through His resurrection (Rom. 4:25).

When God justifies, He charges the sin of man to Christ and creates/imparts the righteousness of Christ in the believer:
2 Corinthians 5:21
For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
Romans 5:18
Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.

Romans 5:9
having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath

Romans 8:30
Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

 

[TOmNossor]

#1) What someone believes about doctrine does not determine who is Christian.
#2) What someone believes about doctrine does not determine if they will be saved.
#3) Justification/Righteousness/Salvation is a gift from God. It is the process by which sinful human beings are made acceptable to a holy God. It is NOT imputed. The Old Testament imputing of righteousness does not apply to New Testament Christians.

Christianity is unique because of its teaching of justification by grace (Rom 3:24). Justification is God's declaration that the demands of His Law have been fulfilled in the righteousness of His Son. The basis for this justification is the death of Christ.

2 Corinthians 5:19 NIV
that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.
2 Corinthians 5:19 NKJV
that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

This reconciliation covers all sin:
Hebrews 10:14
For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.

Justification then, is based on the work of Christ, accomplished through His blood (Rom. 5:9) and brought to His people through His resurrection (Rom. 4:25).

When God justifies, He charges the sin of man to Christ and creates/imparts the righteousness of Christ in the believer:
2 Corinthians 5:21
For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
Romans 5:18
Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.

Romans 5:9
having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath

Romans 8:30
Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.

Ah_muse,



You, all Catholics, and I are in agreement. We all believe that Justification is infused by the grace of God into the sinful human.

You are however in disagreement with virtually all of Protestantism. Is this what you meant to say? Are you Catholic?



Charity, TOm