Imputed vs. Infused Righteousness.

[ah_muse]

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

I was raised Mormon. When I became a Christian, I was in a Foursquare church and I stayed there for 10 years - lots of Bible sudy and worship with music. But it was the Presbyterians who helped me the most with my Theology issues. I wouldn't be very comfortable in a Catholic church, most likely. I'm glad you and I agree.
I would be interested to know what Protestants I disagree with. I guess I shouldn't be surprised by your statement. Maybe too many Protestants are "works" oriented instead of walking in God's grace.

 

[ZoneChaos]

Forgive if this has been said already I do not know much about the terms used...

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).

I believe we are reborn a new creature in Christ. That we are made righteous by God, through Faith, by Grace, at the very moment we believe in Jesus Christ.

Though, I also believe in once saved, always saved, and that one can think they are saved, when they are not.

 

[TOmNossor]

Ah_muse,



Within the definition of Infused Righteousness I included, “he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as the is righteous” – 1 John 3:7.

Infused Righteousness is saved by grace through faith and works. After true faith (which comes from Grace too), the Christian will rely on God’s Grace to perform good works. In so doing Christ infuses righteousness into the fallen man who does good works through the Grace of Christ.



Saved by Grace through Faith ALONE is Protestant and is Imputed Righteousness.



Saved by Grace through Faith and Works is Catholic.



I believe that the best read of LDS scripture points to Infused Righteousness just like Catholics, but some LDS writers have embraced Imputed Righteousness, so it is not necessarily clear.



Also as Skylark, Pat VH, and I have agreed; if the words Justification and Sanctification are blurred the differences in Catholic and Protestant though seems to go away (Phillip has not conceded that he agrees with this.



Charity,

TOm

 

[skylark1]

Also as Skylark, Pat VH, and I have agreed; if the words Justification and Sanctification are blurred the differences in Catholic and Protestant though seems to go away (Phillip has not conceded that he agrees with this.

Hi Tom,

You are mistaken. I did not agree with this. I quoted part of an article that explains the meaning of positional, experiential, and ultimate santification, and asked if infused righteousness was the same as experiential sanctification, and if imputed righteousness was the same as positional sanctification. I believe that we are saved by grace through faith alone. But as we draw near to Jesus and yield our lives to him, the Holy Spirit transforms us and makes us more like Christ.

Experiential sanctification. Progressive sanctification, the continuing transformation of the moral and spiritual character of a believer, is the dynamic outworking by the Holy Spirit of the believer's union with Christ which conforms the believer to the image of Christ or produces Christlikeness. The Holy Spirit who indwells the believer at salvation also provides the power for his sanctification. In essence, progressive sanctification is becoming in experience what we already are positionally in Christ. The Holy Spirit operates in believers to free them experientially from the power of sin and death. “And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect" (Rom. 12:2).
​

The entire article which goes into more detail: http://www.biblicalresources.org/Sanctification.htm

 

[TOmNossor]

Skylark,

I am sorry if I am mistaken about you.



What I mean when I say the differences seem to fade though is that the Catholic who follows the Justification and Sanctification path from 20yo to 80yo to death will accept Christ, his Grace, and work with the Grace of Christ; assigning importance to these things. The Protestant who follows Justification and Sanctification path from 20yo to 80yo to death will accept Christ, his Grace, and work with the Grace of Christ; assigning importance to these things. The Catholic and the Protestant will put the beliefs and actions in different buckets, but if you erase the labels on the buckets it will be very much the same.



Charity, TOm

 

[skylark1]

TOm,

Thanks for the apology, but it wasn't necessary. If you wish to put justification and sanctification into the same bucket, and remove the labels, then I suppose that you could say that the buckets would be the same. But, I think that a danger in doing so is that men may believe that they are saved by works.


You never did answer if you considered infused righteousness to be the same as experiential sanctification, and if imputed righteousness to be the same as positional sanctification.

 

[TOmNossor]

Skylark,



I read your link.

This is how I would compare what I have put together in the past.

At the end of each term I will put a –C for Catholic, -P for the Protestant from my past view, and –L for the link you sent me to.



Initial Justification-C = Justification-P = Positional Sanctification-L

Progressive Justification-C = Sanctification-P = Experiential Sanctification-L



Then the last step, I think would be to complex to link together.



So Infused Righteousness is the linking of both of these steps into Justification in a Catholic framework, but as you suggested the emphasis is on the Experiential Sanctificaiton. Imputed Righteousness is only the first part (Positional Sanctificaiton).



If I have made any mistakes, I will refund all payments received.



Charity, TOm

 

[skylark1]

TOm,

Thanks for reading the link. I like the way the you explained the three views.

I had never heard of infused righteousness before you mentioned it, so I wasn't quite sure exactly what you meant. I think that one point that the link made about experiential sanctification is that when we abide in Christ and yield our lives to him, it is the the Holy Spirit who transforms us and makes us more Christ like. It isn't something that we could accomplish on our own by works.

 

[TOmNossor]

Skylark,

I believe that we work with Christ, but that we make a choice to do the will of God. So the ability to follow God seems likely to be provided by God’s grace, but I believe we regularly and freely choose to follow Him.

Charity, TOm

 

[skylark1]

I agree.

So where exactly do you think that the LDS view fits with these views of righteousness, justification, and sanctification?

 

[TOmNossor]

Skylark,

I do not believe that LDS have any room to suggest that incomplete Sanctification-P or the absence of Experiential Sanctification-L can result in Exaltation. But when one has their nature changed through being born again that nature is carried into their post-mortal life and if they would have accepted the fullness had they lived, they will accept the fullness and return to the presence of the Father after death. So while it could be incomplete before death, God will know the truth in their heart. Some LDS embrace Justification-P and Sanctification-P just like many Protestants. I do not think a LDS can be a Calvinist because of the emphasis we place on free agency.

Some LDS go a little farther than I did in emphasizing free agency and even call themselves semi-Pelagians (this means men have the ability to do good because Christ atoned for their sins). I prefer to say that we have the ability to choose to do good and Christ will work with us to accomplish this (of course in a certain sense Christ atonement is the working with us that allows us to accomplish good, so perhaps we agree). In any case, I think it is more Biblical to acknowledge Christ in all our good works both globally through the atonement and individually through His work within our lives.

Charity, TOm

 

[skylark1]

TOm,

You wrote:

I do not believe that LDS have any room to suggest that incomplete Sanctification-P or the absence of Experiential Sanctification-L can result in Exaltation.
​

I don't think that you mentioned complete/incomplete Sanctification-P before. What do you think makes it complete or incomplete?

Thanks.

 

[TOmNossor]

TOm,





You wrote:

I do not believe that LDS have any room to suggest that incomplete Sanctification-P or the absence of Experiential Sanctification-L can result in Exaltation.




​

I don't think that you mentioned complete/incomplete Sanctification-P before. What do you think makes it complete or incomplete?



Thanks.

Skylark,



What I would be willing to say I know makes it incomplete, is if the believer looses faith, rebels against God, and becomes a non-believer / non-Christian.

I do not believe in once saved always saved.

However, it will be in God’s hands to know the heart of this person and since I do not know the heart of this person, I cannot make the call. This knowledge of the heart will in my opinion allow some who seem lost to follow God to completion after death. There heart was right, but as Catholics would say (and this is not insulting) they are “invincibly ignorant.”



There is a man who has suggested to me his faith in God is “hanging by weak threads, all about to break.” He was a LDS; he was a Bishop. He has spent a great deal of time trying to come to grips with all the anti-Mormonism stuff he has read (about 15 years). I wrote him and have asked him to not give up God. I told him I do not really care if he is a LDS, I just hope he will continue to walk with God like he has for so many years (including perhaps walking out of the CoJCoLDS). But those books and ideas from other “Christians” that destroyed his faith replaced it with nothing. He sees no more truth outside the CoJCoLDS than inside. It is my believe that if he continues to walk with God, one day God will say, “this is my way walk ye in it.” And this man who has always walked with God will say, “yes, God.” But if he rejects God, and God still says, “this is my way walk ye in it.” This man will say, “But what about Bible inerrancy and …”



Charity, TOm

 

[skylark1]

Hi TOm,

You wrote:

There is a man who has suggested to me his faith in God is “hanging by weak threads, all about to break.” He was a LDS; he was a Bishop. He has spent a great deal of time trying to come to grips with all the anti-Mormonism stuff he has read (about 15 years). I wrote him and have asked him to not give up God. I told him I do not really care if he is a LDS, I just hope he will continue to walk with God like he has for so many years (including perhaps walking out of the CoJCoLDS). But those books and ideas from other “Christians” that destroyed his faith replaced it with nothing. He sees no more truth outside the CoJCoLDS than inside. It is my believe that if he continues to walk with God, one day God will say, “this is my way walk ye in it.” And this man who has always walked with God will say, “yes, God.” But if he rejects God, and God still says, “this is my way walk ye in it.” This man will say, “But what about Bible inerrancy and ...
​

I have heard many stories of people who have left the LDS Church who have been condemned and ostracized by their family and friends. It is so very nice to hear of someone who is LDS telling someone who is leaving Mormonism that they don't care if he remains LDS, that they just hope that he will continue to walk with God.

You point out something important when you mention critics destroying his faith in Mormonism and replacing it with nothing. I want people to walk with God, not away from him. What do you think that the difference is for those who leave the LDS Church who choose to reject God, verses those who choose to walk with him?

 

[TOmNossor]

Skylark,



A logical impossibility is required for me to deny God. I know God. I know that he knows me individually. The Bible talks about him knowing every sparrow and in a certain way I know that he does, but that he knows me is a certainty in my life. To deny that God lives, God would have to tell me he does not. That of course is a logical impossibility. Thus come what may, I will always know that there is a God. He lives. He knows me personally. And he loves me despite all my faults.



I am a Christian, because God made this world. Within each of us he left his light and we are compelled to follow this light. And yet no one ever does. We all sin. God is a perfect God and I see no way to return to him without being perfect. Christ to me is the only way to bridge this gap and return to this perfect God for me the sinner. Thus right behind my certain knowledge that God lives comes my knowledge that through Christ is the only way I can return to him.



When I look at Christendom, I see many flaws in various religious structures including the CoJCoLDS. I logically hold that the CoJCoLDS far and away has fewer flaws and no “fatal flaws,” but it does have some seeming contradictions within it. When I look at Christendom, I see much bigger flaws with the Catholic Church, but again no strictly
”fatal flaw.” I see “fatal flaws” in all other Christendom structures.



A “fatal flaw” per my definition is something that logically precludes a particular belief structure from being God’s church due to internal contradictions that I cannot resolve. A “fatal flaw” may not and usually does not have anything to do with the salvic efficacy of a particular belief structure. BTW, Paganism properly understood does not have a “fatal flaw” that I can find, but it may have no salvic efficacy.



So I could never walk away from God, but some exLDS seem to have not succeeded in KNOWING God like this. So like me they see “fatal flaws” in much or all of Christendom, but unlike me, they are not as certain that God lives. So if someone can deconstruct their faith, they see no reason to embrace another structure with “fatal flaws.”



I actually believe that LDS are stronger in their belief in God than are many Christians. Many non-LDS Christians loose faith due to evolution theories or other things. The difference is that LDS are assaulted by anti-Mormonismists who seldom do anything but destroy faith. Before I ever started apologetics for the Church, a church in our area put an anti-Mormonism book on my doorstep and the doorstep of most of the members of my ward. This is the world that LDS lives in.



When I see an ex-Mormon say, “I left because such and such is a false belief.” And such and such is a false belief and it is not part of the Church I know, I am quite sad. As evidenced by this board, there are many people willing to tear down, ridicule, and explain to a LDS what they believe and why they should not believe this. When I explain to those who say this that LDS do not believe such and such, they suggest I am being deceptive. I believe some even know that such and such is not an LDS belief, but it has value in deconstructing so they continue to use it. I believe some of these people think they will lead the LDS to the truth, but agnosticism and atheism is often the result.



BTW, all of the above including most of my knowledge that God lives (but perhaps not that he loves me) is pure logic. On top of this I add my spiritual witness which in general is stronger than the logic, but more personal and harder to explain.



Charity, TOm

 

[skylark1]

TOm,

It is also a logical impossibility for me to deny God. I did not follow what you meant by the "fatal flaws." Nor did I understand the comment about paganism not having a fatal flaw. What do you feel that these "fatal flaws" are that you say other churches have?

Are some people's belief in God so enmeshed with the organization of a one true church, that if their belief in a one true church falls, then everything crumbles? This is very hard for me to understand, as the church that I was brought up in was at the opposite end of the spectrum, regarding authority and organization. I don't think that any church is perfect, since it is composed of imperfect people. But God is there with us in spite of our flaws.

 

[TOmNossor]

Skylark,



A “Fatal Flaw” is something that is internally inconsistent.

The position of the strong universal atheist is “Fatally Flawed.” The strong universal atheist KNOWS that there is NO GOD. This is impossible to know without being able to experience the entire universe simultaneously with senses that could detect anything God might be. To do this one would be supernatural and a God. Thus a strong universal atheist belief is “Fatally Flawed.”



Paganism has no “Fatal Flaws” because a knowledgeable Pagan does not believe self contradictory things.

However, paganism in that it does not point to obedience to God also seems to have little or no salvic efficacy in my mind.



I believe that some people’s beliefs in God are enmeshed with the organization. The transition that I focus on at church is moving teenagers from faith in the faith of their parents and others to personal faith. I believe the CoJCoLDS is as effective at this transformation as most other churches, but it is not perfect. Thus we have adults who have faith in the church and priesthood leaders rather than individual faith. Certainly there is a spectrum with one end being a sure knowledge of God needing no organization and the other end being 4 year old faith in parent’s faith. But anything less than sure knowledge leaves one susceptible to Satan’s attacks with respect to agnosticism or atheism.



Charity, TOm

 

[Godisgood]

It is unfortunate that many who leave the church do not continue to seek God after leaving. IMHO, sometimes I think it may just be a part of the process. It's a long long road.

 

[TOmNossor]

Hello Godisgood,

Have you ever wondered why so many atheist on the other board attack the CoJCoLDS. Why do they care so much. Do you think any other church receives this type of attention from those who do not believe in God?

You and Skylark do quite well. I would love to have what you have in my life if I didn’t already have what I have, but some people here and there (Christian and atheist) do not appear to have anything that I would choose above a void.



Charity,

TOm

 

[ah_muse]

TOm,
This has all been a little confusing to me with the terminology you are using.
Mormon "righteousness" has nothing in common with Christianity - that is a fact. But Mormonism has "humans works" in common with Catholicism.

Imputed righteousness is correct Christian Theology. . . granted the righteousness of Christ.

Christ took upon himself and bore the sins of the world, and satisfied divine justice. Therefore, solely on account of Christ's sufferings and resurrection God is propitious with respect to our sins and does not impute them to us, but imputes Christ's righteousness to us as our own (2 Cor. 5:19; Rom. 4:25), so that now we are not only cleansed and purged from sins or are holy, but also, granted the righteousness of Christ, and so absolved from sin, death and condemnation, are at last righteous and heirs of eternal life.

Properly speaking, therefore, God alone justifies us, and justifies only on account of Christ, not imputing sins to us but imputing his righteousness to us.

Going a little deeper with this, we can see: 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.

Matthew 5:17
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.