- Jul 19, 2005
- 22,183
- 2,677
- 61
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
"Because justification is forensic in nature and a legal term, therefore justification deals with the believers standing in relation to the “Law”. So we state that justification refers not to a change in moral character, but solely to a change in legal status. Whereas we once stood condemned by the “Law” in our sinful state, the believer has now passed from a state of condemnation to one of acceptance through the obedience and fulfillment of the requirements that are received by faith alone, thus changing us to righteous and justified by imputation by an act of God
The Roman Catholic Church stands opposed to this in that they believe there is an “infusion” of grace. We do not say this harshly, for many of the great doctrines of the Bible were preserved by them. However, their doctrine concerning justification betrays its “man-centered” theology. An overview of their doctrine shows that they readily admit that there is no good in fallen man; that he can merit nothing and claim nothing on the ground of anything he is, or can do himself. He is by nature, dead in sin, and until he is made a partaker of a new life by the supernatural power of the Holy Spirit, he can do nothing but sin. For Christ’s sake, and only through His merits, as a matter of grace, this new life is “imparted” to the soul in regeneration (as they define regeneration through baptism). As life expels death; as light dispels darkness; so the entrance of this new divine life into the soul expels sin (sinful habits), and brings forth the fruits of righteousness.
Works done after regeneration have “real” merit. “Meritum condigmi”, and are the ground for a second justification; the first justification consisting in making the soul inherently just by the infusion of righteousness. Now, according to this view, we are not justified by works done before regeneration, but we are justified for gracious works, i.e.: for works which spring from the principle of divine life infused into the heart. Thus the whole ground of our acceptance with God is made to be what we are, and what we can do.
Infusion stands opposed to imputation. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines “infuse” as: 1.To cause to be permeated with something (as a principle or quality that alters usually for the better).
2.Inspire, animate.
3.To steep in liquid (as water) without baiting so as to extract soluble constituents or principles.
4.To administer or inject by infusion.
Standing opposed to this is the Greek word “ellogew” “From en logw, this means “to lay to account”, and id this a so-called “hypostasis” like “egceirein” from en ceiri”
Properly, “imputation” is an accounting term. An example of this is the statement made by the Apostle Paul in the book of Philemon. Paul says to Onesemus that if he has suffered any loss because of the runaway slave Philemon, that he should lay that “to his account”. (cf. Phlm. 18) Any debt that Onesemus accrued from the loss, that he should “charge” that to his account.
The idea being expressed here is that there is a great accounting book. In it, are all the liabilities (specifically our sins) of men on one side, and on the debit (credit) side is the righteousness of Christ. In the saving act of the cross, Christ had mans liabilities charged, laid to His account, imputed to Him. And when the repentant comes to Christ in repentance, believing by faith that He is the Son of God, crucified for their sins, risen from the dead on the third day, our liabilities, our sins, are imputed to Christ, and forgiven, then by imputation, the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us.
Salvation is by grace through faith, (cf. Eph. 2:8) of this, nearly nobody disagrees. The scriptures clearly teach that our righteousness, our justification, comes by imputation and not by infusion."
This comes from a study I did on the Baptist perspective on justification.
Forget the "justification" part.
Focus on the two words "infused" and "imputed"
I have been told I'm wrong because I support the "imputed" side of the argument.
Which is it: infused or imputed?
God Bless
Till all are one.
The Roman Catholic Church stands opposed to this in that they believe there is an “infusion” of grace. We do not say this harshly, for many of the great doctrines of the Bible were preserved by them. However, their doctrine concerning justification betrays its “man-centered” theology. An overview of their doctrine shows that they readily admit that there is no good in fallen man; that he can merit nothing and claim nothing on the ground of anything he is, or can do himself. He is by nature, dead in sin, and until he is made a partaker of a new life by the supernatural power of the Holy Spirit, he can do nothing but sin. For Christ’s sake, and only through His merits, as a matter of grace, this new life is “imparted” to the soul in regeneration (as they define regeneration through baptism). As life expels death; as light dispels darkness; so the entrance of this new divine life into the soul expels sin (sinful habits), and brings forth the fruits of righteousness.
Works done after regeneration have “real” merit. “Meritum condigmi”, and are the ground for a second justification; the first justification consisting in making the soul inherently just by the infusion of righteousness. Now, according to this view, we are not justified by works done before regeneration, but we are justified for gracious works, i.e.: for works which spring from the principle of divine life infused into the heart. Thus the whole ground of our acceptance with God is made to be what we are, and what we can do.
Infusion stands opposed to imputation. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines “infuse” as: 1.To cause to be permeated with something (as a principle or quality that alters usually for the better).
2.Inspire, animate.
3.To steep in liquid (as water) without baiting so as to extract soluble constituents or principles.
4.To administer or inject by infusion.
Standing opposed to this is the Greek word “ellogew” “From en logw, this means “to lay to account”, and id this a so-called “hypostasis” like “egceirein” from en ceiri”
Properly, “imputation” is an accounting term. An example of this is the statement made by the Apostle Paul in the book of Philemon. Paul says to Onesemus that if he has suffered any loss because of the runaway slave Philemon, that he should lay that “to his account”. (cf. Phlm. 18) Any debt that Onesemus accrued from the loss, that he should “charge” that to his account.
The idea being expressed here is that there is a great accounting book. In it, are all the liabilities (specifically our sins) of men on one side, and on the debit (credit) side is the righteousness of Christ. In the saving act of the cross, Christ had mans liabilities charged, laid to His account, imputed to Him. And when the repentant comes to Christ in repentance, believing by faith that He is the Son of God, crucified for their sins, risen from the dead on the third day, our liabilities, our sins, are imputed to Christ, and forgiven, then by imputation, the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us.
Salvation is by grace through faith, (cf. Eph. 2:8) of this, nearly nobody disagrees. The scriptures clearly teach that our righteousness, our justification, comes by imputation and not by infusion."
This comes from a study I did on the Baptist perspective on justification.
Forget the "justification" part.
Focus on the two words "infused" and "imputed"
I have been told I'm wrong because I support the "imputed" side of the argument.
Which is it: infused or imputed?
God Bless
Till all are one.
