"Infused" or "Imputed"?

[fhansen]

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.

Ok, but the CC teaches that something is added to us with justification, because something was lacking due to the first sin of man, and that "something" is described as grace, the life of God in us, the Holy Spirit, justice/holiness/righteousness: communion with God (the Catholic definition of the state of Original Sin for fallen man is separation from God, whereas the definition for most of Protestantism involves acquiring a "sin nature", or concupiscence). We're made "new creations", not only forgiven and washed clean but also changed, for the better.

But this is only the starting point for man, for Adam, in a way. Our wills don't become dominated and controlled by God; we can still be distracted and tempted by the flesh, by pride, and the offerings of the world. And, in fact, those things can now help to test and refine us, as we, with the help of grace, struggle to overcome them-the "struggle against sin". We're made just; we now only have to "own" that justice, to live up to it, a hard but worthy task.

 

[ubicaritas]

Imputation is the more straightforward understanding. Lutherans don't deny that there is transformation as the result of grace, but we don't emphasize it as the legal ground for salvation.

The Catholic view is, in some ways, its own thing. It's proper to emphasize the transformative aspects of Christian faith, through the doctrine of condign merits. But condign merits aren't really what Protestants/Lutherans emphasize when we talk about merit . We mean what we owe to God but can't repay. Not the honors for virtuous behavior.

 

[DeaconDean]

Ok, but the CC teaches that something is added to us with justification, because something was lacking due to the first sin of man, and that "something" is described as grace, the life of God in us, the Holy Spirit, justice/holiness/righteousness: communion with God (the Catholic definition of the state of Original Sin for fallen man is separation from God, whereas the definition for most of Protestantism involves acquiring a "sin nature", or concupiscence). We're made "new creations", not only forgiven and washed clean but also changed, for the better.

But this is only the starting point for man, for Adam, in a way. Our wills don't become dominated and controlled by God; we can still be distracted and tempted by the flesh, by pride, and the offerings of the world. And, in fact, those things can now help to test and refine us, as we, with the help of grace, struggle to overcome them-the "struggle against sin". We're made just; we now only have to "own" that justice, to live up to it, a hard but worthy task.

Are you, pardon the abruptness, but are you one of those who blindly accepts whatever the Catholic teaches?

I'm involved with someone right now in another thread that albut say they do.

But here again, the theory of "infusion" makes one accept a different view. If your "infused" with Christ's righteousness, your "infused" with justification. And if your "infused", you take on the very nature and essence of the thing your "infused" with. Not to mention that "Christians" still do, even after the point salvation sometimes sin, negates the fact of "infusion"!

Have you ever check the Greek and Hebrew words used for "righteous" and "justify"?

Our Greek word draws straight from the Hebrew word. And both words mean right, righteous, righteousness, as well as just, justify, and justification.

In fact, in 99% of all the passages where the word "righteous" and/or any variation thereof, you could substitute "justify" or any variation thereof, and still be right!

"We're made "new creations", not only forgiven and washed clean but also changed, for the better."

Maybe so, but how do explain that Paul tells us that inspite of that, when a Christian sins, its still sin in them that makes them do it ?

And how do you account for Peter's 2 sins after Pentecost or Paul 2 sins?

That just blows your theory out of the water.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[fhansen]

Imputation is the more straightforward understanding. Lutherans don't deny that there is transformation as the result of grace, but we don't emphasize it as the legal ground for salvation.

The Catholic view is, in some ways, its own thing. It's proper to emphasize the transformative aspects of Christian faith, through the doctrine of condign merits. But condign merits aren't really what Protestants/Lutherans emphasize when we talk about merit . We mean what we owe to God but can't repay. Not the honors for virtuous behavior.

But God just loves to honor our virtuous behavior-even if He's the ultimate author of it all. He's just not miserly that way-He loves to share-because he desires to elevate us, beyond our ability to imagine. Honor for obedience-for doing the right thing- is good! Because we don't have to do it. And because He wants to encourage virtuous behavior-righteousness- as we all should.

 

[fhansen]

Are you, pardon the abruptness, but are you one of those who blindly accepts whatever the Catholic teaches?

Um...no. To be honest the Reformed position now seems increasingly shallow, stunted, and a bit priggish to me-either way not always consistent with God's plan/will for man.

But here again, the theory of "infusion" makes one accept a different view. If your "infused" with Christ's righteousness, your "infused" with justification. And if your "infused", you take on the very nature and essence of the thing your "infused" with. Not to mention that "Christians" still do, even after the point salvation sometimes sin, negates the fact of "infusion"!

God doesn't forgive and wash us only to leave us orphaned, so to speak, in the same state as we were except for being swept clean like the possessed person in Matt 12:45. Instead He places His Law, by placing His Spirit, within us. Otherwise any sanctification would be impossible. Our justice/righteousness consists of the indwelling of God, another way of stating "sanctifying grace", God's life in us. So the church simply teaches that our righteousness is to be a real one, the righteousness God created man to have, not merely a declared one, which doesn't really accomplish anything beyond forgiveness anyway nor accomplish the changes described in Jer 31:33 or Ez 36:27.

Have you ever check the Greek and Hebrew words used for "righteous" and "justify"?

Our Greek word draws straight from the Hebrew word. And both words mean right, righteous, righteousness, as well as just, justify, and justification.

In fact, in 99% of all the passages where the word "righteous" and/or any variation thereof, you could substitute "justify" or any variation thereof, and still be right!

Thank you, I've long believed the two terms to be synonymous.

A"We're made "new creations", not only forgiven and washed clean but also changed, for the better."

Maybe so, but how do explain that Paul tells us that inspite of that, when a Christian sins, its still sin in them that makes them do it ?

And how do you account for Peter's 2 sins after Pentecost or Paul 2 sins?

That just blows your theory out of the water.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Infusion simply means that justification and sanctification are inseparable, part and parcel of the same thing. Any good works done by us are the fruit of this justice, a natural expression of it, which is why Matt 25:31-46 can tell us that we'll be judged by such works lest we still think we're justified even if we fail to "do for the least of these". Again, we're reborn, new creations, but still free, as Adam was, and still not necessarily unimpressed by things outside of God's will, as Adam was so impressed.

In any case, there must be overall differences, in fruit, for one, between genuine Christians and non-Christians, or how else should we know them (Matt 7:16)? And what good would the faith even be if there are no such differences-if we haven't been "changed for the better", towards justice- if actual restored justice to God's creation were not an integral, intrinsic part of our justification IOW? The fact that other temptations will continue to compete with that justice-and may well succeed at times- only means to say that we're still finite, created, beings, still a work in progress-and that this work is ultimately a matter of the will. In fact, one of the most egregious errors of certain theologies involves the effective removal of man's will altogether in playing a part in his salvation.

But to the extent that we live up to the justice God gives us, to the degree that we will it ourselves, with His continuing help in developing and strengthening that will, to the extent that we cooperate with and align ourselves with it, with His work, then the greater our justice, and therefore our worthiness. In the end He judges us based on what we did with whatever we were given, whether more or less. The Parable of the Talents outlines the dynamics of this well. And He's all for man, for all of us, loving us beyond our ability to comprehend-and He always has. He's just drawing us into that same love, that same justice/righteousness, and the fathomless happiness it ultimately results in. We can persistently reject it however.

 

[ubicaritas]

“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.

Is this really what you see Protestants teaching? Shirking love? Maybe it's true in some churches, but I can't say it's true in any Protestant churches I have been to.

 

[fhansen]

Is this really what you see Protestants teaching? Shirking love? Maybe it's true in some churches, but I can't say it's true in any Protestant churches I have been to.

Sorry for the wordiness here-and if I strayed a bit-it kind of kept building once it got rolling. Read on if you’re willing:

It's not about the practice per se. In practice many of us don't necessarily follow our theology precisely anyway. With Protestants, for example, I find that many live as if what they do counts, towards gaining eternal life, regardless of their understanding of the role of faith-we sort of know that intuitively I believe. Anyway, I see many inside and outside the church, and inside and outside various denominations, who appear to love quite well, others not so well. And either way, yes, all Christians are exhorted to love, and, with the Greatest Commandments as our standard-a very lofty standard, BTW- to love God with our whole heart, soul, mind, and strength and our neighbor as ourselves-we all accomplish this to varying degrees.

But to try to summarize this whole thing most concisely, regarding the theological differences (the topic at hand in this thread) that actually mean to address and make clear the obligation that needs to be fulfilled in order to be made just in the eyes of God, if the Protestant position is "Justification by faith alone", the Catholic position would be "Justification by love alone".

When I stated that we often want to shirk from this obligation, what I'm getting at is that fallen man first of all wants to shirk any obligation to God, and love imposes a higher and more definite or defined standard upon us than faith, which can also be shirked, of course (unless we believe in irresistible prevenient grace). But with love as the obligation it is implied that we must, as Scripture also affirms we must, be authentically free from sin (with love also simultaneously providing the means to obtain this freedom, fulfilling the Law as it does) in order to enter heaven, not merely declared to be free from sin or having sin non-imputed to us. Love would mean that I truly love God and neighbor such that there’s no need to convince myself that I do when I truly don't. And as Augustine put it, ‘perfect love is perfect righteousness’; love can't be imputed; it must be infused, it must be ‘placed in our minds and written on our hearts’. Love compels us to clothe the naked and feed the hungry, and while we can fake acts of love, we can't fake the virtue of love itself which motivates acts (for the right reason); again, in the long run we won't convince ourselves of having love for God and neighbor when we truly don't.

Anyway, this is where the "faith alone" doctrine can lead to a slippery slope of errors IMO, if and when faith and the justification it obtains is seen to actually stand in for or replace righteousness or justice-or obtain them in spite of the fact that we don’t actually possess them. If we're so adamant about faith being the only requirement, then the need to persevere in faith can lead to a sort of mental quagmire or paradox; if we begin to doubt or lapse we must now resolve to make ourselves continue to believe, a sentiment expressed by Luther and others but an awkward and rather desperate solution since it isn't even possible to achieve by our own efforts. And antinomianism seems to keep trying to rear its head here and there in Christian circles where the law is seen to be directly at odds with faith when faith is held to be the only requirement- and authentic interior justice/righteousness is not. Again, love is justice/ righteousness for man.

And the gospel was never meant to be a way to escape this obligation to be righteous, as if it can’t possibly be realized in truth anyway, but rather is the very means to fulfill it, recognizing that God can realize it in us, as if He can lead us into being who He created us to be to begin with. Rather than covering over our woundedness, God seeks to heal us. Rather than ignoring or continuously overlooking justice in his wayward creation, God seeks to restore and even increase it as He perfects it with a grand plan that involves way more than simply saving an elected few undeserving wretches while damning the rest. And this begins, as our response to grace, with faith, because faith establishes communion with God and the life of grace He provides for us. But if faith does not lead on to love, then, as Augustine says, “faith may indeed exist but is of no avail”. And as Paul says in 1 Cor 13, “…if I have a faith that can move mountains but have not love, I am nothing.” And it's what we are, what God is intending to produce in us, rather than what we're imputed to be, that God's interested in.

“Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.” We aren’t even capable of “seeing” God to the extent that we’re still attracted to sin, to lesser, created, things first of all-because we don’t even truly desire to see Him at that point. We’re here in this exile from God to develop a hunger and thirst for righteousness, for Him, forsaking evil as we align ourselves with that righteousness, that goodness.

I could probably be ok with the doctrine of imputed righteousness if, by it, we mean to say primarily that 1) man is forgiven, cleansed, then indwelt by the Holy Spirit, because that would imply a real justice transmitted to us already, and 2) from there we’re to continue to work out our salvation with He who works in us, cooperating and investing whatever we’re given in terms of time, grace, knowledge, experience, etc, with more expected from those who are given more. IOW, imputed righteousness alone cannot be considered sufficient to fulfill the requirement for entrance into heaven, and that would be contrary to Scripture.

Consider that the following verses are all easily reconcilable with each other within the frame work of Catholic theology as well as that of the New Covenant:

“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.” Eph 2:8-10

“Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God's sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin.” Rom 3:20

"We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.” Gal 2:15-16

“All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.” Rom 2:12-13

“You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.” James 2:24

“So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.” Rom 7:12

“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. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.” Matt 5:17-20

“Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.” Rom 3:31

“As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. “Good teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

“Why do you call me good?” Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. You know the commandments: ‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, you shall not defraud, honor your father and mother.’ ” Mark 10:17-19

"Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. The one who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work." 1 John 3:8-9.

“Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. Whoever sows to please their flesh, from the flesh will reap destruction; whoever sows to please the Spirit, from the Spirit will reap eternal life. Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up.” Gal 6:7-9

“Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life.” Rev 21:27

 

[ubicaritas]

I see. I disagree that we must be completely free from sin to be saved. Nor do we teach that we earn our salvation through good works. We are imperfect, it's what we are. That God accepts us is due to his grace, not our works. We do good works for our neighbor's sake because we have been freely justified by God, not because we are externally compelled to do so by religious rules. Having been shown mercy and compassion by God, we are free to go and show mercy and compassion to others.

We don't see our faith and love as opposed. We love imperfectly in this life, at best, but God forgives us anyways. That is what Lutherans emphasize.

We do not deny that God heals us through the Good News of the Gospel. But perfect healing will not happen in this life, only in the next. The Luther Rose is an example of our hope in heaven, symbolized by a red heart on a blue field. In this life, we struggle, as Luther says, we must sin, it's what we are bound up in. So we look for a new heavens and a new earth , where perfect justice reigns. Life is hard even for those dedicated to evil, living a righteous life even harder. We Lutherans aren't into piling up burdens on weak sinners, we are announcing that the one who said that his yoke is light is true to his word, and has won salvation gloriously for us through his death and resurrection.

To clarify further, what we do counts because as Christians we ought to have the same heart as Jesus did, which was compassionate and sought to do good for the sake of others. As one Lutheran theologian said many centuries ago, God does not need our works, but our neighbor certainly does. God's will for each of our lives is worked out in a relationship with him- the good works that are pleasing to him are not something that can be legalistically perscribed, it's a matter of individual vocation.

Some Catholics and other Christians get this bit wrong, they assume that somehow God can be propitiated through our good works, doing certain religious rituals or making a deal with God - I do this, you do that for me. We are in no position to bargain with God, though. Our good deeds cannot somehow balance against our bad deeds- we come into life already debtors to God and the debts only pile up. As Jesus said, we are "unprofitable servants".

 

[DeaconDean]

Infusion simply means that justification and sanctification are inseparable,

No, righteousness and justification are inseparable.

This is proven from the Greek alone.

"4. The usage of other words in connection with justification shows it to be a forensic act. The term "righteousness," dikaiosune, which, like "righteous," dikaios, is used in connection with personal righteousness, as of God in Acts 17:31, and of Christ "the Faithful and True," Rev. 19:11, and of the martyrs in Heb. 11:33, and of human obedience to the law in Rom. 10:3, 5; Phil. 3:6, 9, is, in connection with God's justification of sinners, applied, though chiefly by the Apostle Paul, to "the righteousness which God bestows or accepts," and which is imputed to the sinner or reckoned to his account.

Another term, dikaiosis, signifies "the act or process of declaring righteous," viz., justification.

The word dikaioma, which means "that which is declared righteous," and hence a statute or command, as something which the law of God declares to be a righteous requirement, is used in connection with justification for "the deed by which one declares another righteous, and is partially equivalent to dikaiosis."

The principal word which is used for expressing the nature of God's action in justification is dikaioo, "to justify," which means everywhere "to declare righteous," "to regard and represent as righteous," and not "to make righteous" in the sense of conferring personal righteousness."

Abstract of Systematic Theology, James P. Boyce, Chapter XXXV, Justification.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[fhansen]

I see. I disagree that we must be completely free from sin to be saved. Nor do we teach that we earn our salvation through good works. We are imperfect, it's what we are. That God accepts us is due to his grace, not our works. We do good works for our neighbor's sake because we have been freely justified by God, not because we are externally compelled to do so by religious rules. Having been shown mercy and compassion by God, we are free to go and show mercy and compassion to others.

How does this work then, that being justified would cause us to show mercy and compassion? What change or disposition, etc, would trigger this?

We don't see our faith and love as opposed. We love imperfectly in this life, at best, but God forgives us anyways. That is what Lutherans emphasize.

I agree; faith never opposes love, and we won't love perfectly in this life. But we must love, and that love will only be realized in us due to God's work.

We do not deny that God heals us through the Good News of the Gospel. But perfect healing will not happen in this life, only in the next. The Luther Rose is an example of our hope in heaven, symbolized by a red heart on a blue field. In this life, we struggle, as Luther says, we must sin, it's what we are bound up in. So we look for a new heavens and a new earth , where perfect justice reigns. Life is hard even for those dedicated to evil, living a righteous life even harder. We Lutherans aren't into piling up burdens on weak sinners, we are announcing that the one who said that his yoke is light is true to his word, and has won salvation gloriously for us through his death and resurrection.

The obligation to love is the light yoke, love is what makes the burden easy-desirable-instead of being a matter of working to earn. But living a righteous life is certainly something a Christian is called to do in any case. Basil of Cesarea, a 4th century believer, put it this way:

"If we turn away from evil out of fear of punishment, we are in the position of slaves. If we pursue the enticement of wages, . . . we resemble mercenaries. Finally if we obey for the sake of the good itself and out of love for him who commands . . . we are in the position of children."

To clarify further, what we do counts because as Christians we ought to have the same heart as Jesus did, which was compassionate and sought to do good for the sake of others. As one Lutheran theologian said many centuries ago, God does not need our works, but our neighbor certainly does. God's will for each of our lives is worked out in a relationship with him- the good works that are pleasing to him are not something that can be legalistically perscribed, it's a matter of individual vocation.

Or it's a matter of justice. Where else does the compassion come from? How else could we hope to have the same heart as Christ?

Some Catholics and other Christians get this bit wrong, they assume that somehow God can be propitiated through our good works, doing certain religious rituals or making a deal with God - I do this, you do that for me. We are in no position to bargain with God, though. Our good deeds cannot somehow balance against our bad deeds- we come into life already debtors to God and the debts only pile up. As Jesus said, we are "unprofitable servants".

Yes, with this I agree. But either way this doesn't mean that we're not expected to be-because we were created to be-just, and that this state of justice wouldn’t be the best thing for us. There's nothing positive or noble in remaining unjust, in remaining sinners. It would be rather perverse to pride ourselves in remaining sinners in fact, as if there was something good or noble or humble about that. God wants us forgiven and cleansed, and to ‘go, and sin no more’. The fact that we may only achieve perfection in this area in a relative sense in this life doesn’t mean that it’s not the overall orientation we should desire to pursue-as we become transformed into His image. “Without holiness no one will see God.” It’s a matter of the will, what we should desire and what we believe God desires from and for us, and what we should expect from Him. Grace leading to more grace, justice building upon and increasing justice as we respond to and act upon His grace. God wants our participation, even if He has to awaken and encourage it, and there’s nothing positive about our inability or lack of desire to cooperate/participate.