Imputed vs Infused Grace

[fhansen]

Please after reading through the responses I realize there seems to be some misinterpretation.

Let’s not even try to differentiate between “infusion” and “imputation”.

To emphasize the point, can someone tell me, in clear simple-worded sentences, how a person can enter heaven?

In general terms, come to believe in God, mostly fully revealed in the person of Jesus Christ, and then enter into communion with Him, serving and following Him as best you can with the knowledge, grace, time, and opportunities given. He’ll begin a work in you, to the extent you cooperate, of transforming you into His image, the image of love, the virtue by which you’ll be judged in any case.

 

[Nita]

Thanks for the response. Yes I want to know what a person has to do regardless of whether that person has ever heard of Jesus or not.

Seek God/truth with your whole heart and mind.
Seek and do good; avoid evil.

Almost any particular directives would fall under one or both of the above. Particular acts would vary according to the age and situation of the person — what is required of a Catholic (eg sacraments) differs from particular acts than would be required of a Hindu.
But both of them would be required to seek God/truth and do good and avoid evil.

 

[mattp0625]

Thanks Pax.

Another question:
Why do protestants then believe in imputed rather than infused ?

Dr Paul Thigpen converted to Catholicism.

In this presentation, he details the origins of “imputed” righteousness (“like snow on a dunghill”) using Luther’s own writings and how the five solas are related.

youtu.be/ROhumu2OlgQ

 

[dokbyte]

Seek God/truth with your whole heart and mind.
Seek and do good; avoid evil.

Almost any particular directives would fall under one or both of the above. Particular acts would vary according to the age and situation of the person — what is required of a Catholic (eg sacraments) differs from particular acts than would be required of a Hindu.
But both of them would be required to seek God/truth and do good and avoid evil.

Thanks so much Nita.

But how those your above explanation reconcile with the very first answer you gave me, that A person enters heaven ONLY through Jesus Christ.

 

[Nita]

Thanks so much Nita.

But how those your above explanation reconcile with the very first answer you gave me, that **A person enters heaven ONLY **through Jesus Christ.

When a person who did those things (sought God/truth and did good,avoid evil) dies, he will come before God for judgement. If judged worthy, he will be able to enter only “through” Jesus, the risen, incarnate 2nd Person of our Triune God.
Even though, while on earth, the non-Christian didn’t realize that salvation would be only through Jesus, he will happily come to know it when he is judged worthy to enter heaven.

An analogy if that helps:
Compare it to someone wanting to get into a beautiful estate he’s heard of (heaven/eternal bliss).
He travels in search, following the best directions he can get and finally arrives (death) at what appears to be the place. But it is surrounded by a beautiful wall.
When he arrives at the wall, a Greeter (God) is there and speaks with him (judgement after death). He then tells the man that he may enter and leads him to the only gate (Jesus) that gives entry into the beautiful compound. The man thankfully and joyfully enters through it – even tho he didn’t know prior that such a gate existed and was necessary to gain entrance.

 

[Mammoths]

Thanks for the response. Yes I want to know what a person has to do regardless of whether that person has ever heard of Jesus or not.

What does this have to do with your point that the discussion of imputed vs infused grace is irrelevant? Here is why it’s relevant: Protestants teach that grace is God legally declaring one righteous with no basis in present fact but anticipating future glorification; Catholics say that grace infuses the divine nature into the person so as to effect a practical change of character. For the Protestant there is no substantial change of the person, just a lifelong struggle to align one’s behavior with the promise–progressive sanctification. For Catholics, salvation begins with grace infused with the capacity to believe, continues with baptism and the other sacraments, all of which infuse the gift they represent and is continued in the saint’s cooperation with grace. So superficially both Protestants and Catholics can say we are saved by grace alone, but the process of grace acting upon and in the believer is different. The finer points of these differences matter in supporting sacramental observance. In other words, the question is relevant in a broader consideration of whether the Catholic Church is Christian at all. If grace is imputed it does not work by the sacraments as the catechism teaches andthe Catholic Church is just a very big complex superstition.

 

[dokbyte]

When a person who did those things (sought God/truth and did good,avoid evil) dies, he will come before God for judgement. If judged worthy, he will be able to enter only “through” Jesus, the risen, incarnate 2nd Person of our Triune God.
Even though, while on earth, the non-Christian didn’t realize that salvation would be only through Jesus, he will happily come to know it when he is judged worthy to enter heaven.

An analogy if that helps:
Compare it to someone wanting to get into a beautiful estate he’s heard of (heaven/eternal bliss).
He travels in search, following the best directions he can get and finally arrives (death) at what appears to be the place. But it is surrounded by a beautiful wall.
When he arrives at the wall, a Greeter (God) is there and speaks with him (judgement after death). He then tells the man that he may enter and leads him to the only gate (Jesus) that gives entry into the beautiful compound. The man thankfully and joyfully enters through it – even tho he didn’t know prior that such a gate existed and was necessary to gain entrance.

Sorry for asking to many question, as I am trying to understand the explanation well.

When a person comes before God for judgement, on what basis is that person judged worthy to enter heaven through Jesus Christ? (Example his good deeds vs his bad deeds? whether he is free of mortal and venial sins? etc, etc.)

 

[dokbyte]

What does this have to do with your point that the discussion of imputed vs infused grace is irrelevant? Here is why it’s relevant: Protestants teach that grace is God legally declaring one righteous with no basis in present fact but anticipating future glorification; Catholics say that grace infuses the divine nature into the person so as to effect a practical change of character. For the Protestant there is no substantial change of the person, just a lifelong struggle to align one’s behavior with the promise–progressive sanctification. For Catholics, salvation begins with grace infused with the capacity to believe, continues with baptism and the other sacraments, all of which infuse the gift they represent and is continued in the saint’s cooperation with grace. So superficially both Protestants and Catholics can say we are saved by grace alone, but the process of grace acting upon and in the believer is different. The finer points of these differences matter in supporting sacramental observance. In other words, the question is relevant in a broader consideration of whether the Catholic Church is Christian at all. If grace is imputed it does not work by the sacraments as the catechism teaches andthe Catholic Church is just a very big complex superstition.

Your explanation is a bit hard to follow. Are you saying Catholics and Protestants believe the same thing (grace alone for salvation)? And do you mean there is a difference between being a Catholic and being a christian?

 

[fhansen]

What does this have to do with your point that the discussion of imputed vs infused grace is irrelevant? Here is why it’s relevant: Protestants teach that grace is God legally declaring one righteous with no basis in present fact but anticipating future glorification; Catholics say that grace infuses the divine nature into the person so as to effect a practical change of character. For the Protestant there is no substantial change of the person, just a lifelong struggle to align one’s behavior with the promise–progressive sanctification. For Catholics, salvation begins with grace infused with the capacity to believe, continues with baptism and the other sacraments, all of which infuse the gift they represent and is continued in the saint’s cooperation with grace. So superficially both Protestants and Catholics can say we are saved by grace alone, but the process of grace acting upon and in the believer is different. The finer points of these differences matter in supporting sacramental observance. In other words, the question is relevant in a broader consideration of whether the Catholic Church is Christian at all. If grace is imputed it does not work by the sacraments as the catechism teaches andthe Catholic Church is just a very big complex superstition.

The reason that the Church teaches that righteousness is infused rather than imputed has nothing to do with the sacraments. It has to do with the will of God for man-what He’s trying to accomplish from-and with-the Fall until now. Speaking from a broad perspective the Church teaches that God made His universe “in statu viae” in a “state of journeying” to perfection. Man’s will is involved in this perfecting as he struggles with sin, making choices regarding good and evil, with the help of grace. In this his justice can be increased, or decreased. Either way sinners do not enter heaven, as Scripture attests.

In the Protestant view, generally speaking, man is simply lost, then found and saved. His state of justice is merely declared, his sanctification later has nothing to do with his eternal destiny-it’s just a favor of God’s. In the extreme, as in Calvinism, man is so totally depraved that his will is* completely *removed from the process; he’s either among the elect or the reprobate from the beginning. In that there is no real purpose behind the whole drama of human history, with its good and its evil: sin, pain, suffering and death. It would’ve made much more sense for God to simply avoid all that and stock heaven with the elect and hell with the rest from the beginning. But instead, God deemed it wise that man should live in a world that resulted from Adam’s choice, the choice to be free from God’s authority, to be free from God for all practical purposes, to be his own god. A world where man is exposed to both good and evil, where he can experience and so ultimately choose between the two. Justification is a free gift, but what we do with our new state of justice, with whatever time and opportunities and continued grace we’re given, directly impacts our eternal destiny, just as it did for the servant who buried his “talents” in the Parable of the Talents. Justification and sanctification cannot be separated. From the CCC:

**1730 God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. "God willed that man should be ‘left in the hand of his own counsel,’ so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him."26

Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts.27

1732 As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.
**

 

[Mammoths]

Your explanation is a bit hard to follow. Are you saying Catholics and Protestants believe the same thing (grace alone for salvation)? And do you mean there is a difference between being a Catholic and being a christian?

I am saying that to say that Protestants and Catholics believe Jesus alone can save us by grace is equivocation. A comparison is that mormons baptize in the name of the father son and Holy Spirit but their theology is so different from Catholicism that there is basically nothing in common between the baptisms. They have a different God with the same name. So it is with the ACTIVITY of grace. The function of grace in the life of a catholic is so different than its function in the life of a protestant(as far as they each understand) that it is near impossible to have an intelligible conversation between the two. And yes, there is a difference between being a Christian and being catholic. All Catholics are Christians by baptism but not all Christians are Catholics, since some people get legitimately baptized outside the church. Thus not all Protestants are Christians. (All cats are fur bearing creatures but not all fur bearing creatures are cats)

 

[Mammoths]

The reason that the Church teaches that righteousness is infused rather than imputed has nothing to do with the sacraments. It has to do with the will of God for man-what He’s trying to accomplish from-and with-the Fall until now. Speaking from a broad perspective the Church teaches that God made His universe “in statu viae” in a “state of journeying” to perfection. Man’s will is involved in this perfecting as he struggles with sin, making choices regarding good and evil, with the help of grace. In this his justice can be increased, or decreased. Either way sinners do not enter heaven, as Scripture attests.

In the Protestant view, generally speaking, man is simply lost, then found and saved. His state of justice is merely declared, his sanctification later has nothing to do with his eternal destiny-it’s just a favor of God’s. In the extreme, as in Calvinism, man is so totally depraved that his will is* completely *removed from the process; he’s either among the elect or the reprobate from the beginning. In that there is no real purpose behind the whole drama of human history, with its good and its evil: sin, pain, suffering and death. It would’ve made much more sense for God to simply avoid all that and stock heaven with the elect and hell with the rest from the beginning. But instead, God deemed it wise that man should live in a world that resulted from Adam’s choice, the choice to be free from God’s authority, to be free from God for all practical purposes, to be his own god. A world where man is exposed to both good and evil, where he can experience and so ultimately choose between the two. Justification is a free gift, but what we do with our new state of justice, with whatever time and opportunities and continued grace we’re given, directly impacts our eternal destiny, just as it did for the servant who buried his “talents” in the Parable of the Talents. Justification and sanctification cannot be separated. From the CCC:

**1730 God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. "God willed that man should be ‘left in the hand of his own counsel,’ so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him."26

Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts.27

1732 As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.
**

I don’t oppose any of that but somebody said, “don’t bother with the difference.” I was just trying to show the difference matters. If grace is imputed and not infused, the sacraments have no effect. Additionally the substitutionary death of Jesus is unjust making God out to be a fool which can never be. My point isn’t that the purpose of infused grace is the sacraments but that the sacraments infuse God’s grace. So if it doesn’t matter what the difference is between infused grace and imputed grace than it doesn’t matter if we be baptized at all either.

 

[fhansen]

I don’t oppose any of that but somebody said, “don’t bother with the difference.” I was just trying to show the difference matters. If grace is imputed and not infused, the sacraments have no effect. Additionally the substitutionary death of Jesus is unjust making God out to be a fool which can never be. My point isn’t that the purpose of infused grace is the sacraments but that the sacraments infuse God’s grace. So if it doesn’t matter what the difference is between infused grace and imputed grace than it doesn’t matter if we be baptized at all either.

I see, sorry if I misread you. Yes, the difference matters.

 

[Nita]

Sorry for asking to many question, as I am trying to understand the explanation well.

When a person comes before God for judgement, on what basis is that person judged worthy to enter heaven through Jesus Christ? (Example his good deeds vs his bad deeds? whether he is free of mortal and venial sins? etc, etc.)

Both - the two go together.
What we do (deeds) determines the state of our soul, that is, whether our soul is in the state of grace or whether it’s in the state of mortal sin.

We will be judged according to the state of our soul at the time of death. Ezekiel 18:21-24 “But if a wicked man turns away from all his sins which he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; for the righteousness which he has done he shall live. Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, says the Lord God, and not rather that he should turn from his way and live? But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity and does the same abominable things that the wicked man does, shall he live? None of the righteous deeds which he has done shall be remembered; for the treachery of which he is guilty and the sin he has committed, he shall die.
Only those who die in the state of mortal sin are condemned to hell.
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P6C.HTM
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2O.HTM

Regarding good deeds, keep in mind that for a person to be credited in God’s eyes as doing good, not only must the act be a good one, but the person’s motivation for doing it must also be good. To do a good deed for a bad or selfish motivation will not be meritorious in God’s eyes.
Mt. 6:1 “Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by them; for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.

 

[Contarini]

Why do Catholics believe grace is infused rather than imputed? Early Church Father support might be helpful too.

Some of the “proof texts” scripturally I’ve come across from CA seem to be speaking of the Holy Spirit, not necesarrily grace. What am I missing in my understanding?

It seems God is pouring out the Holy Spirit in most of the following verses, not grace. Are we filled with the Holy Spirit or grace?*

“For the palace will be forsaken . . . until the Spirit is poured upon* us from on high, and the wilderness becomes a fruitful field, and the fruitful field is deemed a forest” (Isaiah 32:14-15).

“And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; yea, and on my menservants and my maidservants in those days I will pour out my Spirit; and they shall prophesy” (Acts 2:17-18).

“And when they had prayed, the place in which they were gathered together was shaken; and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God with boldness” (Acts 4:31).

“And the believers from among the circumcised who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles” (Acts 10:45).

“When he came and saw the grace of God, he was glad; and he exhorted them all to remain faithful to the Lord with steadfast purpose; for he was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith” (Acts 11:23-24).

“And hope does not disappoint us, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us” (Romans 5:5).

“And do not get drunk with wine, for that is debauchery; but be filled with the Spirit” (Eph. 5:18).

“He saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that we might be justified by his grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life” (Titus 3:5-7)

I’m just basically confused and don’t have a strong stance on this yet, so any help is appreciated.

Grace is, most fundamentally, the life of the Holy Spirit in our souls. In the high medieval West, the idea developed that there was also a “created grace,” a habit that God infuses into us to make our actions pleasing to him. But this was important only as a way of receiving and cooperating with the “uncreated grace” of the Holy Spirit, which is the basic, universal, traditional Christian understanding of grace.

Protestants rejected the idea of a “created grace” that makes our actions meritorious (i.e., pleasing to God), defining grace as God’s mercy toward us instead. However, Protestants (at least traditional Lutheran/Reformed Protestants) believed and still believe that this mercy does transform us and that the Holy Spirit is present within us. It’s just that in the “Reformational” view, the transformation can never be an adequate basis for our acceptance by God, because it’s always imperfect in this life, so we always have to fall back on God’s mercy in order to be confident that God accepts us. “Imputed” grace was developed as a way to express this–that God imputes Christ’s righteousness to us and thus accepts us.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Because literally no one in the entire world believed in “imputed” grace until Philip Melancthon and John Calvin applied nominalist philosophy to Erasmus’ translation of Romans 4. Even Martin Luther didn’t believe in “imputed” righteousness. The idea that God sees you as if you are as righteous as Jesus, regardless of how you actually behave, is not stated anywhere in the Bible and is completely contrary to 1500 years of Christian teaching in the entire church - west, east and oriental.

From John Chrysostom’s commentary on 1 Corinthians 3:

I am not, myself, convinced that Luther didn’t believe in imputed righteousness. Melanchthon certainly spoke about it in a more technical way. But I don’t see how else to read a lot of what Luther writes about justification from about 1519 on. The language in “Freedom of a Christian” about Christ taking our sin and giving us his righteousness, as a husband and wife in marriage take on each other’s property, is beautiful and metaphorical rather than technical and scholastic, but I think it’s clearly teaching imputation.

Edwin