Infused vs imputed

  • Thread starter Thread starter Struggle
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Struggle

Guest
Ok,
I wanted to start this thread so all of you who know much more than I do about theology can share your wealth of knowledge!😃

I understand that Luther taught grace was imputed and we (Catholics) believe grace is infused. So, can we discuss what the differences of these are, why we believe one and not the other, how they impact our theology, and how we can defend our stance?

Any and all points are so welcome, and I thank you all from the bottom of my heart. You have no idea how interesting I find this and how much it helps me in my daily conversations! 🙂
 
Struggle said:
Ok,
I wanted to start this thread so all of you who know much more than I do about theology can share your wealth of knowledge!😃

I understand that Luther taught grace was imputed and we (Catholics) believe grace is infused. So, can we discuss what the differences of these are, why we believe one and not the other, how they impact our theology, and how we can defend our stance?

Any and all points are so welcome, and I thank you all from the bottom of my heart. You have no idea how interesting I find this and how much it helps me in my daily conversations! 🙂
Click to expand...
I’m not up on my Luther, but I think his position is that righteousness, rather than grace, is imputed, not infused. Grace needs to act on a person or it isn’t effective. Certainly Luther believed in effective grace. Somebody please correct me if I am wrong.
 
Hi - This is a very basic explaination. Luther said that Christians were “dung hills covered w/ snow.” He taught that the blood of Christ was like a clean garment draped over our filth (sin), so we appeared clean to the Father.

Catholics, on the other hand, believe that there are no dung hills in heaven, snow covered or otherwise. Who wants clean clothes put on over a filthy body? :eek: The Catholic faith teaches us that as we trust in God and desire to obey Him and glorify Him, that Christ actually infuses His righteousness into us by actually cleansing us and making us holy and perfect. Some truly humble and obediant people allow God to do this while they live pious lives on earth. Others need to complete the purification process after they die and before entering heaven (purgatory) (see I Corinthians 3:10-15).

So either we are still dirty w/ Christ’s clean mantle over us (imputed righteousness - the righteousness of Christ draped over us making us seem clean to the Father), or we are actually made clean thru the purity of Christ as we journey in our Christan walk, until the day that Jesus can present us to the Father with us being truly holy, clean and pure (infused righteousness).
 
protestants as far as I know have a combination of both infused and (name removed by moderator)uted. We become “new creatures” thus infused. And, we become “In Christ” thus imputed. Maybe, you should define offically how you are using both words from primary sources of doctrine of both churches involved.
 
Struggle said:
Ok,
I wanted to start this thread so all of you who know much more than I do about theology can share your wealth of knowledge!😃

I understand that Luther taught grace was imputed and we (Catholics) believe grace is infused. So, can we discuss what the differences of these are, why we believe one and not the other, how they impact our theology, and how we can defend our stance?

Any and all points are so welcome, and I thank you all from the bottom of my heart. You have no idea how interesting I find this and how much it helps me in my daily conversations! 🙂
Click to expand...
Hi Struggle.

I looked around and read some different pieces dealing with imputed righteousness offering only one side. This one entitled The Very Serious Matter of Imputed Righteousness lays out both sides, and does some comparing between the RCC and the Reformers.

It is definitely representative of the Reformed position of imputed righteousness, and I think it is accurate according to the RCC position as well.

Enjoy. :tiphat:
 
My understanding is that imputed righteousness means that we are accepted as righteous by God based on the salvific work of Christ, even though nothing in our nature has changed–i.e. we have not become actually pleasing to God, but only declared pleasing to God as a result of Christ’s atonement.

Infused grace, and here we mean what Catholics would call sanctifying grace, means that Christ not only removes our sin, but infuses us with a created participation in his own life, which makes our souls actually pleasing and holy to God, something which we could never attain on our own.
 
sandusky said:
Hi Struggle.

I looked around and read some different pieces dealing with imputed righteousness offering only one side. This one entitled The Very Serious Matter of Imputed Righteousness lays out both sides, and does some comparing between the RCC and the Reformers.

It is definitely representative of the Reformed position of imputed righteousness, and I think it is accurate according to the RCC position as well.

Enjoy. :tiphat:
Click to expand...
Very Good explanation on that page! 👍
 
**Justification is not a settled final act of God… It can be lost and the person would need to be rejustified. If it is lost, this can only be from a failure in the believer’s obedience. And therefore, in Roman thinking, the believer’s obedience really is part of the foundation of justification. That is why God gave a us commandment keeping as this is essential to Faith, and a true Christian following.

Jan**
 
Struggle said:
Ok,
I wanted to start this thread so all of you who know much more than I do about theology can share your wealth of knowledge!😃

I understand that Luther taught grace was imputed and we (Catholics) believe grace is infused. So, can we discuss what the differences of these are, why we believe one and not the other, how they impact our theology, and how we can defend our stance?

Any and all points are so welcome, and I thank you all from the bottom of my heart. You have no idea how interesting I find this and how much it helps me in my daily conversations! 🙂
Click to expand...
It wasn’t that Luther denied the infusion of grace, but that he thought that since our appropriation of grace is always imperfect, if we trust to infused grace we will not be able to stand before God’s judgment. Only Christ’s righteousness imputed to us is perfect, and so only imputed righteousness can be a basis for our acceptance by God.

I think this was an excessive and unnecessary argument. It’s sufficient to say that God forgives our sin as long as we trust in Christ and do not wilfully turn away from God. Positive imputation is a superfluous hypothesis, IMHO. We are united to Christ and thus to His righteousness–that was the truth behind what Luther was saying. But the idea that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us has done far more harm than good.

Edwin
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top