Jlay wrote:Jac,
In my study of the two terms I dont see how they are the same.
Imputed means by Grace alone through faith alone.
Infused means that there is a process where one is being made righteous. The protestants pretty well break those down into two different events. Justification and progressive sanctification.
You are right that infusion and imputation are different. I am concerned, however, that most protestants
say they believe in imputation even as their doctrine defends infusion. Take the article in the OP as an example. Here we have someone who basically confuses progressive sanctification with justification. Most people think of progressive sanctification in terms that could be described as an infusion of righteousness. I become more and more like Christ--it is the necessary result of justification. As a result, justification (the imputation part) is seen as the planting of a seed, and progressive sanctification is seen as the growing of that seed. But if that is the case, the justification is just the first part of infusion!
I, for one, would take a different view on progressive sanctification. I believe in imputation, not infusion. The day I was justified (imputed with the righteousness of Christ), I got ALL the Jesus and Holy Spirit I am ever going to get. I don't get infused with "more Jesus" or "more righteousness," not even in the progressive sense. I don't have a "baby new spirit" that needs to grow up. The righteousness I receive upon placing my faith in Christ is total, absolute, non-divisible, and completely imputed. There is no room for infusion or progression of any kind as it relates to righteousness.
We can talk about how I DO view santification, then, later, if you like. I'm just trying explain why I think that you either believe in imputation OR infusion. There is no middle ground. You can't have imputed righteousness in justification AND infused righteousness in sanctification. If you believe in infused righteousness, then adopt the position fully and all that comes with it. If you believe in imputed righteousness, then adopt the position fully and all that comes with it.
I would look at Ephesians 2:8 as the evidence that when one comes to true saving faith, they are justified at that point. I would also look at Eph. 2:10 as evidence that God loves us too much to let us stay like we are.
But it doesn't say that He does or doesn't want us to "stay like we are." I certainly agree that we should change our behavior, but as soon as I use the word behavior, you can see all the red flags that go up! Is salvation just something that is an means to get us to ACT better? Please. Psychology can do that (which takes us back to our original disagreement). But going back to the text, again, it says nothing about staying like we are. It says that the purpose of our salvation is so that we would be God's worksmanship--which we ARE, no matter what--but so that we might DEMONSTRATE that new reality to the world, God has prepared for us good works that we might do. We have no scriptural warrant, though, for confusing the demonstration of the work with the reality of the work.
[qupte]John 14:12. 'I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.' That doesn't mean we are adding to the saving work God has done. But that because of this saving grace, God created us for good works, which HE prepared.[/quote]
Yes, anyone who HAS faith in Christ WILL do good works (that is repeated and expanded in John 15--it is all in the same context). Notice the present tense of the word "has" in "has faith." The bottom line is that the same faith that saves is the faith that sanctifies (which stands in STRONG contrast to the works-basd sanctification I think most are taught). If a person places their faith in Christ, they receive eternal life. To the extent that they keep their faith in Christ, they WILL produce good works.
Read the paper I wrote that I linked to you earlier in this thread. I try to show in some detail that that idea is the central theme of the Gospel of John.
In any case, if a person stops putting their faith in Christ alone, then you can expect them to NOT produce fruit. Does that mean they are not saved? Nope. Does it mean that they lost their salvation? Nope. It means just what it says on the surface. You don't have faith in Christ (you don't abide in Him), you don't produce fruit. That says nothing about whether or not you were ever saved to begin with.
Bottom line: good works are linked to (abiding) faith in Christ. They are not linked to having eternal life. You can have the latter without the former simply by not believing in Him.
Or Heb 13: 20-21. 'May the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, equip you with everything good for doing his will, and may he work in us what is pleasing to him, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.'
You can take "equip" here in two ways, neither of which support the necessity of progressive sanctification:
1. Equipping could be giving us the tools to allow us to the work to which we are called (the most obvious view): in this case, just because someone receives the tools doesn't mean they will use them. That is their choice (remember the whole free will thing!);
2. Equipping could be taken as a direct reference to progressive sanctification, that is, our actually doing good works: in thise case, though, we must note the entire phrase is optative, not indicative. It does not say "God . . . has equipped you . . ." but "May God . . . equip you." On what basis would God equip this way? In context with the rest of the book, on our holding fast our confession (again, the free will thing!).
I opt for the former view because I think it fits the context of the entire book much better, but, again, I don't see anywhere that this says that Christians will necessarily bear good fruit. In fact, the entire argument to the book of Hebrews it that we must be careful, because it is possible for believers to fall away!
I would say that because of salvation the beleiver now has the capacity for these things above. And, no Jac, it doesn't make the believer any more saved. It only evidences that a saving work did occur.
I would have to conceed that yes, we can't judge salvation in itself by what one does or doesn't do. Actually we can't judge the heart of a man at all. We open up a big ole can of worms when we do. I'm still trying to reconcile all this to Romans 8, John 14 and 15. Looking forward to your feedback.
I agree that the believer HAS the capacity. It is not progressively given to them. They have it in full no less they day they are born than the fiftieth year of their faithful service to Christ. Again, I believe in imputation. Since you do, too, I would encourage you to adopt a full view of imputation . . . We can do Rom 8 later. I think we did John 14 here, and I've provided a model for John 15 (which I think is one of the strongest supporting passages in all the Bible for my view!).
I think, at bottom, the Protestant Reformation was about the rediscovery of the doctrine of imputation. A lot of things led to that discovery--sola scriptura, among them. But the core issue for Luther and the others was imputation. Unfortunately, when people saw the ramifications of imputation proper, they shyed away . . .the developed the doctrine of the final perseverance of the saints, either postively, as in Calvinism, or negatively, as in Arminianism. In that, while in form they were Protestants, in heart they remained Catholic. There are, my friend, only two views:
Finally imputed salvation (the free grace view) or progressively infused sanctification (the Catholic view). All claim it is by faith. Some say it is by acts of faith (the sacraments, repentance, baptism, faith itself!); some say it is by simple faith (trust alone); but the bedrock issue is whether or not salvation is, as I have said before, this:
I wrote:Either salvation is imputed, immediate, total, and logically assured (OSAS) or infused, mediate, progressive, and morally assured (Catholicism)
Let me qualify for the last time that I'm not speaking negatively of Catholicism here. I am drawing the firm distinction that must be made. I am convinced there are just as many saved Catholics as saved Protestants and condemned on both sides as well. But with reference to our discussion, there can be only one
proper theology, and before we can decide what it is, we must defined the terms. This, then, I believe, is the sin qua non. Hope that helps, and I do again apologize if I now or have ever come across as angry, harsh, condemning, or anything at all like that.
edit: btw, i got your pmail, but no link!
