What you wrote about the doctrine of substitution is a fundamental belief in the LDS Church. We call it vicarious atonement. And you are correct that our standing before God has been settled by God’s Son. This to is a basic understanding of the Christ’s sacrifice that is taught in the LDS Church.

A common video shown in sunday school classes church wide is about a man who borrows money to buy a farm house. When the day comes to pay the debt, the farmer is unable to pay. The debtor demands justice. The farmer cannot satisfy the debtor’s demand for justice – in fact it is explained that debt the farmer owed was so substantial – he could never repay it on his own. The farmer is shackled. Before the farmer is led to prison, another man enters. He offers to completely pay the debt. When that debt is paid the debtor no longer seeks justice – he has received payment. The farmer’s new creditor is his savior. Notice that if the creditor asked the farmer to perform certain acts, such acts would never repay the original debt the farmer owed.

That simple allegory does not perfectly capture the doctrine of the Savior’s atonement, as some could reason that the farmer could earn enough money on his own to repay the debt without any help. The narrator in the movie explains that this is not possible with our salvation. That no amount of “works” on our part can satisfy God’s demand for justice for our evil works.

As to your discussion regarding God’s love – you do an excellent job of describing how God’s love is perfect. I am unsure if you are a parent, but if you are you can start to understand God’s love is not based on works, maturity, spiritual growth etc. I think you are missing the point of Rusty’s comment. Our faith does not result in an increase of love from God. His love is perfect. Our spiritual growth does not affect our standing with him regarding His love. Our “debt” was paid by Christ. His love is perfect. That does not mean that some works, those requested by Christ himself are not essential to our salvation – not that we can gain salvation only by our works. That is completely and utterly impossible. It is only by Christ that we are saved. You have quoted plenty of scripture to back this point up, so I don’t need to. I have more to say, but not enough time right now – work calls…

Secondly, spiritual growth has nothing to do with God’s love for you. God doesn’t love you more or like you better if you’re mature. In fact, in John 13:1 Jesus was meeting with the disciples in the upper room and it says in that passage that having loved His own which were in the world, He loved them unto perfection. The Lord loves all of His own to perfection. And the disciples in that case were immature. They were doubters. They were proud. They were arguing about who of them would be the greatest in the Kingdom and they were utterly insensitive to Jesus facing a cross. But He still loved them to perfection. In fact, “While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us because God loved us when we were enemies.” He loves us with a perfect love. He cannot love us more because we are more mature. He cannot love us less because we are less mature. He loves us into eternal salvation and He loves us into eternal glory. Where we are in the process of spiritual growth does not affect our standing with Him, nor His love for us.

“In conclusion, PP posted above an interesting thought that because most of Christianity baptized infants that is evidence that such an ordinance is not an accomplishment. I question that line of thinking. Is the doctrine of infant baptism taught in the Bible, or was it a convenient way for the Catholic Church, among others to ensure growing membership numbers? I apologize if that last comment was offensive to some, just my cynical side rearing its ugly head. My point is simply that infant baptism is not a Biblical doctrine and should not be used as evidence of the role baptism does or does not play in one’s salvation.”

Acts 16:15 might/likely include(s) infants/children.
1 Cor 1:16 might/likley include(s) infants/children.
Especially since it was not unusual in those days, like today in those parts, to have a multi-generational household.

You will find no prohibition in the Bible about baptizing infants. In fact, it is clear that the Holy Spirit has been given to those who have been baptized as infants. In a sense, the Holy Spirit has “confirmed” the validity of those baptisms.

No, it is not a convenient way for churches to increase membership.

Pondering Pastor

I apologize if my previous post gave the appearance of a “bait”. That was not my intent. Words can be just blunt instruments. My question for you was regarding the belief that good works flows directly from within one who is saved. I have many neighbors, who seem to believe that once they are saved, the grace of God is the source of good works that flows from them i.e. from no act of their own. Is that correct? I have a sincere desire to learn more about this line of thinking.

As for my question regarding infant baptism, I intended to direct that to PP not you. If you feel inclined to explain the Biblical foundation for infant baptism, that would be great.

In conclusion, Rusty’s post regarding faith and accountability I fail to see how individual effort, even if the strength to do so comes from God, does not play a vital role in one’s salvation. Notice the difference between how works are a component, like the gas petal on a car, but without grace no amount of works is sufficient to save one’s self. The concept of saving one’s self is impossible and destroys the need for a savior.

An illustration if I may, when you were ’saved’ didn’t the minister or pastor ask you to stand and recite a prayer or a pledge of some kind? My understanding is this “work” is your witness to Christ that you have accepted Him as your savior, correct? I apologize if prayer or pledge is incorrect, I am not certain on the proper terminology used. But the point is, do you believe one can be saved without such an act? Doesn’t performing this act require one to exercise a modicum of faith – perhaps more than the person they were sitting next to who did not accept Christ, and are not reciting the prayer? This process is somewhat foreign to me, so any explanation would be helpful. Thanks.

I’m particularly interested though in your answer to my question on faith. It feels contradictory, probably just because I’m still struggling to understand a foreign viewpoint, and it requires me to think differently.

You say that we must “add to what we have been given”, or else we “forfeit the blessings and assurances of our salvation”. It contradicts what I thought I understood about your understanding of the unnecessary nature of works in salvation. If we’re required to add to our faith or else we forfeit the assurances of salvation, that’s saying I have to “do” something. If you’ve already gone over this, forgive me, sometimes it takes several encounters of the same viewpoint for it to really sink in, plus, the readers of this post may not have read those long earlier threads.

Also, believing that we must “add to what we have been given” would suggest that we’ll each be at different levels, for we certainly don’t all progress the same. But then you say suggest that our faith is all of equal value. I can see the premise behind the concept that “saving faith is of equal value”, for the value is salvation, and whether it’s for one or another, salvation is salvation, it’s of equal value. But I don’t see how that would indicate that faith is all equal. Saying one person’s faith is greater than another’s is not saying that there are first-class and second-class Christians, but rather we develop along different timelines.

There are some who have faith, and some who don’t. There are some who have lots of faith, and some who have little faith.

So when I say “pragmatic implementation of faith”, I don’t suggest that practical faith is different than doctrinal faith, I think faith is faith (the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” Heb 11:1).

But the part I’m failing to connect is that earlier you said “faith comes to the believer as a gift from God. It is not something that individuals are capable of mustering up on their own. Were faith a work of man’s own doing, man would e in a position to take partial credit for his redemption”.

Yet later you say that we must “add to” our faith, or else we forfeit the assurance of salvation, which would seem to contradict. I’m not saying there’s not an explanation, I’m just wondering what it is. The scriptures I find in the bible seem to say that faith is indeed something that must be “worked by man”. When the Lord chastised the apostles during the storm for being of “little faith”, and later Peter as he tried to walk on water he said the same. That would tell me that he expected them to exercise their faith. When some are healed he said “thy faith hath made thee whole”, but then other times others are not healed, and even the apostles at times couldn’t heal some, for their faith was insufficient. Each of these would lead me to believe that indeed, faith is something for which we are individually accountable for.

First, I would echo everything you posted above. Your description of faith and the love of God is great. It only makes sense that God is just, and provides an equal opportunity at salvation for all His children. This equality is an important foundation to Christ’s saving sacrifice.

I do have a question on the doctrine/belief of salvation by grace alone, i.e. that no ordinance is necessary. My understanding, while limited, is that there are 2 general thoughts regarding the Calvinistic belief in the Grace of God. The first you outlined above, in your post about antinomianism. You explained that belief well.

The second general belief is that good works are a natural extension of those who have been truly saved. The desire to do good flows naturally from the grace of God within them, because they have accepted Christ’s spirit of saving grace. Is that correct?

In conclusion, PP posted above an interesting thought that because most of Christianity baptized infants that is evidence that such an ordinance is not an accomplishment. I question that line of thinking. Is the doctrine of infant baptism taught in the Bible, or was it a convenient way for the Catholic Church, among others to ensure growing membership numbers? I apologize if that last comment was offensive to some, just my cynical side rearing its ugly head. My point is simply that infant baptism is not a Biblical doctrine and should not be used as evidence of the role baptism does or does not play in one’s salvation.

Yes, the nature of saving faith desires us to add to what we have been given. When we choose not to diligently pursue all that He has commanded, then we forfeit the blessings and assurances of our salvation. We live in doubt and we live in depression and we will live in fear and we will live in despair and we will worry about our spiritual condition and we will wonder if we are really saved.

However, in 2 Peter 1, Peter calls our faith “like precious faith.” That is a translation of the Greek word isotimos. That word means “of equal value” or “of equal honor.” There are no first-class and second- class Christians. Some people believe you become a Christian first, and that if you get your spiritual act together at some later time you get promoted to the level of disciple. But verse 1 says we have obtained a saving faith of equal value. There’s no inequality in the body of Christ. Galatians 3:28 says, “There’s neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” First Corinthians 6:17 says, “He that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.” The faith we have received is equally valuable.

No matter who you are, whether educated or uneducated, rich or poor, we all have received a saving faith that is equal in value and that gives us equal standing before God. That’s what makes the body of Christ so wonderful. We all come from every imaginable walk of life, and none of us have anything over anyone else. We all will spend eternity in heaven. We all will know the glories of being like Jesus Christ because our salvation knows no grades.

Still, my question was meant to be less large and nebulous in concept, but more practical and of daily use. Instead it turned into the discussion of “saved by faith vs saved by works” (and we all agree that we’re not saved by works).

But of particular interest to me of late is the more pragmatic implementation of faith as a means to affect your life. So it’s the actual act of faith to which I refer. For instance, if I were sick, my ability to be healed can be impacted by my faith. But that alludes to a proactive action on my part. Something I must DO… “exercise faith”.

Do your views of “faith as a gift” preclude the notion that one must “exercise” their faith? Or do you subscribe to a view of faith that leaves one entirely powerless to impact their own life?

Is faith, in your understanding, something that I can “build”?