Imputed Righteousness, Grace, Predestination, and Love

Latter-day Saints and traditional Christians don’t use the same words and differ on theology.  Blake reviews early Christian theologian and philosopher, Augustine (born in 354 AD) — the source of these traditional Christian views.

Image result for augustine

Topics Discussed:

  • The Problem of Imputed Righteousness
  • The Problem of Infused Righteousness
  • The Problem of Predestination
  • Does God Owe Obligations?
  • Universal Love and Obligations

I’ve long heard certain people talk at great length about imputed righteousness.  We simply disagree.  I believe the restoration makes these concepts much simpler.

Image result for imputed righteousness

Rejection of Imputed Righteousness:  A 3rd party can pay my debt, but that party can’t declare my righteousness when I’m not righteous.  Jesus is righteous and paid for our sins.  We’re still not righteous, however.

Our moral properties belong to us and arise from our own actions.  No transfer of righteousness occurs.  God doesn’t declare us to be righteous when only Jesus’ properties are good.

Infused righteousness:  God is out to make someone good.  Extrinsic change is key, not intrinsic.

Rejection:  nobody but I can choose to love.  We have to choose to love.  The agent, each of us, have to freely choose this relationship.  Love in particular must be a free choice.

Being married to a wonderful person increases one’s chances to be nice person.  However, it is still possible one can be a horrible person, despite marrying a wonderful person.

Image result for predestination

Rejection of Predestination:  if you’re saved because you freely choose to have faith, then that proposition undermines that faith is a gift from God (prior and sole cause)

Calvinism:  embraces predestination

Book of Mormon shows that without the action of Christ we’d be stuck in sin;  the grace is made available before any act of human will; with the Atonement we’re delivered from the fall; our will is complete and we get to choose either eternal life or death; sanctification comes about from God’s light, power, and love and continued progress (so we don’t fall from grace)

Ephesians 1:11:  Calvinism interprets this to mean God wills everything;  one  interpretive option:  everything that God does is done according to His will; what God does, He does because He’s fully free

Image result for fairness

Fairness:

Does God have a duty to be fair?  To allow everyone a fair chance at salvation?  Can one person get favor when another does not have the same favor?  Does he owe us salvation?

God doesn’t have to give a gift.  It’s within God’s discretion.  However, to not get salvation makes a huge difference (eternity in Hell) to those who don’t get the gift.  God has power, time, and love sufficient to save all or at least give the opportunity for all to be saved.

The Protestant view is that God has no obligation.  Catholics’ view if that God’s obligation is to do what He wants to do (has no obligation).  Ostler points out that God loves, but not out of obligation.  But in loving us, God supports the best possible outcome.

Predestination is not loving.   Those with no opportunity are damned.  The question should be asked is this: is it consistent with God’s loving nature to love some and not others?  No!

Image result for love christ

Love:

God gives us life and honors our choices.  A purpose couldn’t be to go to hell for eternity.  God is committed to our best happiness.  Loving people respect the dignity and autonomy of other people.

Loving God removes the burden of serving other people.  And keeping all the other commandments.

For a God to disregard one’s eternal well being is the opposite of love.  The message of Mormonism is that God wants true peers in this relationship of grace.