PDA

View Full Version : What a LDS leader taught concerning the atonement of Christ.



Exmo-Robertson
July 5th 2003, 06:34 PM
The following story came from Mormon Apostle Boyd K. Packer in the May 1977 issue of the Ensign, a major LDS Church publication. It came from a speech given in their General Conference of Apr. 1977 and was copied from the "official" LDS web site located at: http://www.lds.org/ It was part of a speech given called "The Mediator."



Let me tell you a story—a parable.

There once was a man who wanted something very much. It seemed more important than anything else in his life. In order for him to have his desire, he incurred a great debt.

He had been warned about going into that much debt, and particularly about his creditor. But it seemed so important for him to do what he wanted to do and to have what he wanted right now. He was sure he could pay for it later.

So he signed a contract. He would pay it off some time along the way. He didn’t worry too much about it, for the due date seemed such a long time away. He had what he wanted now, and that was what seemed important.

The creditor was always somewhere in the back of his mind, and he made token payments now and again, thinking somehow that the day of reckoning really would never come.

But as it always does, the day came, and the contract fell due. The debt had not been fully paid. His creditor appeared and demanded payment in full.

Only then did he realize that his creditor not only had the power to repossess all that he owned, but the power to cast him into prison as well.

“I cannot pay you, for I have not the power to do so,” he confessed.

“Then,” said the creditor, “we will exercise the contract, take your possessions, and you shall go to prison. You agreed to that. It was your choice. You signed the contract, and now it must be enforced.”

“Can you not extend the time or forgive the debt?” the debtor begged. “Arrange some way for me to keep what I have and not go to prison. Surely you believe in mercy? Will you not show mercy?”

The creditor replied, “Mercy is always so one-sided. It would serve only you. If I show mercy to you, it will leave me unpaid. It is justice I demand. Do you believe in justice?”

“I believed in justice when I signed the contract,” the debtor said. “It was on my side then, for I thought it would protect me. I did not need mercy then, nor think I should need it ever. Justice, I thought, would serve both of us equally as well.”

“It is justice that demands that you pay the contract or suffer the penalty,” the creditor replied. “That is the law. You have agreed to it and that is the way it must be. Mercy cannot rob justice.”

There they were: One meting out justice, the other pleading for mercy. Neither could prevail except at the expense of the other.

“If you do not forgive the debt there will be no mercy,” the debtor pleaded.

“If I do, there will be no justice,” was the reply.

Both laws, it seemed, could not be served. They are two eternal ideals that appear to contradict one another. Is there no way for justice to be fully served, and mercy also?

There is a way! The law of justice can be fully satisfied and mercy can be fully extended—but it takes someone else. And so it happened this time.

The debtor had a friend. He came to help. He knew the debtor well. He knew him to be shortsighted. He thought him foolish to have gotten himself into such a predicament. Nevertheless, he wanted to help because he loved him. He stepped between them, faced the creditor, and made this offer.

“I will pay the debt if you will free the debtor from his contract so that he may keep his possessions and not go to prison.”

As the creditor was pondering the offer, the mediator added, “You demanded justice. Though he cannot pay you, I will do so. You will have been justly dealt with and can ask no more. It would not be just.”

And so the creditor agreed.

The mediator turned then to the debtor. “If I pay your debt, will you accept me as your creditor?”

“Oh yes, yes,” cried the debtor. “You save me from prison and show mercy to me.”

“Then,” said the benefactor, “you will pay the debt to me and I will set the terms. It will not be easy, but it will be possible. I will provide a way. You need not go to prison.”

And so it was that the creditor was paid in full. He had been justly dealt with. No contract had been broken. The debtor, in turn, had been extended mercy. Both laws stood fulfilled. Because there was a mediator, justice had claimed its full share, and mercy was fully satisfied.



Can someone explain where the grace of God went?

T.J. Maxx
July 5th 2003, 07:43 PM
The message I get from this is that his yoke is easy, not non-existent. Pretty much what Christ said too. But now that you mentioned it, were exactly is "grace" mentioned in any of Christ's sermons, or in the Gospels? Luke mentions it once and John mentions it three times, but not in reference to salvation.

:huh:

Dee Dee Warren
July 5th 2003, 08:16 PM
Today @ 07:43 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140409#post140409)
T.J. Maxx:

The message I get from this is that his yoke is easy, not non-existent. Pretty much what Christ said too. But now that you mentioned it, were exactly is "grace" mentioned in any of Christ's sermons, or in the Gospels? Luke mentions it once and John mentions it three times, but not in reference to salvation.

:huh:

Never pegged you for an Acts9er. Are you suggesting Paul taught a different Gospel than Christ?

T.J. Maxx
July 6th 2003, 06:56 AM
"Never pegged you for an Acts9er. Are you suggesting Paul taught a different Gospel than Christ?"

No, I am bringing Dana's attack into focus. If one sermon denies grace just because it doesn't explicitly mention it, then the same must go for biblical works that also refuse to mention it. Salvation by grace, or "grace alone" is not mentioned one single time in Christ's sermons. He spends most of his time telling people to obey Him if they want salvation. Shouldn't this be significant? I see Mormons putting more emphasis on Christ's comments and less on Pauls. But they do not believe Paul contradicted Christ, anymore than Evangelicals believe Paul contradicted James. The ambiguity and spin goes both ways.

I went to the church web site and found this talk referenced in several other Ensign articles, two of which discuss the application of "grace" in detail. I'd post the links, but we all know these would be deleted so what is the point.

And it just dawned on me that one of the moderators here is ex-Mormon. What was I thinking expecting a fair playing field.

I think I made my position on salvation clear when I first discussed this back in Feb. I forget who I was talking to.

kingsmusician1
July 10th 2003, 03:17 AM
[QUOTE]07-06-2003 @ 05:56 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=140600#post140600)
T.J. Maxx:

"No, I am bringing Dana's attack into focus."

For someone who claims to not be a Mormon you sure do spend a lot of time defending them. Since when is asking questions attacking? Dana's questions were very direct and focused.

"If one sermon denies grace just because it doesn't explicitly mention it, then the same must go for biblical works that also refuse to mention it. Salvation by grace, or "grace alone" is not mentioned one single time in Christ's sermons."

(Matthew 11:28) Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. (KJV)

(John 12:32) And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me. (KJV)

Hmmmm......Sounds like Christ is talking about Grace to me. Would you ke some more verses, TJ?

"He spends most of his time telling people to obey Him if they want salvation. Shouldn't this be significant?"

Yes, TJ, it is very significant. Let's take a look at what Christ said specifically.....

(Matthew 22:37-39) Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. (KJV)

(John 13:34-35) A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. (KJV)

Christ's emphasis has always been really simple. It has always been based on love. Christ showed us the ultimate act of love when He died for our Sins on the Cross. His coming is the fufillment of the old covenant we are no longer under the Law.

(Romans 5:8-10) But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. (KJV)

Believe it or not! Paul's coments are actually in line with what Christ taught.

One of the misrepresentations of the OSAS position (by the way the proper term is the Perserverance of the Saints) is that when a person is saved that gives them a license to do whatever they want. I don't think that there is a Bible teacher out there of any repute that teaches that. In my Church (Baptist) we work with new believers so that they will be strong in their faith. I imagine the same is true in Bill the Cat's church and Dee Dee's Church also.

There maybe differences in the way we do things or minor differences in the way we believe. The one thing though that yu will find in common with all of our churches is that we have this in common....Salvation is in Christ alone by His Grace. If works had anything to do with it then what was the point of Christ's death?

"I see Mormons putting more emphasis on Christ's comments and less on Pauls. But they do not believe Paul contradicted Christ, anymore than Evangelicals believe Paul contradicted James. The ambiguity and spin goes both ways."

I see you have read Zane Hodges work. Paul contradicts James about as much as me catching a 40 pound catfish. (Which isn't gonn happen this year.)

"I went to the church web site and found this talk referenced in several other Ensign articles, two of which discuss the application of "grace" in detail. "

Hmmmm....You must LDS. If not your pretty darn close to it.

The LDS position on Salvation is not anywhere close to being Biblical. Sad to say it but you cannot legislate Grace. When you begin to look at th claims of the Mormon Church and the Bible. The LDS church has got alot of explaining to do.

Now TJ, rather than doing another slam fest. Let's move this dicussion to the issue of Grace Vs. Works. It appears to me that this is the crux of your Position.

Bill (kingsmsician1)

John Powell
July 11th 2003, 12:28 AM
EXMO-ROBERTSON:
Can someone explain where the grace of God went?


JOHN MORMON:
Jesus offers to pay the debt on His conditions. That's not something we could demand of Him. It's something He offered. Now that He has made His offer, however, and we have agreed, we can demand the reward if we do our part.

John Powell

Exmo-Robertson
July 11th 2003, 12:50 AM
Today @ 05:28 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=146206#post146206)
John Powell:



JOHN MORMON:
Jesus offers to pay the debt on His conditions. That's not something we could demand of Him. It's something He offered. Now that He has made His offer, however, and we have agreed, we can demand the reward if we do our part.

John Powell

Then it isn't grace. Grace by definition is "unmerited help" help we didn't earn and have no right to "demand." If we have to earn it, or do as the person in the story has to, pay it back, it is no longer grace but salvation by works.


John you are good at giving us the LDS response. You are also more honest in that you do respond with the real beliefs of Mormonism more than Kevin does, who only wants to muddy the waters. Thanks.

John Powell
July 11th 2003, 01:24 AM
EXMO-ROBERTSON:
Then it isn't grace. Grace by definition is "unmerited help" help we didn't earn and have no right to "demand."

If we have to earn it, or do as the person in the story has to, pay it back, it is no longer grace but salvation by works.


JOHN MORMON:
Well, we had no rights to demand the offer be made. However, once the offer was made things changed.

If God promises something to us and then reneges, would we be justified in complaining or should we just accept that it was by grace anyways?

Consider another example. If a charity worker visits you and you give them a note that is a promise to pay (i.e., a personal check) and then you cancel the check before they can collect (i.e., cash it) can the charity justifiably get the court to force you to pay what they could not have originally demanded?

Perhaps this is another place where the Mormon definition of something differs from the orthodox Christian definition.


EXMO-ROBERTSON:
John you are good at giving us the LDS response. You are also more honest in that you do respond with the real beliefs of Mormonism more than Kevin does, who only wants to muddy the waters. Thanks.


JOHN MORMON:
I'd like to think I do a good job. If I do then it's probably partly because I am no longer as emotionally tied to the doctrine. I can try to defend the issues rather than be so affected by the emotions.

John Powell