LDS Atonement

[Sola'lor]

Those who obey will receive eternal life according to lds.org. Therefore one cannot be saved until he has obeyed all of the laws pertaining to eternal life.

Because Christ's atonement can only be applied to those the He chooses. It's not a free ticket. Christ took the debt on Himself. It is up to Him to decide to forgive our debt or not.

 

[edward]

Because Christ's atonement can only be applied to those the He chooses. It's not a free ticket. Christ took the debt on Himself. It is up to Him to decide to forgive our debt or not.

If it depended merely on Jesus' choice, then a "free ticket" would be exactly what it is. We have no choice in the matter according to what you just said.

Edward

 

[ἀλήθεια]

Because Christ's atonement can only be applied to those the He chooses. It's not a free ticket. Christ took the debt on Himself. It is up to Him to decide to forgive our debt or not.

Do you somehow think that Christ doesn't obey the laws of the Celestial Kingdom and the Doctrine and Covenants? He doesn't have to make a decision to forgive. According to the Doctrine and Covenants, He has to forgive based on the law pertaining to forgiveness.

"I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise." (Doctrine and Covenants 82:10)

"Nevertheless, he that repents and does the commandments of the Lord shall be forgiven;" (Doctrine and Covenants 1:32)

"In order to bestow His blessings on His children in a just and equitable manner, the Lord has instituted laws that govern those blessings that He wants all of us to enjoy. He has revealed this principle of laws to His prophet of the Restoration: 'There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—and when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.' ”
Daniel L. Johnson, “The Law of Tithing,” Ensign, Nov 2006, 35–36

As for a free ticket, I don't know what you are talking about. However, I do know what God has told us about His free gift.

"But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many." (Romans 5:15)

"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." (Romans 6:23)

 

[Sola'lor]

If it depended merely on Jesus' choice, then a "free ticket" would be exactly what it is. We have no choice in the matter according to what you just said.

Edward

What I'm saying is that just because Christ paid for our sins doesn't mean we automatically receive salvation.

It's like if I owed you money. Then ἀλήθεια paid you that money on my behalf. That doesn;t mean I no longer owe any money it means that my debt has been transfered to ἀλήθεια. It is now up to ἀλήθεια if I will be forgiven of my debt or if I still must pay.

Do you somehow think that Christ doesn't obey the laws of the Celestial Kingdom and the Doctrine and Covenants? He doesn't have to make a decision to forgive. According to the Doctrine and Covenants, He has to forgive based on the law pertaining to forgiveness.

"I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise." (Doctrine and Covenants 82:10)

"Nevertheless, he that repents and does the commandments of the Lord shall be forgiven;" (Doctrine and Covenants 1:32)

"In order to bestow His blessings on His children in a just and equitable manner, the Lord has instituted laws that govern those blessings that He wants all of us to enjoy. He has revealed this principle of laws to His prophet of the Restoration: 'There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—and when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.' ”
Daniel L. Johnson, “The Law of Tithing,” Ensign, Nov 2006, 35–36

That is what I am saying. Christ's atonement is sufficient to save every single person. We must show Him that we want the atonement to be applied to us.

"But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many." (Romans 5:15)

"For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." (Romans 6:23)

Yes.

 

[ἀλήθεια]

What I'm saying is that just because Christ paid for our sins doesn't mean we automatically receive salvation.

We, the ones who have been born again, are saved "not by works of righteousness which we have done but according to his mercy."

It's like if I owed you money. Then ἀλήθεια paid you that money on my behalf. That doesn;t mean I no longer owe any money it means that my debt has been transfered to ἀλήθεια. It is now up to ἀλήθεια if I will be forgiven of my debt or if I still must pay.

It’s more like you earned a punishment for your sins. But Christ paid your debt. If he paid your debt, you no longer have a debt.

That is what I am saying. Christ's atonement is sufficient to save every single person. We must show Him that we want the atonement to be applied to us.

You must be born again. That is what the Bible says. Christ's atonement(payment) is insufficient if man must also pay some of the debt.

 

[Sola'lor]

It’s more like you earned a punishment for your sins. But Christ paid your debt. If he paid your debt, you no longer have a debt.

I have a debt to Him now.

You must be born again. That is what the Bible says. Christ's atonement(payment) is insufficient if man must also pay some of the debt.

Man doesn't have to pay any of the debt if they do the things Christ asks of them.

 

[ἀλήθεια]

I have a debt to Him now.

No, each Christian was already very much in debt to God(Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) because by following Satan, they did not honor God. So Christ paid the debt he/she owed Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. You don’t seem to understand that.

Man doesn't have to pay any of the debt if they do the things Christ asks of them.

Many here probably do not see the LDS doctrine in your statement above. LDS doctrine states that man must pay for the sins not covered by Christ’s blood. The ones not covered are the ones the individual hasn’t overcome by the end of his life(see story below by Elder Boyd K. Packer).

"Only Jesus could pay for our sins. We receive the full benefits of His sacrifice by believing that He lives and by keeping His commandments."
"Chapter 12: The Atonement of Jesus Christ," Gospel Fundamentals, 55

LDS teach that men are saved by faith plus works.

"We must be sorry for our sins. We must not do them anymore. We must follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. Then our Father in Heaven forgives our sins."
"Chapter 12: The Atonement of Jesus Christ," Gospel Fundamentals, 55

So if you fall short, he can not forgive you. In the Spirit World, the ones who did not overcome all their sins, will suffer and pay for the ones they had not overcome.

I think the following sums up the LDS teachings about the debt for sin:

Elder Boyd K. Packer of the Council of the Twelve gave the following illustration to show how Christ's atonement makes it possible to be saved from sin if we do our part.

"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 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 saved 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 satisfied" (in Conference Report, Apr. 1977, pp. 79-80; or Ensign, May 1977, pp. 54-55).

Our sins are our spiritual debts. Without Jesus Christ, who is our Savior and Mediator, we would all pay for our sins by suffering spiritual death. But because of him, if we will keep his terms, which are to repent and keep his commandments, we may return to live with our Heavenly Father.

Gospel Principles

 

[edward]

Too bad that the mediator wasn't Jesus Christ. Had he been the response would have been, "Because you are my friend, I paid your debt. Don't worry about repaying me for I know that you will never be able to repay such a large sum. Therefore, just consider it a free gift because I love you."

Edward

 

[Sola'lor]

Many here probably do not see the LDS doctrine in your statement above. LDS doctrine states that man must pay for the sins not covered by Christ’s blood. The ones not covered are the ones the individual hasn’t overcome by the end of his life(see story below by Elder Boyd K. Packer).

No. Man doesn't pay for sins not covered by Christ's blood. Why? Because ALL sins are covered by Christ's blood.

In the debtor example(edward's version). If Christ paid that debt and said, "Because you are my friend, I paid your debt. Don't worry about repaying me for I know that you will never be able to repay such a large sum. Therefore, just consider it a free gift because I love you." But then I said, "I reject your payment and your gift." Then Christ's payment, while still having paid for me, could not save me, because I reject it.

 

[edward]

No. Man doesn't pay for sins not covered by Christ's blood. Why? Because ALL sins are covered by Christ's blood.

In the debtor example(edward's version). If Christ paid that debt and said, "Because you are my friend, I paid your debt. Don't worry about repaying me for I know that you will never be able to repay such a large sum. Therefore, just consider it a free gift because I love you." But then I said, "I reject your payment and your gift." Then Christ's payment, while still having paid for me, could not save me, because I reject it.

Well, this is a good time to enter into the Armenian vs. Calvinism debate, but not by me. If one rejects the love and gift from Jesus Christ, the great mediator, then so be it. Obviously, the item that this person wanted greater than anything imaginable was not what exactly that, was it? Eventually, he/she will be separated from that item, just like when the human owner was going to take it away and place him in prison.

As free gift is a free gift. Mr. X can reject it and go to prison and relinquish the cherished item. That does not change the fact that Jesus Christ GAVE Mr. X the gift. There are NO stipulations about what it take to retain the FREE gift. If there were stipulations, it would no longer be free. It would only be transferring the debt from one note holder to another with a price tag on it as before.

If salvation is something that one works for, then it is NOT a free gift and Christ died in vain. There was already a system in place for works to obtain this item that Mr. X wanted (presuming that we are talking about salvation/exaltation/everlasting life/ eternal life), but the Bible is clear that no one was going to make it because we are all spiritual weaklings. Jesus paid the price and if we feel obligated to help out with our measly works of righteousness, then we are, in essence, saying that He didn't do enough. That we have to help.

Romans 4:4-5 says, " 4Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. 5But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

I just don't understand why it is so difficult to accept the gift that Jesus came to earth to give to us.

Edward

 

[Katzpur]

There are hundreds of millions of Christians in the world today (1 billion Catholics to be specific) who believe that both faith in Jesus Christ and our acts of obedience are essential for salvation. I wonder why we never see these threads accusing Mormons of believing that we can "earn our way into Heaven and believe that Christ's Atonement was insufficient to save us" directed to the larger body of Christians who believe just as we do. It's just one more bit of evidence that some people are so focused on tearing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints down that they simply ignore the fact that we are part of the majority in terms of this doctrine.

 

[ἀλήθεια]

No. Man doesn't pay for sins not covered by Christ's blood. Why? Because ALL sins are covered by Christ's blood.

If that were true all mankind would go to paradise rather than spirit prison. The sin of rejecting Him would also be covered.

In the debtor example(edward's version). If Christ paid that debt and said, "Because you are my friend, I paid your debt. Don't worry about repaying me for I know that you will never be able to repay such a large sum. Therefore, just consider it a free gift because I love you." But then I said, "I reject your payment and your gift." Then Christ's payment, while still having paid for me, could not save me, because I reject it.

His payment saves those who have been born again:

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Not of works, lest any man should boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9)

When your heart has been changed, you have no desire to turn around and reject Him.

We love him, because he first loved us.(1 John 4:19)

 

[ἀλήθεια]

Well, this is a good time to enter into the Armenian vs. Calvinism debate, but not by me. If one rejects the love and gift from Jesus Christ, the great mediator, then so be it. Obviously, the item that this person wanted greater than anything imaginable was not what exactly that, was it? Eventually, he/she will be separated from that item, just like when the human owner was going to take it away and place him in prison.

As free gift is a free gift. Mr. X can reject it and go to prison and relinquish the cherished item. That does not change the fact that Jesus Christ GAVE Mr. X the gift. There are NO stipulations about what it take to retain the FREE gift. If there were stipulations, it would no longer be free. It would only be transferring the debt from one note holder to another with a price tag on it as before.

If salvation is something that one works for, then it is NOT a free gift and Christ died in vain. There was already a system in place for works to obtain this item that Mr. X wanted (presuming that we are talking about salvation/exaltation/everlasting life/ eternal life), but the Bible is clear that no one was going to make it because we are all spiritual weaklings. Jesus paid the price and if we feel obligated to help out with our measly works of righteousness, then we are, in essence, saying that He didn't do enough. That we have to help.

Romans 4:4-5 says, "4Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. 5But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Amen!

 

[Orontes]

I would question whether LDS believe that a baptized Presbyterian who has faith in Christ can have the Gift of the Holy Ghost without the laying on of hands by an LDS priesthood holder. And can a baptized LDS who has received the laying on of hands for the Gift of the Holy Ghost be assured of exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom, without obedience to seeking out his ancestors and submitting their names for vicarious temple work, without paying a full tithe to the LDS church, without attending his meetings on a regular basis, without keeping the Word of Wisdom(dietary law), and without keeping his covenants that he makes in the LDS temple?

Where was I mistaken?

Hello,

I've not read all the thread, but maybe I can respond to your questions. To the perhaps rhetorical question: "I would question whether LDS believe that a baptized Presbyterian who has faith in Christ can have the Gift of the Holy Ghost without the laying on of hands by an LDS priesthood holder.": correct such a person cannot have the Gift of the Holy Ghost. The Gift of the Holy Ghost is dependant on authority. A person may feel the influence of the Holy Ghost however. The key difference between the two is one is an abiding condition, while the other is not.

Question two: "And can a baptized LDS who has received the laying on of hands for the Gift of the Holy Ghost be assured of exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom, without obedience to seeking out his ancestors and submitting their names for vicarious temple work, without paying a full tithe to the LDS church, without attending his meetings on a regular basis, without keeping the Word of Wisdom(dietary law), and without keeping his covenants that he makes in the LDS temple?"

No. There is no guarantee of exhaltation for the morally culpable divorced from their own actions, will and intent. No man can be dragged to heaven against their will. Mormonism rejects the deterministic impulse as both immoral and incoherent insofar as one recognizes a moral universe and/or Deity.

As far as a Mormon conception of the Atonement is concerned, one must recall that there are two distinct elements of the Atonement. One is salvation from physical death. The other is liberation from spiritual death. The former is a free gift made by possible through Christ. All men will be resurrected. The latter requires the subject accepts Christ into their lives. Mormonism thus mirrors in many ways the general stance on the subject found in the Older Greek and Oriental Christian Traditions, the ultimate at-one-ment being exhaltation, deification or theosis.

 

[ἀλήθεια]

Mormonism thus mirrors in many ways the general stance on the subject found in the Older Greek and Oriental Christian Traditions, the ultimate at-one-ment being exhaltation, deification or theosis.

Not so. The Eastern Orthodox Christians do not teach that theosis is what Mormons call exaltation. Men can never become Gods ontologically. Apotheosis is considered heretical.

 

[Orontes]

Not so. The Eastern Orthodox Christians do not teach that theosis is what Mormons call exaltation. Men can never become Gods ontologically. Apotheosis is considered heretical.

I referred to a general stance, not a strict correspondence. Eastern Orthodox positioning on theosis does generally hold men may become gods. This is a common refrain found throughout the Tradition. Any distinction that divides the term god from the ontic standing of divinity is an internal tension of the positioning. The distinction between Mormon notions and Eastern Thought can be seen in the degree the one holds to a neoplatonic metaphysic and the other does not. Even so, Mormon Thought likewise holds deification and union with divinity as the ultimate state, albeit while never compromising individual identity. Apotheosis is not relevant to the point.

 

[ἀλήθεια]

I referred to a general stance, not a strict correspondence. Eastern Orthodox positioning on theosis does generally hold men may become gods. This is a common refrain found throughout the Tradition. Any distinction that divides the term god from the ontic standing of divinity is an internal tension of the positioning. The distinction between Mormon notions and Eastern Thought can be seen in the degree the one holds to a neoplatonic metaphysic and the other does not. Even so, Mormon Thought likewise holds deification and union with divinity as the ultimate state, albeit while never compromising individual identity. Apotheosis is not relevant to the point.

Apotheosis is relevant because Orthodox Christians have always known that there will never be more than one God.

Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. (Isaiah 43:10)

I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:
That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else. (Isaiah 45:5-6)

 

[Clear]

Alethia :

There are so many Christian Theories that I have a great deal of sympathy for the agnostics trying to make sense of the various christian arguments. I grew up in a non-denominational setting and thus was exposed to several Christianities, all having multiple doctrines regarding in what way individuals are "saved" by Christ. One new congregation I attended "felt their way along" separate doctrines and finally reaching an uncomfortable and tenuous "concensus" as to what they would teach since the pastor (my brother-in-law) "HAD to teach something" without it causing an argument among the congregants (or making the people who paid his salary, angry). Though, admittedly, it was watered down advertising rather than "doctrine". I think it was the best he could do given the tendency for the many individuals in the congregation having their own theories about what should be taught.

Because of the exposure to multiple Christianities, I’ve heard many theories among various christianities as to how a "debt" was created with God, from which all men must be "redeemed" by Christ’s atonement. You offered your personal theory that "each Christian" was in debt to God "because, by following Satan, they did not honor God".

"... each Christian was already very much in debt to God(Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) because by following Satan, they did not honor God. So Christ paid the debt he/she owed Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. You don't seem to understand that...

Alethia, I don’t think that I understand your personal theory either, regarding how individuals are "already" in debt to God, "because by following satan, they did not honor God.". It is one of few theories I’ve not heard (or not heard worded this way...). Can you explain your personal christian theory a bit more? For example, according to your personal theory :

1) Does every living person have the same type of "debt" to God in your personal theory?

2) If so, How does every living person acquire this "debt" to God in your personal theory? That is, can you explain the concept of "following satan" that your theory spoke of?

3) How specifically is every living person relieved of this debt according to your theory?
I very much appreciate your time and explanation.

Clear



To the LDS on the forums:

By the way; I want the LDS to know that I honor them for the specific belief that individuals are required to make an authentic decision to undergo the eternal process of learning (slowly and gradually) to repent of their sins (for specific examples: the sin of habitual lying and stealing) and attempt the gradual and eternal process of improvement in their obedience to God so at some point in their existence, (beyond the grave ultimately) they may learn to obey Gods commandments (for example, the prohibition to lie and to steal).

Though the concept of repentance is central to historical Christianity, I think the reason it gets such bad press is that it is so very unpopular (how many christians actually try an authentic version of it?)

I grew up hearing the "agnostics lament" that "if people would only live the 10 commandments, the world would be better". I’m grateful to ANYONE who is trying to live the highest moral standards they are able since, I agree with the agnostic, it makes the world better in a world where religions are watering down both doctrines and morals, I have great honor for any religion who attempts to live to a higher moral standard than the world generally has adopted.

Clear
drfufu83ja

 

[Orontes]

Apotheosis is relevant because Orthodox Christians have always known that there will never be more than one God.

Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. (Isaiah 43:10)

I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me:
That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD, and there is none else. (Isaiah 45:5-6)

I don't know what to make of your post. Mormonism does not hold to any adoptionist christology, neither does it hold to a Greco-Roman idea of a pantheon with additional subjects to worship. Your use of apotheosis isn't relevant to the point presented. The point presented was on a Mormon sense of the atonement. My statement: "The latter requires the subject accepts Christ into their lives. Mormonism thus mirrors in many ways the general stance on the subject found in the Older Greek and Oriental Christian Traditions, the ultimate at-one-ment being exaltation, deification or theosis." (and emphasized by the use of hyphens) is that any at-one-ment must ultimately point to an exaltation/deification/theosis to be coherent. Further, it is this general move one finds all through the Greek and Oriental Christian Traditions. Any appeal to an atonement that also wishes to stress an ontic distinction between Deity and those dubbed He is at one with, calls into question the very meaning of an at-one-ment.

Per your Biblical quotes: no context or larger point was presented. Given they are two Isaiah quotes stressing the singularity of God. Should I then assume you agree with Judaism that these two verses clearly indicate the Trinity is heretical and contra the revealed word? Should I perhaps offer another verse from the Bible i.e.:

"Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.' " -John 20:17

It would seem, if one accepts the above text as accurate and also holds Jesus was Divine, that there are two beings that are then Gods and as noted one gives deference to the other.

 

[Orontes]

I’m grateful to ANYONE who is trying to live the highest moral standards they are able ... I have great honor for any religion who attempts to live to a higher moral standard than the world generally has adopted.

Clear
drfufu83ja

I agree, and would heartily extend it to any who sincerely strive for the good, both religious and non-religious.