I would appreciate the e-mail. Although don’t expect a better, or more rapid, response there.

I’m out of time too. I’m not supposed to comment during the week, but do so anyhow sometimes on my own posts.

If it’s easier, I could write to you offline as I find this allows the conversation to happen faster and removes the need to keep looking up a website to see if there is a response. (Oops, exposed my own obsessive complusive behavior there.)

I appreciate your comments. I don’t have time to comment further, but hopefully will soon. I don’t know how you all have time to comment so much!

I wrote post 29 in a hurry and it’s a bit sloppy. I think it might confuse things. I have an upcoming post that explain the issue of “wordism” better where we get stuck on words and don’t realize that words can have nuanced meanings.

What I am really trying to say is that the word “deserved” or “merit” have multiple nunanced meanings. Strictly speaking salvation can ever be “deserved” or “merited.” But in a less strict sense someone could indeed claim they can be.

For example, we all sometimes used “deserved” to mean that there is a certain rightness to the thing. “Honey, I won the drawing at work!” “Good, you deserve it!” Obviously such a statement isn’t meant in the strict sense of “deserved” as the person did not actually earn the prize. We also use “deserved” to mean we expect someone to keep a promise to us. So if Dad tells Bobby that if he gets straight A’s he will give him a Corvett, we might in one sense say that Bobby did not deserve the car (i.e. he didn’t pay for it himself) but in another sense we might say that he did deserve it because Dad promised it to him on a condition that was fulfilled.

And yet, that last example is particularly perplexing for Christianity. Acts 16: 31:
“And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” If taken as a statement from God (which is typically how we take scripture) this is stated very much like Dad and Bobby. There is a condition and a promise.

Christians go to great lengths to show that this does not mean salvation is “deserved” by coming up with complex explanations. I ignore all that and simply accept that the problem is language itself, not the underlying thought. Yes, salvation can be “deserved” or “merit” in non-techincal senses of the words.

If you can accept this… and I admit it will probably be a difficult thing to accept because it’s never spoken of in this way… then you will realize that we are equivocating if we talk of the boy in my parable “deserving” mercy but speak of salvation as not beind “deserved.”

>>> Lastly, you may not feel that penitence is merit, but I would argue that in a sense it is. It is merit in that it reflects the likelihood of repeat offense

To use this as an example of what I am saying… if I grant you that the boy in my parable did “merit” to be declared not guilty because his repentance reflects the reduced likelihood of repeast offense… will you grant me that those that receive salvation “merit” it because they are born again and thus changed and are less likely to repeat offense in this life and won’t repeat the offense in the next?

This seems like the same thing to me. Thus by that narrow definition of “merit” salvation is “merited” too.

Easier said than done. I’ve mentioned elsewhere of a deep trespass some friends did to me and my family which I haven’t forgiven. Even though I think more time must pass, distance must numb the sting, or that it would be a lot easier if these persons were remorseful in a persuasive way, I still know in my heart that the bile of anger and hurt can only be gone if I forgive despite all that — if I let God help me heal it. Still I haven’t let myself nor God help me to get to that place.

This is way outside the scope of my parable now. But it’s in interesting topic and of itself.

I have struggled with this very issue and I have a personal answer that works for me. I don’t have time to formulate a whole essay on how I think it all fits together nicely… but let me give you the basics of my personal answer (your results may vary.)

1. Read my comment here: http://mormonmatters.org/2008/04/26/gods-hit-list-in-the-book-of-mormon/#comment-13950 I believe human beings have a generally working sense of right and wrong, as I believe Doug G does. But I don’t believe we are nearly as good as discerning right and wrong as we think we are because we have sever problems with jumping to conclusions before we know everything. Or, more to the point, we NEVER know enough to make a final judgement like God would. However, I believe that when God does make a final judgement, we will all innately see that it was in fact good, loving, just, and merciful for all of us. I do not believe God will have to hand us a new sense of right and wrong for us to see that He is in fact good! Thus I do not see our sense of right and wrong as having a problem, only our overt faith in ourselves as being a problem.

2. God commands us all to forgive for a number of reasons. But God DOES NOT forgive everyone Himself! Vengeance is His! So this is the ultimate and highest standard of goodness, ultimately. But it’s God’s role, not ours, at this point in time. So in reality I do not see the contradiction you see. I think you are conflating a temporary condition meant for here and now with the ultimate form goodness takes in God Himself.

4. But because we do indeed have a God given conscience, I think it only natural that we try to make a determination with others as to whether or not they should be given mercy or not (or as you put it, whether or not they “deserve” mercy). We innately understand that this is a “good” thing, precisely because it is good. What we do NOT innately understand is that we suck at this and shouldn’t be doing it at all in our present form. (I make an exception to societal legal justice, which will get it wrong a lot and is not a final judgement of a person. But there is no choice but for it to exist in all its imperfections.)

>>> While it may not be your intention to make this argument, it feels to me that semantically you are; that “influence” and “merit” really aren’t any different

This is a wording issue. Note what I said above: “whether or not they “deserve” mercy.” Can mercy be “deserved?” no, it can’t… or maybe it can…

As it turns out, it all depends on how you define “deserved!” Technically speaking “mercy” can NEVER be “deserved.” I think we all understand this. But in a weird, but common use of the word “deserved” we do understand that mercy can in fact be “right” or “wrong” and thus “deserved” or “not deserved.”

This is the mistake I believe you are making with my parable. Legally speaking having the boy receive the punishment for his crime was certainly “fair” in that it was “just.” And it was certainly “mercy” and thus “undeserved” that he got off… but YES in *in a sense* of the word “deserved” mercy can be “deserved” and this is what I believe is throwing you off.

But please note, and this is really really important, that in *that limited sense of the word “deserved”* all Christians believe that salvation has to be “deserved” because at a minimum all Christians understand that God will only do something that is right and good. (And also because God keeps his promises.) But again, this isn’t really techincally the right way to use the word “deserved.” Furthermore, we need to not equivocate. The word deserved must be applied to my parable only in the way we apply it to salvation. We can’t use one sense of the word “deserved” in my parable and then a different sense of the word when talking about salvation.

>>> Lastly, you may not feel that penitence is merit, but I would argue that in a sense it is. It is merit in that it reflects the likelihood of repeat offense, which is certainly consistent with the Mormon concept of repentance, that we have not truly repented until we have also forsaken the sin.

This is a similar word issue as above, but this time with “merit.” I don’t have time to explain fully, but I believe you are equivocating here too. Yes, “influence” might indeed be termed “merit” in a non-standard sense of the words… but in that very same sense all Christians do in fact believe they can “merit” salvation… so the point is moot.

Maybe this a reflection of the natural man that King Benjamin warns us about? While it may be innate to us as humans, it certainly seems to me as not in line with what I have been taught in church and the scriptures, that we should forgive independently of the actions or penitence given by those who have sinned against us. One could consider this idea (of forgiveness being good when the person has changed) as mere justification for our not forgiving the non-penitent. Which is why I find it difficult to apply to God’s grace and mercy, for the scriptures would indicate that His judgments and mercy are not ours.

“I completely disagree. I believe I’m saying nothing even close to this. i.e. “Did the repentant teen “deserve” the mercy the judge showed him? Of course not. Mercy is never deserved by very definition. This teen was pronounced “not guilty” by a judge due to no merit on his part.””

and

“If what you were saying was true, then the reverse shouldn’t be true. If this same boy was indeed extended no mercy and was given the ticket still, would that be “unfair” in your view? Not in mine. This was undeserved mercy then.”

While it may not be your intention to make this argument, it feels to me that semantically you are; that “influence” and “merit” really aren’t any different. Particularly when you argue the innateness of our feeling that forgiveness is a good thing when someone is penitent. Would we really feel it was “fair” if the penitent teen in your parable got the maximum fine and points on his license, or would we feel angry at the judge for not recognizing an honest error and penitence for that error? While you may not feel this way, and believe it is “fair” for him to get the maximum possible punishment, my friends and family would say, as do I, that it isn’t.

Also, I don’t think I know anyone personally who would feel that the judge was being “fair” if he granted mercy to the scofflaw by finding him not-guilty and made the penitent pay a fine/points. It would offend our innate sense of fairness, and we would think the judge capricious and arbitrary. Which is why we find the Calvinistic Evangelical theology of grace so difficult.

Lastly, you may not feel that penitence is merit, but I would argue that in a sense it is. It is merit in that it reflects the likelihood of repeat offense, which is certainly consistent with the Mormon concept of repentance, that we have not truly repented until we have also forsaken the sin.

This is why I struggle with the whole concept of grace and mercy, because I do agree with you that we have some innate sense of fairness, but that I often find that sense of fairness to be contradictory to the teachings of Christ, at least with regards to how we are to treat our fellow man. And if that innate sense is contradictory, can I apply my feelings of fairness to God’s final judgment and reward? If I can, then I should be able to apply this sense of fairness to my actions towards my fellow beings, and be justified in not forgiving the non-penitent. And if I can’t then I need some other construct to understand God’s mercy. Yes, it is circular reasoning, and maybe some day I’ll find a personally satisfactory answer to break the circle.

Actually, I do have to agree with you that for a strongly Calvinistic Evangelical (they tend to be the more vocal ones) that this parable does fail. After talking with some at length, I’m quite convinced that they believe that if God makes his decision based on repentance then this means “merit” and thus they are convinced the only non-merit way for God to make a decision is arbitarily and capriciously.

But that is just one type of Christian, not all.

I think pop culture (like maybe TV or movies) does in fact reflect the idea that forgiveness, personal forgiveness in any case, is a good thing particularly when we feel certain the person has changed. So yes, I think this seems to be a non-Mormon point of view as well. This is almost a cliche in storytelling because it’s so universal.

>>> It seems to me that in either case you are arguing that the recipient is somehow deserving…

I completely disagree. I believe I’m saying nothing even close to this. i.e. “Did the repentant teen “deserve” the mercy the judge showed him? Of course not. Mercy is never deserved by very definition. This teen was pronounced “not guilty” by a judge due to no merit on his part.”

>>> In this parable, as with most laws in the US justice system, there is no law that that mandates a punishment for this crime, it is within the judges discretion as to what the punishment will be. He balances the facts (of which penitence is one) and renders a decision that he believes to be fair. He can choose to be lenient, or he can choose to be harsh, but his decision ultimately is made from the facts at hand.

If what you were saying was true, then the reverse shouldn’t be true. If this same boy was indeed extended no mercy and was given the ticket still, would that be “unfair” in your view? Not in mine. This was undeserved mercy then.

This parable doesn’t necessarily fail for evangelicals or mainliners, but may; This depends on how much theology leans toward Arminian-Wesleyan or Calvinist theology. Wesleyan-Arminian belief postures that God’s Grace enables Mankind to elevate just enough above its sinful, depraved and separated nature to respond through free will to God’s drawing of His Elect. Therefore, God makes mankind’s free choice a necessary delimiter to His Sovereignty — part of His plan. On the other spectrum is Calvinist leaning, of which there are several flavors, which places God’s Sovereignty penultimate, and hence He affirmatively saves or damns as He predestinates in order to accomplish His will and Glory. The rub is where the theology sublimates Jesus’ ultimate atonement for all because it is, therefore, extended (and intended) only to God’s predestined Elect. (This last point is the major sticky wicket dividing Five Points and Four Points Calvinists.)

But as in any theological act to constrain scripture to complete rational and philosophical subservience, it tends to bifurcate positions to radical poles. Any “random capriciousness” that Mormons may perceive in Christian doctrines of the Elect is usually doctrine that falls more toward the Calvinist pole, and only tends to “make sense” to Christians with a Calvinist/Reformed bent. Those Christians who lean Arminian-Wesleyan naturally think human will can submit itself to God’s Will, and in doing so saving Grace is enabled. It is also a metter of the emotional attraction to the scriptural teaching that Christ’s atonement is for all, and God desires all of mankind to be saved (even though He knows many may not). The Christian’s faith doesn’t bind God, nor “influence” per se, but enables the beginning of mutual transformation in Christ that begins with His drawing unto those for whom he foreknows will accept Him. (The most extreme of such is Nazarene churches which become seen as very “merit-oriented” because they subscribe strictly to a “continued faith, continued holiness” theology that postures if someone can sin themselves away from salvation, once gifted, then it procedes that one can “earn” their way into salvation by strict observance to holiness practices.)

Most Protestant Christians, especially evangelicals, embrace a theology that attempts to reconcile what is seen as the most scripturally sound, beneficial, enabling and pragmatic factors of each of these poles, and such “compromised” theology doesn’t always divide cleanly along denominational lines. Therefore, Mormons will usually feel a little less alien to theology embraced by such Christians.

Do we really innately understand this, or does it reflect our Mormon theology of the importance of works?

“This example proves that what we do, specifically repentance, can indeed influence the outcome of a judgment. But that “influence” should not be mistaken for “merit.””

Once we have influenced a judgment can we really say that mercy was extended, particularly if we are going to use this parable in any way to relate to God’s grace (mercy)? And how do you separate “influence” from “merit”? It seems to me that in either case you are arguing that the recipient is somehow deserving – either of mercy for the penitent or full punishment for the scofflaw. And once we judge someone as being “deserving” then isn’t that just a function of the balances of justice.

In this parable, as with most laws in the US justice system, there is no law that that mandates a punishment for this crime, it is within the judges discretion as to what the punishment will be. He balances the facts (of which penitence is one) and renders a decision that he believes to be fair. He can choose to be lenient, or he can choose to be harsh, but his decision ultimately is made from the facts at hand.

Unfortunately, the parable fails for evangelicals because their concept of grace (mercy) is fundamentally different in that penitent or not we cannot influence God in extending his mercy. For the evangelicals I know and have discussed this with, grace is not at all contingent on the facts at hand, as it is with the judge in the parable (or in Mormon theology). Grace is granted based only upon God’s will. Seems random and capricious to Mormons, but makes sense to them.

Be that as it may, when I think of Bible scriptures to show that Baptism was anciently how the Bible authors saw one as accepting Christ, I actually don’t think of John 3. John 3 never actually mentions baptism by name and the Evangelical Christians have some very clever ways to re-interpret it so that it doesn’t mean baptism. So I gave up on that scripture a long time ago even though I still very much believe it was talking about baptism.

I was thinking of more of the general assumption from the Bible authors that there simply was no such thing as a living “unbaptized Christian.” Like Romans 6:3 and a lot of others. If you’re a Christian, you were baptized. There was never never a hint of an exception to this amongst the New Testament authors (other than the over used thief on the cross, of course, which *at best* presents the Calvin exception that you don’t have to be baptized if you didn’t get a chance to but would have.)

The New Testament authors’ assumption of baptism matches well with how you and Luther seem to understand baptism, but it flies in the face of the doctrines of a great number of Christians I’ve talked to.

As per my previous post, I think the issue here is not necessarily whether the LDS person would see baptism as ‘salvific’ or not, but how they might define that or a related term differently from non-Mormon Christians. Again, if there is a difference between the Luther view and what I understand as the Mormon view, I absolutely have no idea what it is and would be very interested in someone explaining it to me. To me Luther’s view is in fact ‘salvific’ in the way I understand the term ‘salvific.’

Indeed, I see Calvin’s view on baptism as being ‘salvific’ in the way I think of that term. It really isn’t until modern Christianity that you really start to see sects that treat baptism so lightly that I stop seeing it as ‘salvific’ in the way I think of that term.

I think that when you say ‘salvific’ you might be thinking of an act that creates redemption through that act itself (sort of the way I understand my Calvinistic friend’s view of “getting saved”) and if this is how you think of it then I would agree with you that Luther did not believe baptism to be ‘salvific’ but then I also don’t believe Mormons do either. Do you see my point? I both believe baptism is salvific and not salvific depending on how you define the term.

That’s why I see your statement “I’ve found some do, but most don’t” as basically meaningless. The odds that you presented the situation in such a way that all the Mormons understood you in the same way that you meant it are probably slim to none. And I suspect that if I had been present, that “most” would have quickly admited Baptism is “not salvific” if I posed the question in a different way.

JFQ said: “Are you referring to Mere Christianity where he argued that the Christian becomes completely humble, reliant and accepting of God’s Grace — indeed possesses saving faith — after they give up in despair after trying to save themselves, as it were, through a life of merit-based living?”

Yes, this is what I’m refering to, except that I apparently understood it somewhat differently than you did. Specifically, I do not read into Lewis that one must reach a point of despair (though often people will) to be able to comprehend real faith. I also did not read into him that this faith is ‘saving faith’ and that all faith prior to that is ‘non-saving faith.’

JFQ said: “Though your quote here from Luther about baptism being God’s Work, not our merits-based works, is a very good one, from my readings of Luther it appears he believed strongly that baptism is not a salvific ordinance, yet baptism is such an integral and symbolic initiatory rite to the Body of Christ that for one to reject it would call into question whether the potential initiate truly had saving faith in Christ. Now this position could be taken to extreme, but in general I think it seems a scripturally sound one. (I believe baptism is a valuable rite though not salvific of its own.) I think it should just never be misconstrued that Luther believed that sacraments or ordinances are salvific ”

JFQ, it’s hard to express myself through words, so bear with me until we come to a meeting of the minds. I believe what I am saying is that while Mormons would call baptism “salvific” that shouldn’t mean much to a non-Mormon Christian because Mormons would call Luther’s view of baptism “salvific” too (even if Luther wouldn’t use that term.)

I do not personally see any difference, expect in what words are chosen, in the Mormon view of saving ordinances and Luther’s view. I think the underlying ideas are pretty much identitical, personally. At least to the way I undertand both.

To put it the other way, if a Christian that is not a Mormon were to look at the way Mormons actually view baptism, I’m not so sure that non-Mormon Christians would call the Mormon view of baptism “salvific” either. (Assuming we’re talking about the most intelligent interpretations of the Mormons vs. the less thought out interpretations of individual lay members that haven’t studied it much… but *that would be true of absolutely ANY demonination* so I think that is a fair test)

I will have to read the rest of what you said later. Got to run.

There are a few things I wish to say:
1) Luther’s thoughts on baptism. Though you likely didn’t intend, that wasn’t a thorough summary of Luther’s thoughts considering baptism or even the topic of ordinances. Based on Calvinists I have met, and what I have studied of Four Points and Five Points Calvinism, I think the statement “I would think this argument sufficient for most Christians to realize that the argument that Mormons believe their ordinances are merit for works is null and void lest they throw Luther to hell with us,” is a little strong and not accurate. But I couldn’t say that summarily since I cannot speak for Calvinism, with which I disagree in its more extreme incarnations.

Though your quote here from Luther about baptism being God’s Work, not our merits-based works, is a very good one, from my readings of Luther it appears he believed strongly that baptism is not a salvific ordinance, yet baptism is such an integral and symbolic initiatory rite to the Body of Christ that for one to reject it would call into question whether the potential initiate truly had saving faith in Christ. Now this position could be taken to extreme, but in general I think it seems a scripturally sound one. (I believe baptism is a valuable rite though not salvific of its own.) I think it should just never be misconstrued that Luther believed that sacraments or ordinances are salvific — they are part of the liturgy of Christian faith experience — yet I don’t think that is the point that you were making. If I understand correctly you were saying that those who even reject this moderate Lutheran position still find ways to “liturgize” the profession of faith and initiation into the Body. I think this is true, but speaks more to the deep human need for mystical ceremony rather than to doctrinal necessity.

2) The scriptural imperative for baptism (or even extra-biblical ordinances, sacraments or rites). It is a bit problematic, in my opinion, to follow from the reading of John 3 that baptism is a necessary ordinance for salvation. (This is the most common biblical LDS citation in my experience.) Not only does Jesus speak obliquely of the topic of baptism — moving right into greater volume of teaching about the necessary issue of spiritual rebirth with Nicodemus — but in my opinion the crux revolves on the interpretation of the Kingdom of God / Reign of God. While words credited to Jesus on the topic of the Kingdom often are interpreted soteriologically (post mortal salvation and heaven), in more cases I think the subject of the Kingdom is a very foundational statement about God’s Reign in the here and now, and what one does to belong and grow within that Kingdom.

I think this is generally more sound, because Jesus obviously began with initiating a here-and-now spiritual transformation, not merely asking His Children to bide time till the afterlife. It appears certain from the Bible that this earth will not be completely transformed to God’s Kingdom without first His Second Coming, and it certainly is not “bad”, per se, to take after-life soteriological readings from Jesus’ teachings about the Kingdom. However, those Christians who view baptism as a valuable, symbolic and necessary rite of induction as Christian into the Body — the here-and-now Reign of God — and do not interpret an after-life soteriological efficacy to the rite are quite sound in scriptural backing for such a position, in my opinion. Yet I am apt to not agree with those who reject baptism outright, even if it is “just an initiation rite” because it is clear from the NT that believers considered this an important step into Christianity. I don’t necessarily oppose ceremony and liturgy that even steps beyond baptism. Here I think Luther’s cautionary position, among others, helps us keep the non-salvific nature of such in perspective. Is this a “limit” which LDS are willing to place on the ordinances they consider necessary? (I’ve found some do, but most don’t.)

3) Thoughts about C.S. Lewis. You said, “I’m going to partially challenge you on this. Obviously, strictly speaking, you are right that we must eventually comprehend our total dependence on God’s grace (you said mercy). But can anyone really do that without a lot of santification and real life experience first? I agree with C.S. Lewis that it’s impossible.” You are correct: mercy is a part of Grace, and I should have said Grace. I said mercy merely to stay consistent with wording for your parable.

Regarding C.S. Lewis, he is certainly a writer who I respect. Are you referring to Mere Christianity where he argued that the Christian becomes completely humble, reliant and accepting of God’s Grace — indeed possesses saving faith — after they give up in despair after trying to save themselves, as it were, through a life of merit-based living? Where it is only after we realize that we’ve tried to do it all that it isn’t enough, and then we submit and accept this Gift? If so, I agree that this can be often true. It certainly was true for Lewis’ life experience. Yet I think we shouldn’t go so far as to think that good work (and possibly despair) is required before having saving faith. Scripture gives us counter examples to show it can happen in other ways, too.

I believe that sanctification is a manifestation of God working through mankind to transform His into who He wants them to become. Where sanctification exists, is a demonstration of the good fruits of the synergy of Grace sparking thru saving faith. Where good deeds lead us to building faith I think we should not call this “sanctification” as this would imply that sanctification could be accomplished merely through our own efforts. Even with good intentions on our part, scripture is clear that we become righteous in Him because, even minimally, we have accepted in faith God’s testament in Nature. Sometimes it is a more conscious response to His drawing unto all who will accept unto Him. Either way, I think the emphasis should always be on Glory to God, not on our own merit. First it is scriptural: we are lost, sinful and separated even when living as our best selves were it not for Him. Second, it is empowering and hopeful to even the most lost of sinners to accept that a “checklist” of behavior isn’t first “required” to be drawn and transformed in Him. That is a scary step — sometimes an “unfair doctrine” — for we humans, prone to raising ourselves above others who we think are more lost and sinful than us. Third, fully embraced, Grace is the only humbling and empowering doctrine to ultimately help all us Christians — traditional and LDS — to build a Christian fellowship.

I love it. Good thoughts. (Out outside the scope of this parable, however.)

I really think the main problem we have in this argument with evangelicals is more in the area of earning and deserving, which we can never do. We can only supplicate and be willing. THEY get that part of it, but a lot of US don’t seem to. But part of the offering we make (along with the broken heart, etc.) is our best effort at obedience. That’s the part most of US get and THEY have trouble with.

What would the story be like if the young man had quite willfully and knowingly broken the law, but was now penitent before the judge? I don’t think most people have any issues with a rather easy mercy being extended for honest mistakes. What we struggle with more is forgiving acts done with malicious intent, even when repentance afterward is genuine. Even harder are the situations where no reticence at all is displayed (see the April 23 post by Stephen Wellington).

I really like that story. I hope you dont mind if I save it for a sacrament talk one day.

Cheers.