Why Packer's Parable Doesn't Work

[Sargon]

Thanks for all your replies to my initial inquiry. Some of you have given me good things to think about.

James

[Chris Smith]

Hmmm, if this is indeed an answer you would get it is flawed. Christ did not ultimatly give anything up in terms of power or authority or wealth or even his phsyical body.

You don't think it was a demotion to go from Jehovah, God of the Old Testament to Jesus, illegitimate son of Joshua of Nazareth?

[Thunderfire]

Your thoughts appreciated.

It would be nice to know the group Mr. Packer was speaking too. It is easy to see he is giving "milk" with this parable instead of "meat". Meaning, this "parable" would be perfect for a group of children, less so with a group of intellectuals who know the scriptures. But then, can we find scripture stories offering the same message making this parable unneeded? Here is one part of his account that I took exception with:

[cinepro]

Just so I'm clear, what is stopping Jesus from making "exaltation" a free gift for everyone after he paid the price for everyone's sins (ala resurrection)?

I can understand some universal form of "justice" making it impossible for God to absolve us of our sins, but once Christ has paid, why would there be a universal form of "justice" that then steps in to govern the new arrangement? Is it just because Jesus doesn't want to?

[mercyngrace]

Just so I'm clear, what is stopping Jesus from making "exaltation" a free gift for everyone after he paid the price for everyone's sins (ala resurrection)?

I can understand some universal form of "justice" making it impossible for God to absolve us of our sins, but once Christ has paid, why would there be a universal form of "justice" that then steps in to govern the new arrangement? Is it just because Jesus doesn't want to?

The path to exaltation is to become saviors of men. How did Christ do it? (and I don't mean the garden and the cross)

[Sargon]

Just so I'm clear, what is stopping Jesus from making "exaltation" a free gift for everyone after he paid the price for everyone's sins (ala resurrection)?

I can understand some universal form of "justice" making it impossible for God to absolve us of our sins, but once Christ has paid, why would there be a universal form of "justice" that then steps in to govern the new arrangement? Is it just because Jesus doesn't want to?

Let's get even more extreme. Suppose someone couldn't keep the terms of the contract they've made with Jesus. Could a second mediator step in?

[CV75]

Just so I'm clear, what is stopping Jesus from making "exaltation" a free gift for everyone after he paid the price for everyone's sins (ala resurrection)?

I can understand some universal form of "justice" making it impossible for God to absolve us of our sins, but once Christ has paid, why would there be a universal form of "justice" that then steps in to govern the new arrangement? Is it just because Jesus doesn't want to?

Nothing stops Jesus from making "exaltation" a free gift for everyone after he paid the price for everyone's sins; this is a given. But individuals may refuse the free gift even after He paid the price for everyone's sins.

[consiglieri]

My recommendation would be to modify it or repudiate it.

God knows I'm trying my hardest.

[Calm]

I'd take it back even further and ask how, exactly, suffering on the part of the guilty erases the debt. Our institutional practice operates as if this is the case (executing bad guys, which I'm not against), but it isn't clear to me how suffering actually counts as a payment of any sort. If you steal an apple, and I cut off your hand for it, I'm still short one apple. The debt hasn't been paid.

If the suffering is based on how much pain and damage one caused others and not something only 'equivalent' in amount of pain and suffering, I think experiencing the more or less identical pain that one's victims did is the only real way to bring about understanding what the conseqences of our sins are for others.

What Christ did was to actually suffer all that pain and in some way if we accept his Atonement for us, I believe he can teach us those consequences without us having to directly experience them as he did.

It is similar to the idea of an eye for an eye, the need to experience what damage we've caused others, but takes it to a spiritual and emotional level as well as physical. This makes sense to me since I think we can only truly repent if we fully understand what our actions resulted in and feel not only remorse, but a desire to heal....whcih Chirst has provided us.

PS: hope this makes sense, I am typing this without glasses and don't care enough to prooftext it today as I doing this to distract me from a particularly nasty flu.

[consiglieri]

Let's get even more extreme. Suppose someone couldn't keep the terms of the contract they've made with Jesus. Could a second mediator step in?

Here is where I get mildly ticked off at the use (abuse?) of this parable; as happened in our priesthood group last Sunday when the obligatory tag-line was offered by the instructor at the end, "And all that Jesus asks is that we keep the commandments."

But wait a second! Isn't that what got us into trouble in the first place?

What Jesus asks of us must perforce be something different than what the original creditor asked of us, or the parable is pointless.

In fact, this is exactly what the current manual says immediately after the parable:

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.

This is the single biggest problem I have with this parable.

I repudiate it.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Lightbearer]

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.

This is the single biggest problem I have with this parable.

I repudiate it.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Then you do not repudiate just this parable, but the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Do you also repudiate the following? :

(D&C 14:7) "And, if you keep my commandments and endure to the end you shall have eternal life, which gift is the greatest of all the gifts of God."

[Jason]

Just so I'm clear, what is stopping Jesus from making "exaltation" a free gift for everyone after he paid the price for everyone's sins (ala resurrection)?

I can understand some universal form of "justice" making it impossible for God to absolve us of our sins, but once Christ has paid, why would there be a universal form of "justice" that then steps in to govern the new arrangement? Is it just because Jesus doesn't want to?

Because exaltation can't be given as a free gift - not only does it require us not to do things (avoid sin), but it also requires us to do things (i.e. love our neighbor as ourself). Without this active component we cannot be exalted. With Jesus' help and our own utmost efforts we can.

It's akin to earning a degree. Yes we won't earn a degree if we miss too many classes, but we also won't earn our degree if we don't learn to pass the tests.

[Jason]

What Jesus asks of us must perforce be something different than what the original creditor asked of us, or the parable is pointless.

And it is. He does not require absolute perfection from us, and has allowed us to use repentence to correct our errors. Without the atonement there would be no repentence.

[Vance]

In fact, this is exactly what the current manual says immediately after the parable:

This is the single biggest problem I have with this parable.

I repudiate it.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Perhaps you should consider becoming a "Cheap Grace" Evangelical.

[mercyngrace]

Just so I'm clear, what is stopping Jesus from making "exaltation" a free gift for everyone after he paid the price for everyone's sins (ala resurrection)?

Is exaltation's Christ's gift to give?

Each member of the Godhead has a specific role in the completion of God's work. Maybe the HG sanctifies, Christ justifies, and the Father exalts.

[consiglieri]

Perhaps you should consider becoming a "Cheap Grace" Evangelical.

I consider myself a "saved by grace" Mormon.

Seriously, though, the only logically consistent analyses of the issue of salvation is that we are either saved by obedience or saved by grace.

Mixing the two is like mixing oil and water.

It just doesn't work, intellectually speaking.

Because of this, I have come to the tentative conclusion that the atonement is not something that can be understood by the head, but only by the heart . . . Littlefoot.

(Okay, I couldn't resist that last, but that pretty much sums it up.)

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Sargon]

I consider myself a "saved by grace" Mormon.

Seriously, though, the only logically consistent analyses of the issue of salvation is that we are either saved by obedience or saved by grace.

Mixing the two is like mixing oil and water.

It just doesn't work, intellectually speaking.

Because of this, I have come to the tentative conclusion that the atonement is not something that can be understood by the head, but only by the heart . . . Littlefoot.

(Okay, I couldn't resist that last, but that pretty much sums it up.)

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Uh-oh. There goes the thread.

[Ahab]

I consider myself a "saved by grace" Mormon.

Seriously, though, the only logically consistent analyses of the issue of salvation is that we are either saved by obedience or saved by grace.

Mixing the two is like mixing oil and water.

It just doesn't work, intellectually speaking.

So if someone thinks they both work in harmony, you write that person off as not being intellectual enough to understand that they really don't work in harmony?

I believe we must be obedient before God will apply his grace, through his mercy, to atone for our sins. That doesn't mean I believe it is our obedience that saves us, though. Our obedience is simply the JUST means for determining when and if God's grace should be applied to our sins, otherwise there would be nothing to use to justly determine if and when grace should be applied.

Rather than using a simple bicycle in an analogy to express how the atonement works, maybe it would work best if we used a motorized bicycle (or motorcycle) which utilizes both oil and water while explaining what both the water and oil symbolize.

[Vance]

Seriously, though, the only logically consistent analyses of the issue of salvation is that we are either saved by obedience or saved by grace.

Mixing the two is like mixing oil and water.

Like that delicious Italian dressing? That seems to work just fine. It looks like you are going for the "grace" verses " obedience" false dichotomy. How sad

It just doesn't work, intellectually speaking.

Ever learning and never able . . . . perhaps?

Because of this, I have come to the tentative conclusion that the atonement is not something that can be understood by the head, but only by the heart Spirit . . . Littlefoot.

(Okay, I couldn't resist that last, but that pretty much sums it up.)

Neither could I.

PS.

Maybe a little "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, . . . ", perhaps

[WalkerW]

There is a thread started by volgadon that addresses 'grace'. Grace was part of a reciprocal system. It was a relationship that was maintained, not earnings or employment. This fits the context of kinship and patronage. We are absolutely saved by grace. But grace inherently includes works.

From my blog:

The cultural context of the New Testament (and therefore 'faith' and 'grace') is one of patronage: "The world of the authors and readers of the New Testament...was one in which the personal patronage was the essential means of acquiring access to goods, protection or opportunities of employment and advancement

[WalkerW]

Sorry for the length. The actual blog post is much longer.

[De Groote]

Does Christ pay our debt or accept our punishment?

the only logically consistent analysis of the issue of salvation is that we are either saved by obedience or saved by grace.

Is light a particle or a wave?

Sometimes the particle analogy works. Sometimes the wave analogy works. Light just won't cooperate with "logically consistent analysis."

The one thread that I find strongest in President Packer's parable is the love of the friend who paid the debt. His love saved the man and his love will continue to transform him. The debt always appeared to me to be the gap between what we are and what we can become. When the man worked together with the creditor he would never become what he could be. When the man works together in partnership with the friend (Savior), all things are possible:

For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord (Romans 8:38-39).

and

no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand (John 10:29)

[wenglund]

Regarding the title of the thread, I printed Elder Packer's parable out on a sheet of typing paper, and crumpled it up into a ball so as to use it as a bookend. It didn't work. The books didn't stay in place, which was a bit frustrating. So, clearly there is at least one demonstrable way that Pres. Packer's parable doesn't work. But, as intimated earlier in the thread, I am not sure the parable was intended to work in every conceivable way, or even in the ways that it has now been found to not work.

However, it seems to work reasonably well in the limited way it was intended.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Sargon]

Later today I'll be purchasing "Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision" by NT Wright. I hope it will be illuminating.

[WalkerW]

Later today I'll be purchasing "Justification: God's Plan and Paul's Vision" by NT Wright. I hope it will be illuminating.

It was helpful to me. If I remember correctly, he sees "works of the law" as Jewish badges: things that culturally distinguished them from others. James Dunn has written on this as well.