Mercy V Justice

[HappyJackWagon]

Even Peter and Paul had this classic argument. It is at the core of the Faith versus works debate. Here's my question.

The atonement is necessary because Mercy cannot rob Justice. So it is said that an atonement is necessary for God to express His mercy while allowing for justice. Thus Jesus paid the price of Justice so He could extend Mercy.

Is it really mercy if a price is paid or would mercy, by definition, require forgiveness of that price?

Put another way, if I walk into a store and my wife purchases a shirt for me, would we say that the store gave me the shirt or would we say that the shirt was purchased? I'm considering the atonement in the same way. If Christ paid for my sins so that I would be justified in returning to God, would we say God is extending mercy, or is he simply accepting the required payment?

Does justice outweigh mercy in LDS theology?

[Duncan]

Paging Bluebell!

[stemelbow]

Even Peter and Paul had this classic argument. It is at the core of the Faith versus works debate. Here's my question.

The atonement is necessary because Mercy cannot rob Justice. So it is said that an atonement is necessary for God to express His mercy while allowing for justice. Thus Jesus paid the price of Justice so He could extend Mercy.

Is it really mercy if a price is paid or would mercy, by definition, require forgiveness of that price?

Put another way, if I walk into a store and my wife purchases a shirt for me, would we say that the store gave me the shirt or would we say that the shirt was purchased? I'm considering the atonement in the same way. If Christ paid for my sins so that I would be justified in returning to God, would we say God is extending mercy, or is he simply accepting the required payment?

Does justice outweigh mercy in LDS theology?

I see it more as, instead of your wife buying your shirt, which is really just you buying it since you share moneys, a stranger buys it. The mercy is in the stranger getting a shirt to cover your toplessness--and that's merciful to you because you have become flabby, spotted, extra hairy and stuff.

The stranger buys it because he's embarrassed for you.

[Mystery Meat]

I think to frame your question more aptly, you need to change your analogy. 

 

if I walk into a store and steal a shirt and when I am caught for my crime, my wife intercedes and pays the purchase price of the shirt for me, would we say that the store gave me the shirt or would we say that the shirt was purchased?

 

The difference may be subtle, but it is important.

Edited April 30, 2015 by lvjd66

[thesometimesaint]

Justice for thee. Mercy for me.

[ksfisher]

What it seems you are really asking about is how the atonement works.  Blake Ostler does a very good job of explaining some basic principles in this paper:

 

http://blakeostler.com/docs/AtonementInMormonThought.pdf

 

I would try and summarize it but I'm afraid I wouldn't do a very good job in the time I have. 

Edited April 30, 2015 by ksfisher

[JLHPROF]

Even Peter and Paul had this classic argument. It is at the core of the Faith versus works debate. Here's my question.

The atonement is necessary because Mercy cannot rob Justice. So it is said that an atonement is necessary for God to express His mercy while allowing for justice. Thus Jesus paid the price of Justice so He could extend Mercy.

Is it really mercy if a price is paid or would mercy, by definition, require forgiveness of that price?

Put another way, if I walk into a store and my wife purchases a shirt for me, would we say that the store gave me the shirt or would we say that the shirt was purchased? I'm considering the atonement in the same way. If Christ paid for my sins so that I would be justified in returning to God, would we say God is extending mercy, or is he simply accepting the required payment?

Does justice outweigh mercy in LDS theology?

 

One flaw here is that God accepted the required payment.

The payment satisfies the demands of law, not the demands of God.  We cannot understand the atonement until we recognize that God is the keeper, enforcer, and revealer of laws, but that the laws exist independently.  He did not create the laws.

 

When a sin is committed the price is death.

Christ pays for our sins through his death contingent upon our accepting his conditions.  This is the mercy offered to us.

If we do not allow Christ to pay for our sins we must pay for them ourselves (technically impossible really).  This is the justice.

The penalty for breaking the law must be paid as justice.  Christ paying it instead of us is merciful.

 

Christ paid the penalty.  Law has been satisfied.  That is why eventually every knee will bow and every tongue confess Christ and all will be resurrected instead of remaining dead.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

One flaw here is that God accepted the required payment.

The payment satisfies the demands of law, not the demands of God.  We cannot understand the atonement until we recognize that God is the keeper, enforcer, and revealer of laws, but that the laws exist independently.  He did not create the laws.

 

When a sin is committed the price is death.

Christ pays for our sins through his death contingent upon our accepting his conditions.  This is the mercy offered to us.

If we do not allow Christ to pay for our sins we must pay for them ourselves (technically impossible really).  This is the justice.

The penalty for breaking the law must be paid as justice.  Christ paying it instead of us is merciful.

 

Christ paid the penalty.  Law has been satisfied.  That is why eventually every knee will bow and every tongue confess Christ and all will be resurrected instead of remaining dead.

JLHPROF, I always enjoy your thoughtful responses. And thanks others for your comments as well.

I understand where you're coming from with your line of reasoning that God doesn't create the law but I'm having a hard time accepting that as anything but a diminishing of his Goodhood. He becomes more of a middle manager between us and the ultimate power that creates law.

It sounds to me, from your discription that satisfying justice is the most important principle. There must be justice, even if that justice means death. The mercy comes from God providing a way, through Christ, to escape that personal justice to the laws that God himself is beholden to.

This of course leads to the concept that if death is the payment for sin, we each could suffer for our own sins to fulfill the demand of justice. The atonement offers Christ to take this burden from us, but we could fill it personally on an individual basis as well.

Or am I misconstruing your comments?

[JLHPROF]

I understand where you're coming from with your line of reasoning that God doesn't create the law but I'm having a hard time accepting that as anything but a diminishing of his Goodhood. He becomes more of a middle manager between us and the ultimate power that creates law.

 

 

Why?  Perhaps we should look at the definition of God.

And NO power creates law.  It is eternally self existent.  Gods become Gods by following it.  Just as to become an Elder you are required to follow the laws pertaining to worthiness and ordination.

 

 

It sounds to me, from your discription that satisfying justice is the most important principle. There must be justice, even if that justice means death. The mercy comes from God providing a way, through Christ, to escape that personal justice to the laws that God himself is beholden to.

This of course leads to the concept that if death is the payment for sin, we each could suffer for our own sins to fulfill the demand of justice. The atonement offers Christ to take this burden from us, but we could fill it personally on an individual basis as well.

Or am I misconstruing your comments?

 

I wouldn't say satisfying justice is "the most important".  If that were the case the atonement would take a back seat.  But without the requirement of justice there would be no need for the atonement or our Savior.

 

Personally I don't believe we have the capability to pay for all the sins we commit.  But scripture is clear on this principle:

 

D&C 19:16 For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent;

17 But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;

18 Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink—

 

If we don't turn our sins over to Christ (accept of his mercy) then the price remains on our heads until we are forced to accept Christ (every knee shall bow and every tongue confess) and then receive a much lesser, probably Telestial, resurrection which we know includes the suffering of hell.

[Brian 2.0]

 

Personally I don't believe we have the capability to pay for all the sins we commit.  But scripture is clear on this principle:

 

D&C 19:16 For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent;

17 But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;

18 Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink—

 

If we don't turn our sins over to Christ (accept of his mercy) then the price remains on our heads until we are forced to accept Christ (every knee shall bow and every tongue confess) and then receive a much lesser, probably Telestial, resurrection which we know includes the suffering of hell.

 

Interesting.  I have always understood D&C 19 to say that those that will not accept Christ as their Savior will suffer the demands to justice for their sins.  And that punishment is finite.  Their bowing of the knee is acknowledgement that Jesus is the Christ but it is not having the atonement pay for their sins.  And I don't think "forced" confession could constitute a testimony of Jesus and receive his atonement.  Did you mean "until we CHOOSE to accept Christ"?

 

From lds.org

Telestial glory will be reserved for individuals who “received not the gospel of Christ, neither the testimony of Jesus” (D&C 76:82). These individuals will receive their glory after being redeemed from spirit prison, which is sometimes called hell (see D&C 76:84, D&C 76:106)

 

 

Are you saying that those people in the telestial kingdom did in fact receive the gospel of Christ and the testimony of Jesus at some point?  

Edited April 30, 2015 by Brian 2.0

[JLHPROF]

Interesting.  I have always understood D&C 19 to say that those that will not accept Christ as their Savior will suffer the demands to justice for their sins.  And that punishment is finite.  Their bowing of the knee is acknowledgement that Jesus is the Christ but it is not having the atonement pay for their sins.  And I don't think "forced" confession could constitute a testimony of Jesus and receive his atonement.  Did you mean "until we CHOOSE to accept Christ"?

 

From lds.org

 

Are you saying that those people in the telestial kingdom did in fact receive the gospel of Christ and the testimony of Jesus at some point?  

 

I may be wrong, and am open to correction, but follow my logic here:

 

1. Without Christ's atonement we would remain in the grave, therefore any resurrection is contingent on accepting Christ as Savior.

2. Those in the Telestial are in "hell" but yet are resurrected.  There is no reference to them willingly following Christ, but all will bow the knee and confess that he is the Christ.  That is required to be resurrected which they are.

3. So the fact they receive a resurrection means the accept Christ at the most basic level, even if they aren't willing to follow his commandments as those in the higher kingdoms do.

4. The Telestial is the suffering of hell.  But nobody pays the price for their own sins or else they would not receive a resurrection at all.  But they still have to suffer for them.

 

Perdition/Outer darkness is something else entirely.

[Brian 2.0]

I may be wrong, and am open to correction, but follow my logic here:

 

1. Without Christ's atonement we would remain in the grave, therefore any resurrection is contingent on accepting Christ as Savior.

I've always understood and read the resurrection is a completely free gift. No "accepting" required. Doesn't matter if you accept Christ or not. Even the sons of perdition get it.

 

2. Those in the Telestial are in "hell" but yet are resurrected.  There is no reference to them willingly following Christ, but all will bow the knee and confess that he is the Christ.  That is required to be resurrected which they are.

3. So the fact they receive a resurrection means the accept Christ at the most basic level, even if they aren't willing to follow his commandments as those in the higher kingdoms do.

4. The Telestial is the suffering of hell.  But nobody pays the price for their own sins or else they would not receive a resurrection at all.  But they still have to suffer for them.

 

Perdition/Outer darkness is something else entirely.

The rest of the points don't follow if #1 is incorrect so #1 should be our focus.

Edited April 30, 2015 by Brian 2.0

[Duncan]

Interesting.  I have always understood D&C 19 to say that those that will not accept Christ as their Savior will suffer the demands to justice for their sins.  And that punishment is finite.  Their bowing of the knee is acknowledgement that Jesus is the Christ but it is not having the atonement pay for their sins.  And I don't think "forced" confession could constitute a testimony of Jesus and receive his atonement.  Did you mean "until we CHOOSE to accept Christ"?

 

From lds.org

 

Are you saying that those people in the telestial kingdom did in fact receive the gospel of Christ and the testimony of Jesus at some point?  

 

 

that's my thinking as well, even though every knee will bow and confess doesn't mean that they've accepted him as their Saviour

[ksfisher]

I've always understood and read the resurrection is a completely free gift. No "accepting" required. Doesn't matter if you accept Christ or not. Even the sons of perdition get it.

 

 

 

Agree.

[Calm]

that's my thinking as well, even though every knee will bow and confess doesn't mean that they've accepted him as their Saviour

It always comes across to me as 'conqueror' language...

[Duncan]

It always comes across to me as 'conqueror' language...

 

 

yeah! 

[The Nehor]

My favorite justice vs mercy story comes from my Mission President. He was bishop of a student Ward and had authority at the school. A girl came to her trying to repent of serious sexual sins and they were working through it together. A week later that same girl came into his office demanding that he kick her roommate out because she was stealing her Cheerios.

Mercy for the fornicator but the full unmitigated weight of justice for the Cheerio thief.

[VideoGameJunkie]

Mercy is one of the most beautiful things.

[Brian 2.0]

This is completely speculative and a completely literalistic view... but I wonder why the necessity for a payment for sin.  If it is indeed an eternal law, not setup by anyone or group of people, then there is some inherent impossibility of forgiveness/cleanliness/ability to be with God without a payment being made.  

 

Does sin act on our spirits like mold on bread and you can't simply say, "I forgive you mold" and the bread doesn't get more moldy.  And by what process does that stain get removed by a third-party who paid for it by proxy?  Where does the necessity for payment/suffering come in.

[teddyaware]

 

JLHPROF, I always enjoy your thoughtful responses. And thanks others for your comments as well.

I understand where you're coming from with your line of reasoning that God doesn't create the law but I'm having a hard time accepting that as anything but a diminishing of his Goodhood. He becomes more of a middle manager between us and the ultimate power that creates law.

It sounds to me, from your discription that satisfying justice is the most important principle. There must be justice, even if that justice means death. The mercy comes from God providing a way, through Christ, to escape that personal justice to the laws that God himself is beholden to.

This of course leads to the concept that if death is the payment for sin, we each could suffer for our own sins to fulfill the demand of justice. The atonement offers Christ to take this burden from us, but we could fill it personally on an individual basis as well.

Or am I misconstruing your comments?

 

There is no possible way we could suffer for our own sins to fulfill the demands of justice. The only kind of sacrifice that can fulfill the demands of divine justice is an infinite and eternal sacrifice, and only God Himself can make such a sacrifice. Without the infinite and eternal sacrifice of God, men could indeed suffer for their own sins but that suffering would go on forever and never bring with it a remission of sins. 

[Brian 2.0]

There is no possible way we could suffer for our own sins to fulfill the demands of justice. The only kind of sacrifice that can fulfill the demands of divine justice is an infinite and eternal sacrifice, and only God Himself can make such a sacrifice. Without the infinite and eternal sacrifice of God, men could indeed suffer for their own sins but that suffering would go on forever and never bring with it a remission of sins. 

 

So will the occupants of the telestial kingdom have accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior and His sacrifice is the payment for their sins?  Did they start paying for their sins in hell/sprit prison and then at some point they all "tapped out" as it were and accepted Jesus as their savior?

[teddyaware]

So will the occupants of the telestial kingdom have accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior and His sacrifice is the payment for their sins?  Did they start paying for their sins in hell/sprit prison and then at some point they all "tapped out" as it were and accepted Jesus as their savior?

 

They suffer for their sins and that suffering causes most of those confined in the spirit prison to eventually soften their hearts to the point that they sincerely seek forgiveness from Christ through the atonement. Think Alma the Younger: His suffering didn't atone for his sins, but those terrible sufferings caused him to finally call upon Christ for mercy. Indeed one might say that Alma "paid" the consequences for his sins, but without Christ those harrowing consequences would have remained forever. Such suffering is called "everlasting punishment" because the suffering last forever (as it does in the case of the sons of perdition) until the mercy of Christ intervenes after the truly penitent soul pleads for mercy. 

Edited May 1, 2015 by teddyaware

[Brian 2.0]

They suffer for their sins and that suffering causes most of those confined in the spirit prison to eventually soften their hearts to the point that they sincerely seek forgiveness from Christ through the atonement. Think Alma the Younger: His suffering didn't atone for his sins, but those terrible sufferings caused him to finally call upon Christ for mercy. Indeed one might say that Alma "paid" the consequences for his sins, but without Christ those harrowing consequences would have remained forever. Such suffering is called "everlasting punishment" because the suffering last forever (as it does in the case of the sons of perdition) until the mercy of Christ intervenes after the truly penitent soul pleads for mercy. 

 

Do you feel the suffering that is occurring on those confined in Spirit prison is from God or from an eternal law independent on God.  The scriptures often refer it to as God's punishment.  Do you feel that the suffering has it's source from God or is a natural consequence of sin and eternal law?

Edited May 1, 2015 by Brian 2.0

[halconero]

Even Peter and Paul had this classic argument. It is at the core of the Faith versus works debate.

I would say the faith versus works debate is more of a product of Reformation-era Protestants reacting against Catholic practices, and co-opting Pauline writings to support their arguments. The debate kinda gets nicked in butt when someone understands the linguistic and socio-religious context in which Paul wrote.

"Faith" is more accurately rendered as "faithfulness" and is typified in the client-patron relationship of Antiquity. Patron (God) provides needed service which the client cannot obtain on their own, out of the goodness of their heart. The client (us) gives faithful loyalty to the patron out of thankfulness.

[Brian 2.0]

They suffer for their sins and that suffering causes most of those confined in the spirit prison to eventually soften their hearts to the point that they sincerely seek forgiveness from Christ through the atonement. Think Alma the Younger: His suffering didn't atone for his sins, but those terrible sufferings caused him to finally call upon Christ for mercy. Indeed one might say that Alma "paid" the consequences for his sins, but without Christ those harrowing consequences would have remained forever. Such suffering is called "everlasting punishment" because the suffering last forever (as it does in the case of the sons of perdition) until the mercy of Christ intervenes after the truly penitent soul pleads for mercy. 

 

This point is really interesting to me, only because I was taught differently.  I keep looking around for quotes regarding the two ideas. 

 

Option A 

Those in spirit prison that do not accept Christ will be sent to hell to pay for their sins, and that payments sucks according to D&C 19, but it is finite and when justice has been satisfied those souls will inherit the telestial kingdom.  

 

Option B

Those that are sent to hell suffer for their sins, and they can never complete the payment via their suffering to satisfy the demands of justice.  That suffering will eventually turn their hearts to Christ and they will accept Him as their Savior and then the atonement will then satisfy the demands of justice and they will inherit the telestial kingdom.

 

In googling around I've found Mormons stating both of these ideas.