Some critics have argued that the Latter-day Saint concept of moral agency (a.k.a. free agency) would make God no longer sovereign if we were really free to choose and follow Him. While we cannot save ourselves or remove our own sins–this is only possible through the Atonement of His Son–God is so powerful that He has given us “all things pertaining to life and godliness” (2 Peter 1:3-4), including the power to choose Him, repent of our sins, and enter into sacred covenants wherein we learn to obey and more fully accept Him. Through the Atonement of Jesus Christ and the great plan of salvation, we are made free. Our freedom to choose persists throughout life. Once we have chosen Him, we can later reject him and fall from grace. This continued freedom does not make Him less, but is part of His plan to make us more (see Romans 8:14-18; 1 John 3:2; Matt. 5: 48).
This freedom to choose God and repent of our sins through the power of the Atonement is not given to only a few whom God elects to save while all others are thrown into hell with never a whisper of hope. The true and living God is so sovereign, and the Atonement of His Son is so efficacious and powerful, that it can break down all barriers, breaking down the very gates of hell (Hades) to offer redemption to all those who will gladly accept it, to all those who will have faith in the Savior of the world. Those who limit God’s love and desire to save to only a select few who lived after the time of Christ are missing the true sovereign power of God and fail to understood how great His mercy is. As the scriptures teach, He wants all to be saved. He gave His Son as a ransom for ALL, across all cultures, continents, and eras of time (1 Timothy 2):
3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;
4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
7 Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.
That passage of scriptures is consistent, of course, with 2 Peter 3:9 where we read that God is “not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” That doctrine is better understood in light of the mission of Christ into the spirit world (1 Peter 3:18-20 and 1 Peter 4:6) to preach the Gospel to those who had died. This concept, restored through revelation to the prophet Joseph Smith and later to Joseph F. Smith (Section 138 of the Doctrine and Covenants), along with the attendant blessings of the Temple, baptism for the dead, and other sacred concepts pertaining to the amazing grace and mercy of our most sovereign God, was largely lost from mainstream Christianity for centuries.
I encourage you to understand the early Christian roots of these restored LDS doctrines and practices. It is a testimony-building experience to contemplate the evidences for the Restoration and the wondrous, true mercy of God in providing means that all who will accept grace may receive it in the covenants and blessings He offers.
A great summary of information about early Christian concepts in this area can be found in two recent publications from the Maxwell Institute. Please see “The Harrowing of Hell: Salvation for the Dead in Early Christianity” by Kendel J. Christensen, Roger D. Cook, and David L. Paulsen and “Baptism for the Dead in Early Christianity” by Brock M. Mason, and David L. Paulsen. These are intelligent, interesting, scholarly articles that will help you better appreciate some of the reasons why we Mormons are so excited about the broad, broad scope of the Atonement of Jesus Christ and the tools God has given us to participate in bringing the Gospel to His sons and daughters across the expanses of geography and time. Free agency and infinite mercy made available to all who will choose it–now that’s a sovereign God.
This is why the gates of hell/Hades do not prevail against the Church of Jesus Christ: because the ministry of Christ has power to reach souls who are there and liberate them.
This is why Calvinism always bothered me. How could any person truly love God if God decided it for them? Love is not love if it's not a free choice. God making the decision to give us that choice is in fact evidence of his omnipotence, not against it. A parent could choose to manipulate and control their children, but they could also choose not to. That doesn't mean they don't have the power to do it; it means they choose not to exercise that power for the good of the child.
The problem with a savior is that you have to believe in sin in the first place to accept that you need a savior from it. Sin is a made up concept by religion. Just because there are things that are wrong or bad to do does not mean you need to ask forgiveness from some heavenly being after doing them.
Sorry, I don't need saving and don't need a savior.
Flame away. 🙂
Why would we "flame away"? If you are convinced of that, nothing we can say here will change your mind. What good is arguing about it in a forum like this?
I've always been struck, Jeff, by how much more "powerful" the Mormon concept of God's grace and Jesus' atonement is than that preached by nearly all of Protestantism. This post is a great explanation of how that is so.
Why can no unclean thing dwell in the presence of God?
Why or how does justice prevent God from bringing his disobedient children back into his presence without their being an atonement?
Who or what is the sacrifice of a god (the atonement) appeasing that allows that god to then set the requirements for return to God the Father? How does the sacrifice set all aright?
Question I've always had concerning the atonement. I've given it much thought and I have my ideas.
I'm not alone in not understanding the why and how behind the atonement. I've heard speakers in the latest General Conferences express they too have a lack of understanding.
Is the definition of grace the "freedom to choose God and repent of our sins?"
If so, it sure does seems as though we can fall from it unless we do the work of repenting, covenanting, temple work etc.
But if grace is defined as "the freely given, unmerited favor and love of god"
then doesn't it seem as though we can fall from grace by rejecting the favor and love of God through those very same actions?
Cindy,
Here's a different take on it: if God tells me to go to the temple and make sacred covenants there, what should be my response? Should I ask why, or speculate about some hidden meaning or nuance in motivation? Or should I just obey?
Anything but obedience seems rather risky to me…
Pops: "Anything but obedience seems rather risky to me…"
You could always use your free agency and decide for yourself what is best for you.
Jeff,
Please remove the comment left by the "Stake President Paternoster" his profile links to a blog that is mocking and smug.
Anonymous, if Jeff deleted every comment from every commenter that contained something that someone viewed as smug or mocking, there probably wouldn't be any comments left.
I disagree with some of the things said on that blog, but it's no more smug or mocking than MANY of the comments left here – and I'm sure some commenters feel that way about some of my comments.
Just saying.
You could always use your free agency and decide for yourself what is best for you.
And that's pretty much what I did. Being somewhat familiar with the scriptures, I know how God feels about disobedience. I don't really want to go there.
Boy, I was worried that the smug and mocking link was to something I had written. I can tolerate a bit of smugness and mocking, but what I don't like is when critics pretend to be members of the Church, or even leaders in the Church. That irked me enough to take his link off. Meanwhile, the rest of you can continue with whatever attitude problems you have. Just don't lie about who you are.
"what I don't like is when critics pretend to be members of the Church, or even leaders in the Church. That irked me enough to take his link off."
Amen, Jeff.
Very nice post, Jeff.
Reasons the atonement is necessary? Couldn't God have just saved without requiring an atonement? The answer to the first question is that the answer to the second question is "No!"
We read that God had to overpower the demands of justice (by satisfying them) rather than rob justice, if He were to show great mercy, because were He to try to rob justice, He would cease to be God.
In other words, there are other intelligent beings and their/our intelligence is sufficient to recognize justice as an imparative virtue, a premise for their willing submission to God's rule.
Remember, the powers of heaven can only be controlled by the principles of righteousness. Try to subvert one of those principles and One cannot any longer control the powers of heaven. Perhaps hell but not heaven.
Of course that doesn't explain all of the atonement, how it "heals." My understanding of how it heals is limited to my understanding of the healing that can occur in meditating on that proof of God's love until we are constantly feeling loved by God.
The modern concept of Free Will/Volition is that it is an allusion. More and more one sees research articles validating this, ie. brian scans indicating that a person makes a decision before before the person realizes it. Animal behavior (humans) are complex mathematical equations, believe or not in volition is part of that equation.
Carla – If by their fruits you shall know them, and Calvinistic societies with their emphasis on works such as the Mormons are now proven to be economically better off (think southern/eastern europe compared to northern/western europe) and have more discretionary money to spend on charity, isn't Calvinism then a good thing.
Pops – "if God tells me" – Who decideds what god says. The Lafferty brothers say god tells them to kill people, the state of Utah says they are lying. The minute the conversation turns to "god tells" the conversation becomes pointless.
Nathan S. – Same goes for justice. Who decides what justice is. Every conversation I have had with an evangelical and the word justice appears, the evangelical immediate responds that justice is a human concept, not a godly one. Your concept of justice appears to require everyone that looked at you crossed eye to ask for forgiveness before going to the highest degree of heaven, seems a little unrealistic
Anon…:
"Your concept of justice appears to require everyone that looked at you crossed eye to ask for forgiveness before going to the highest degree of heaven, seems a little unrealistic"
If that was meant as a joke, I missed the punch line. If serious,that's the punch line of a joke on how far from a Christian belief one can imagine a Christian belief to be!
My concept of justice is so far removed from such a thing that after getting over the puzzlement of how you could come up with an idea like that, I do find it laughable.
I'll explain: Jesus was human, too. And he did nothing that required an atonement for any of his errors because his were not of that class. But looking at someone cross-eyed? He was far more offensive than that! And ALL IN INNOCENCE.
No, my belief in justice does not require that a man not be manly.
Godly justice is required by intelligent beings, not wimps who find an excuse to be insulted – not by self-defeating, short-sighted souls who demand a punishment for every inconvenience. Nope. You got my Christian belief perfectly backwards.
If you were just being silly, I guess I'm just being silly to reply.
I am always fascinated by the conecpt of sin and how people define it. Mormons certainly do not define sin in the same way other Christian Churches do, so the sins that Mormons need forgiveness from is different than what other Christians need forgiveness from. Follow?
Which brings in to question, who is really committing sin and whose sin is a valid sin that needs a redeemer?
I would suggest that if People can not even agree on what sin is, than there is no need to have a redeemer.
The whole world would be much better off if there was not this made up idea of Jesus Saving man from his sin.
Seriously, would you run out and cheat and steal cause you did not believe in Jesus or any other God? I doubt Jeff would, and I bet he would have a lot more time to do something useful with his free time.
Stats show that there are more Christians in Prison than Jesus Atheists. SO more Christians break the law than people who do not believe in Christian God.
hmmmmm
I get it Nathan S. Justice is whatever you have decide it be, which just happens to be in sync with God and true Christianity. Anyone who does not agree with you has not reached your level of intelligence and is a unmanly wimp (unlike yourself) who has wrongfully decided to be insulted.
"Remember, the powers of heaven can only be controlled by the principles of righteousness. Try to subvert one of those principles and One cannot any longer control the powers of heaven. Perhaps hell but not heaven. "
Can someone please post proof of this statement? I would like to see on what that is based? It reminds me a lot of some Anime I read once.
Anonymous, civil discourse is nice; insults and mocking aren't.
Just one thing:
"Stats show that there are more Christians in Prison than Jesus Atheists."
Totally irrelevant stats bother me, fwiw. This is one of them.
Papalapa, I guess if the stats showed that there were more Jesus Atheists in prison, the stats would not bother you so much.
We are getting to a day and age where people who believe in fantasy are needing all the help they can get to continue to make the magic world they believe in seem real.
Seems you don't like it when someone's statement is challenged. I would suggest that people post things that can be proven and not things that are from a made up world. That would certainly move the discourse along and you would feel less threatened by what you perceive to be insults and mocking.
What you consider an insult is actually just challenging someone to back up what they say and post some type of proof for outlandish statements.
There was no insult or mocking, sorry you feel that was my intention. It was not.
I agree with anonymous that Nathan's statement about justice and Heaven and everything else seem completely made up/speculative.
"Couldn't God have just saved without requiring an atonement?"
Is followed by a good reflection of Nathan's understanding of things, but it really lacks substance.
That he used what's written about God (by man) just seems to further the point that sin is a man-made concept.
Thanks OM, I am amazed that statements like that go unchallenged. They seem to be just made up to fit the narrative or belief system the writer espouses.
I seriously would love to know where that statement came from, as it seems that if you put it on another blog about fantasy worlds, it would fit perfectly.
Since so many Christians talk about how their religion helps them to be 'good' etc, I do not think that a stat showing that more Christians commit crimes than Atheists is at all irrelevant. In fact, I think it is becoming more and more relevant as the number of Atheists grows in numbers. There is much to be said for people who do not need an invisible Man in the Sky to keep them from stealing, cheating and killing each other.
Who decideds what god says. The Lafferty brothers say god tells them to kill people, the state of Utah says they are lying. The minute the conversation turns to "god tells" the conversation becomes pointless.
No, that's when the conversation becomes both interesting and valuable. You hint at the right questions, but then you bail out. Does God speak? How? How can we know it's God's voice and not the voice of man?