“Read the rest of my comment →”:http://www.joeyday.org/2005/03/19/reply-to-bp

With respect, you’re wrong. Latter-Day Saints do NOT believe this. Rather, the young woman was (correctly, IMO) referring to the sort of forgiveness that the Lord wishes for US to practice.

D&C 64:10 states:

“I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men.”

That certainly points out the “dichotomy” between what we as God’s children are expected to practice, and what the Lord with His perfect knowledge will do regarding forgiveness.

You are correct that God commands us to forgive unconditionally, but He Himself sets conditions on His forgiveness. But you are INCORRECT to state that we Latter-Day Saints do not believe this way.

(N.B. Interesting site you have. A very unique approach to “witnessing” to Latter-Day Saints. Maybe you’ll peel off a few of the weaker ones, you’d be doing us a favor. But I appreciate the fact that you desire to discuss with us based on the assumption that we are intelligent, well-reasoned and Godly people. We don’t have to agree on doctrine to at least agree on that).

I simply want to point out that “forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you,” and “Forgive as the Lord forgave you,” does not necessarily mean, “Forgive in the same manner as the Lord forgave you.”

In fact, if it did, wouldn’t that suggest that we should suffer for our neighbors and personally pay for their trespasses against us…and then frankly forgive them?

Isn’t that the way God forgives us? Isn’t his forgiveness possible only because someone (He) paid the price? So, if we are to forgive in that same way, shouldn’t we go and pay the penalty for others’ wrongs against us, and then forgive them.

I don’t mean to be facetious here. I’m just pointing out how easy it is to read things into scriptures.

When I look at those two scriptures, I can read them another way.

Please consider this rewording, “As the Lord forgave you, forgive!” And this, “Just as God forgave you in Christ, forgive each other!”

I interpret the versus thus, “Since the Lord God forgave you in Christ, you ought to forgive one another!”

I don’t rule out the possibility that those verses mean we should forgive in the same manner as Christ forgives us. However, I urge others not to rule out the possibility that those verses simply mean, “Since Christ forgave you, you must forgive.” I’m not sure the verses truly prove that the two acts of forgiveness are accomplished in the same manner.

“Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness, just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works: Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin.”

A couple of notes:

* If I work as though I can do v. 4, I’m not justified.
* God justifies the ungodly by faith, those who can’t do v. 4 and therefore embark upon v. 5.
* The same type of man spoken of here as “ungodly” (be it David or Abraham) is spoken of as “godly” in Psalm 32, the referenced Psalm. Not, of course, for his ability to do Romans 4:4, but because he freely confessed his sin before God (see the whole of Ps. 32).

A book I think is stellar on this topic is “Righteous Sinners“, by Ron Julian.

Grace and peace in Christ, the justifier of the ungodly,

Aaron

In that sense, I believe that our forgiving another, and God’s forgiveness are really worthy of two different words. God’s forgiveness is when the penalty has been paid, and he remembers our sins no more. Our forgiveness is when we have let go of the anger and bitterness towards the person who has offended us, and learn to love.

Now you’ve come to the heart of the matter. I really appreciate the thought you’ve put into this, Jared. I’m glad you’re willing to acknowledge the contradiction here. I can tell you’ve grappled with it a little. You’ve given it some thought and you’re willing to admit that several of the above proposed explanations just don’t work.

Your answer has merit, but I think it still falls short. You’ve done a good job of explaining why Mormonism has two different definitions for forgiveness. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, though, I have to ask: how does this square with verses that tell us to forgive as God has forgiven us? I’ve linked to them above, but I want to quote them here for the full effect:

Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you. (Ephesians 4:32)

Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. (Colossians 3:13)

These verses indicate to me that there is no difference between God’s forgiveness and what is required of men. We are clearly required to forgive others “as” the Lord has forgiven us, not “with less conditions than” or “more liberally than”. In my mind, no explanation of why there may be two differing kinds of forgiveness will ever harmonize with these clear statements from scripture.

Further, I think your explanation ignores the realities associated with one person sinning against another. When someone steals something from me, yes, they’ve broken God’s law, but they’ve also violated my rights to an extent. As humans, we naturally set up our own laws of the land and expect people to adhere to them. Someday I will have certain rules in my household that I will expect my children to comply with. God expects us to unconditionally forgive even if people violate our own rights or the laws we have set up for ourselves.

Jared said:

You claimed that God forgives without conditions, and also state that you believe that God will forgive whom he will forgive. To me, that implies that there must be some condition that He uses to determine whom to forgive. Does He arbitrarily forgive some and not others, with no conditions to choose between the two?

That’s a whole other discussion, but it is related to forgiveness and I want to touch on it briefly. I do claim that God is the one who does the choosing. I believe it because I see it clearly in the Bible, and after much study and prayer, it is the answer God has led me to believe. He does not do the choosing arbitrarily, though. The choosing has its basis in God’s perfect will (Romans 9:10–18; Ephesians 1:3–12). He may have conditions, but I don’t think we will ever understand them, and I don’t believe they have anything to do with us or what we have done. On the basis of what we have done, each of us deserves hell. By very definition, “grace” cannot be merited in any way.

For further reading on the subject of predestination, I would recommend a good book called Chosen by God, by R. C. Sproul. If you’d like a copy of the book, email me your shipping address and I’ll be happy to send one to you free of charge (I can get them much cheaper than Amazon’s price).

Please read the last sentence again and test if it is true. It is what Mormons believe.

Christ Saves Us
As Jared commented above, “No LDS person believes that his works or righteousness could ever pull him out of even the deepest corner of Hell had Christ not lovingly extended His Grace.”

Those who think Mormons try to save themselves should read the Book of Mormon carefully!

Modern scriptures are clear (I have abridged the verses below for clarity and simplicity):

…If you should render all the thanks and praise which your whole soul has power to possess, to that God who has created you…if ye should serve him with all your whole souls yet ye would be unprofitable servants. … And ye are still indebted unto him, and are, and will be, forever and ever; therefore, of what have ye to boast? (Mosiah 2:20–24.)

Wherefore, redemption cometh in and through the Holy Messiah;…Behold, he offereth himself a sacrifice for sin, to answer the ends of the law, unto all those who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit;…there is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God, save it be through the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah…he shall make intercession for all the children of men; and they that believe in him shall be saved (2 Ne. 2:6–9).

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

We must Repent and Ask for Forgiveness
Despite Christ’s sacrifice, the scriptures clearly teach that we must still repent! Christ and the apostles constantly preached repentance; surely, they didn’t mean it was optional!

Although the atonement of Christ was accomplished, Paul still declared that God “now commandeth all men every where to repent” (Acts 17:30, emphasis added). Paul directed men, “that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance” (Acts 26:20, emphasis added).

Can we agree that faith (belief in Christ) is required for salvation, that repentance is a necessary result of true faith, and that works are a necessary result of true repentance?

If so, here is that statement in basic logic (pseudo code):
IF works THEN possibleRepentance ELSE noRepentance;
IF repentance THEN possibleTrueFaith ELSE noTrueFaith;
IF trueFaith THEN salvationByGrace ELSE noSalvation;

Said another way, although repentance and works do not save you, you may be sure you lack “faith unto salvation” (1 Peter 1:5) if you are neither repenting nor performing good works. This is what the apostle James meant when he said, “faith without works is dead” (see James 2:14–26).

We must Repent Continually
Christ has never revoked his command for us to repent and perform good works, despite his overcoming the law.

Mormons seek to continually repent and perform good works because they strive to retain true faith in Christ, not because they believe their works will save them. However, without their continued repentance and good works, their faith would be dead–Christ’s salvation and atoning blood could not justify them nor have any saving effect.

Even the bible teaches that church members should continually repent of their uncleanness. Even Paul expected “saved” saints to repent of their sins.

For example, he once wrote to the “the church of God which is at Corinth, with all the saints which are in all Achaia,” and he called them “ours in the day of the Lord Jesus.” Near the end of his epistle, he feared for these particular members of the body of Christ, “Lest, when I come again, …I shall bewail many [of you] which have sinned already, and have not repented of the uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness which they have committed” (2 Cor. 12:21). (I am assuming “church” means those who have already accepted Christ and not just those attending a particular weekly meeting.)

Additionally, the Spirit said unto the church at Laodicea:

I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot…So then because thou art lukewarm…I will spue thee out of my mouth. Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:…As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent (Rev. 3:15–19, emphasis added).

These verses teach, among other things, that if you are not constantly repenting, you are not sufficiently zealous nor sufficiently humble. Despite Christ’s sacrifice for you and despite your initial repentance and membership in his church, he can (and will) still spue you out of his mouth if you remain lukewarm.

A direct response to Joey
We can all agree that, “Forgiveness means Christ pleads our case,” he perfects us forever, he releases us “from the law’s obligations,” and he “gives us freedom.”

But let us not err in how and when we have received forgiveness from Christ. As mentioned, forgiveness (or salvation) requires true faith. True faith is not present without repentance and works. For many people, such faith takes a lifetime to develop, and forgiveness, therefore, takes a lifetime to achieve.

Despite the atonement, the New Testament is replete with calls to repentance and calls to obedience. In their letters to the saints, the apostles came down on all forms of sin and proclaimed that such sinners will not be saved! Obviously, the saints were still obligated to keep the commandments–not to produce their own salvation, but to evidence their true faith and repentance, which are required to receive forgiveness.

Joey said:

Do I think it is wrong, then, to strive for perfection? No. If, out of love and gratitude for Jesus’ substitutionary death for you, you wish to submit yourself willingly to certain regulations of the law, be my guest. In fact, I believe that is the most appropriate response a person can offer.

The only difference between your belief and mine is that I see submitting yourself willingly to Christ and his commandments (New Testament “regulations,” if you must) as the only appropriate response a person can offer, not merely the most appropriate response.

If you have not submitted yourself willingly to Christ and kept his commandments, you have not completed the repentance process, and your faith is not yet unto salvation. For Christ “now commands all men every where to repent” (Acts 17:30, emphasis added).

Once again, if you truly have faith and repent, you will never have to pay for your sins or repay Christ for his sacrifice; he has saved you. However, true faith and repentance is found only in the person who willingly submits himself to Christ and keeps his commandments. No one who claims true faith without submitting himself to the King of Kings is truly his subject, for “no man can serve two masters” (Matt. 6:24; 3 Ne. 13:24).

First, I agree that there seems to be a contradiction here, because it is true that God commands us to forgive all men. It is also true that God grants forgiveness only on condtions of repentance. At first I thought that it could be because of the differences between us and God. When we cannot forgive others, we show a lack of charity, and we prevent ourselves from growing in charity as well. This inability or unwillingness to forgive others places a seed of anger and bitterness in our hearts, which if not rooted out, can grow to hatred. However, as we forgive others, we receive more charity from God, and an increased closeness to Him. I thought maybe God is just so perfect that he could withhold forgiveness and not develop that anger or hatred, but still love without condition. The more I thought about that answer, though, the less I liked it. It makes it sound like God can do bad things and escape unharmed, because he’s perfect.

I also thought about the standard “God knows the hearts of people and we don’t” answer. I don’t like that one very much either. God does know when people have repented, and are worthy of forgiveness. What does that have to do with us? Should I forgive everyone of all things just because I don’t know their hearts so well? And what if the person makes it totally obvious that they are not repentant? I still have to forgive them, even when they have made it very clear that they don’t want to repent. So that answer doesn’t really fly either.

Here’s what I believe to be the real reason. Let’s say that Bad Guy commits a sin by beating me up and stealing my money. As offended and angry as I may be, he broke God’s law, not mine. God has an obligation to make sure the broken law is satisfied, because he is completely just. It could be satisfied by punishing the sinner, but it mercifully can also be paid through Christ’s atonement. We accept that atonement by having faith and repenting. In other words, God can only forgive sins because of Christ’s atonement, and we accept Christ’s atonement through faith, repentance, etc. In that way, repentance is a condition for forgiveness from God.

Since Bad Guy didn’t break my law, I have no right to condemn or punish that person, especially since I have broken God’s laws as well. This is why we are commanded to forgive all men. Our forgiving someone, or lack of forgiving that person, does nothing for that person. God isn’t going to say, well since Bob forgave you (or didn’t,) you can (or can’t) get into heaven. Our forgiving others only increases our own ability to love.

In that sense, I believe that our forgiving another, and God’s forgiveness are really worthy of two different words. God’s forgiveness is when the penalty has been paid, and he remembers our sins no more. Our forgiveness is when we have let go of the anger and bitterness towards the person who has offended us, and learn to love.

You claimed that God forgives without conditions, and also state that you believe that God will forgive whom he will forgive. To me, that implies that there must be some condition that He uses to determine whom to forgive. Does He arbitrarily forgive some and not others, with no conditions to choose between the two? You claim that our insistance on staying obedient, and enduring to the end, cheapens the atonement, and makes man seem more powerful than he truly is. I don’t see it that way. I believe that by being obedient, we show our faith to God. And as long as we show our faith through obedience, God will continue to forgive us our mistakes, because we will have an attitude of humility and repentance. No LDS person believes that his works or righteousness could ever pull him out of even the deepest corner of Hell had Christ not lovingly extended His Grace. Christ’s grace will extend to all people, whether they accept him or not, and bring them into God’s presence, grant them immortality, and an eternity of living in joy with a member of the Godhead. However, to get the greatest prize, we should have faith in Jesus Christ. The only reason we discuss works as we do, is because works can be a measuring stick to ourselves and God of our faith. If we lose faith in God, it will show in the attitude with which we do those works, and eventually it will even show in whether we do good works or not. Works are merely the barometer of our Faith in Jesus Christ, which faith is required to truly receive Christ’s atonement into our hearts.

I hope I addressed adequately your original question, as well as some of the concerns you might have with that answer. I also hope that I was able to say these things without any spirit of contention, but in a spirit of trying to clear up misconceptions and build mutual understanding. Again, I really liked the question. Probably one of the best questions I have heard in years from anybody of any religion.

There’s that word “if” again. Does it not denote a condition? I think we both agree on this statement. The real question might be, just what does it mean to be in Christ? Can we abide in him with no personal striving on our part? Must God do ALL the work?

Joey: We may still view certain acts as if they were sins, and it is appropriate for us to feel guilt and sorrow for those acts, but God overlooks them because he sees us through the blood of Christ.

Yes, but how does one resolve the guilt and sorrow for ones own sins? When one does something that one knows disappoints God and their neighbor, how does one dump the guilt? How does one escape the pain of hell this can bring upon oneself?

Yes, Christ has already suffered for our future sins. We agree upon this. But guilt will still come upon one when they commit sins, and that must be dealt with. I believe we can only be relieved by sincere repentance, which includes sincere remorse, sincere striving to restore what was lost (if possible), resolve to not repeat the error, and a sincere expression of sorrow to those one has wronged. When we sincerely turn back to God by taking such actions, it is then that we are able, through faith, to let the guilt slide off our shoulders into the abyss of the atonement, for in turning back to God we have renewed faith that Christ has paid the price for those sins, nearly 2000 years ago.

Just as baptism is symbolic of how Christ’s atonement cleanses us (not the dirt from the skin, but the guilt from the conscience), so the partaking of the sacrament following sincere repentance, also symbolizes a renewal of baptism (which itself is symbolic of the cleansing power of the atonement):

(New Testament | 1 Peter 3:21)
21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

The difference in the two approaches (LDS and Evangelical) to the same thing, really, lies in ones confidence in man’s ability to actually do the right thing out of his own free choice. If one has confidence in man’s ability to be good, then one will also see in man a responsibility to repent when he messes up. If one has little confidence in man’s ability to be good, then one must fall back on such answers like “one need not repent for future sins”.

In my opinion, Evangelicalism is stuck in a rut dug by the courageous but visionless fathers of their creeds. They are stuck there because they (at least partially) cling to the Augustinian-Lutheran-Calvinist misconception that man is totally depraved, thus unable to participate in his own salvation to much of a degree, if any. Therefore God does all the choosing for man. God chooses who to save, and he chooses who to give the spirit too. The lucky ones he chooses go on to do godly works, not of themselves, but by a Godly compulsion, therefore they cannot fall from salvation. The gracious gift of free will is totally lost in the equation. This kind of thinking may have worked prior to the reformation when mankind wasn’t really free anyway, but it really has no place in a free society that cherishes freedom of religion. Our founding father’s believed that God had bestowed inalienable rights upon mankind. With rights comes the responsibility to do the right thing. If man has no ability to be righteous, then our whole society is founded upon a farce.

I agree that most modern day Evangelicals would not see their own position as I have painted it, but common sense would dictate that their doctrines have certainly been influenced by the long held erroneous belief that man has little ability to do good on his own.

While such a view is extremely humble, it lacks merit, because it imposes a severe humility upon all mankind, a humility that we have no right to impose upon others, IMHO. It’s one thing to not put your self above another, but to put down all mankind to the level of depravity is really an evil form of humility, in my opinion.

For an Evangelical to claim that another is not a Christian (as many (not all) Evangelicals say of Mormons) or that one will not be saved, when in fact one really does not know these things, for only God knows, is the most curious thing to me about Evangelicalism. On the one had they claim little personal ability to do righteous acts on their own, yet they seem to know better than God about the “Christian” status or the “salvation” status (or lack thereof) of the Mormons.

One comment you made, however, seems incomprehensible to me. You said that one in the covenant has “…no need to repent of their future sins…”.

I’m sorry. You’re absolutely right. I should have explained what I meant by “sins”.

There is an “already, but not yet” aspect to this. The breakdown goes like this:

* Justification — free from the penalty of sin.
* Sanctification — free from the power of sin.
* Glorification — free from the presence of sin.

If we are in Christ, we’ve been justified, which means we are free from the obligations of the law and consequences of sin. Once we are justified, the process of sanctification begins. We may still be enslaved to certain undesirable behaviors, but one by one Christ changes our desires and by the power of his Spirit we learn to overcome our addictions. We will not be glorified until we reach heaven, where we will be in God’s presence.

This is why the writer of Hebrews could confidently say that “he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified” (Hebrews 10:14 ESV), while Paul can make statements like the following:

Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.

All of us who are mature should take such a view of things. And if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you. Only let us live up to what we have already attained. (Phillipians 3:12-16)

The writer of Hebrews is talking about justification, which is a past tense for those who are in Christ. Paul is talking about sanctification and glorification, which are the ongoing and future completion of our perfection.

So, we really cannot sin if we are in Christ. We may still view certain acts as if they were sins, and it is appropriate for us to feel guilt and sorrow for those acts, but God overlooks them because he sees us through the blood of Christ.

Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against him. (Romans 4:7–8)

One comment you made, however, seems incomprehensible to me. You said that one in the covenant has “…no need to repent of their future sins…”. Here is the reason this seems like double talk. As you know, I served a mission in Sweden. The word repent in Swedish is “omvend”; “om” is literally “about” and “vend” is literally “turn”, so the word translates literally as “about turn”. The word “sin” on the other hand denotes a turning away from God. So what you are saying here is that if one turns away from God (sins) in the future, one need not turn back to God (repent).

I doesn’t compute, nor does it feel morally right. If mankind was totally devoid of any ability to do good, then I supppose God would have to make us be good, rather than ecourage it by His love and confidence. But if that is the case, I mean, if man is totally depraved, then why did God make us that way, and why does He prolong our depravity? What purpose is in that?

If we truly are all depraved beings, then anything short of saving every human would be immoral, don’t you think? For if we have no responsibilty to choose good, then we certainly can’t be held responsible for choosing bad. This would make life pointless, IMHO.