Confusion about Grace

As I was looking into the LDS Church’s second anointing
(which I wrote about yesterday),
I came across a response
to the idea (written by a Mormon), which I think illustrates very well the
problem I described in my
post—that is, the difficulty we (Mormons and Christians) have in
communicating theological ideas to each other because we use the same terms so
differently.

As I explained yesterday, it seems that most LDS Church members
are not aware of the second Endowment (a temple ceremony where members who have
been deemed worthy are sealed to all the highest rewards of exaltation
in the afterlife—godhood, etc.—that they’ve been striving for), and this
anonymous blogger was expressing his skepticism about the validity of such a
ceremony, even if it exists. Listen to how he explains his objection:

I personally believe that a
person's calling and election is NOT made sure through a second endowment. I
believe this because we are saved by grace, and not works, lest any man should
boast because of works. Thus, Prophets cannot seal this great blessing through
temple work. This blessing only comes from Jesus Christ himself verbally
telling you that you are sealed up in promise….

I want you to know that only Jesus
Christ is the fountain of living waters. I believe these living waters
represent total forgiveness of all sins and the love of God.

This doesn’t sound so far off from something we might say,
right? Christ gives total forgiveness. We’re saved by grace, not works. Were we
to stop there and not dig deeper, we might leave thinking we’re in agreement. But
then he continues:

I do not think that [Jesus] would
count any ordinance sealing a person's calling and election made sure as
valid. A man is not saved by his works or his covenants, we are saved by
grace after we have faith enough to live. A person whose calling and election
is made sure still has debts to pay, but it is made sure because Christ knows
most assuredly by the person's faith that they will pay their debts most
absolutely. 

Achieving the same greatness as God
has is not instant, it is a process even after you are promised to become
greater than anything you can imagine.

Do you see the problem? How is “saved by grace, not works”
and “total forgiveness of sins” compatible with the idea that a person “still
has debts to pay” and “will pay his debts most absolutely”?

When this blogger says, “A man is not saved by his works or
his covenants,” he can’t mean it’s not possible for a ceremony in the
temple to be required, because the
covenants Mormons make in the first Endowment, along with the ceremony in which
they’re sealed
to their spouse for eternity, are all necessary
for exaltation to the highest level of heaven and godhood. And every day,
baptisms are performed for the dead so that they will be able to progress to
a higher level of heaven. Clearly, works are done, by people, in temples, that
count towards their becoming worthy of exaltation. So what can he mean?

Here’s what I suspect he’s thinking: It’s not a work of man
that awards our blessings. Rather,
only Christ can bestow blessings on
us—both the blessing of having the commandments and ordinances we need to follow and the blessings that we receive if we
follow them. The giving of the laws we need to follow is called grace, and the giving
of the reward is called grace, simply because they come from God and we
couldn’t have come up with them on our own. The fact that works must be done in
order for God to deem a person worthy of receiving a blessing does not
contradict their idea of grace. The works themselves didn’t create the blessings, only God creates
and gives the blessings. That is what
they call grace. This is how they reconcile the talk of grace in the Bible with
the list of works in the “plan
of salvation” they follow.

So conditional covenant-making (making promises and
fulfilling requirements) in the temple does not violate the idea of grace for
them. I don’t think it would have bothered this blogger at all if there were an
additional covenant ceremony God required in order for us to be found worthy of
the ultimate blessings. What he objects to is the idea that a ceremony
performed by men can seal (i.e.,
guarantee) the receipt of blessings when only God can announce the giving of
such a thing. As long as God gives
the blessing, as long as the reward itself is not something we could create on
our own, regardless of what works are required to be worthy of receiving it, their
idea of grace is preserved.

As for the term “faith,” when he says, “We are saved by
grace after we have faith enough to live,” he’s talking about faith that the
plan of salvation is the God-given way to live and progress to exaltation, not faith in Christ’s
sacrifice (except as far as it makes the plan of salvation possible). As he
explains, Christ knows we will continue to pay our debts through the plan of
salvation if we have sincere faith in His intention to reward the followers of this plan.

You can see the communication problem.