One has encountered on occasion the claim that Boyd K. Packer’s talk from the April 1977 General Conference “The Mediator” being used against Latter-day Saints as if Packer was teaching a strict, legalistic understanding of soteriology. Furthermore, some Latter-day Saints approach the talk that Packer was teaching a very forensic model of the atonement. While the latter is partly true, the former is utterly false.
The text of the talk I will be using of the talk is that of (“The Mediator” in “That All May Be Edified: Talks, Sermons and Commentary (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1998), 316-22. There are online versions, including this one on LDS.org.
Firstly, Packer is not presenting a systematic theology, evidenced by the fact that he explicitly states that he is not doing such; instead, he is presenting a parable:
Let me tell you a story—a parable. (p. 317)
It is egregious for one to claim that one can use Packer’s “The Mediator” was a full-blown exposition of Latter-day Saint soteriology.
Continuing, we read:
Only then did he realize ha his creditor not only had the power to repossess all that he owned, but the power to cast him into prison as well. (p. 318)
In other words, the debtor would not only suffer the legal loss of his goods but would also suffer beyond any strict, legal obligation he owed—he would also be “cast into prison as well” (i.e., suffer the wrath of God; cf. D&C 76:104-107; 1 Cor 3:10-15). This is alien to historic Protestant models of atonement and soteriology.
There they were: One meeting our justice, the other pleading for mercy. Neither could prevail except at the expense of the other . . . The debtor had a friend. He came to help. He knew the debtor well. He knew him to be shortsighted. He thought him foolish to have gotten himself into such a predicament. Nevertheless, he wanted to help because he loved him. (p. 319)
This only shows that Packer did not understand the atonement to be forensic, except incidentally at best, just as marriage is only incidentally legal. How so? Both mercy and love are not forensic in nature; instead, they are non-legal but personal and timeless virtues.
Speaking of our need for a mediator, we read:
He stepped between them, faced the creditor and made this offer . . . Unless there is a mediator, unless we have a friend . . . (pp. 319, 320)
Again, even the role of mediatorship is not forensic, as it is paralleled with the mediator being a “friend”—again, a personal, not legal, relationship. Furthermore, this role of being a mediator is after one has entered into a saving covenant, showing that such a function is not forensic. Even Reformed theology, which over-emphasises the legal nature of justification, admits that sanctification is not forensic and instead, is both synergistic, more personal than justification, and is progressive, not declarative/positional merely.
This, of course, is fatal to forensic models of the atonement. As one critic of Protestant theology put it:
If justification were a mere legal transaction between God and man (e.g., a modern will), we would not need continual intercession by Christ to complete our salvation . . . [Protestants] when pressed to follow their forensic model to its logical conclusion, cannot adequately explain why personal faith is required for justification, given that faith is a non-legal and timeless virtue. Moreover, most have no explanation why the New Testament, especially the book of Hebrews, repeatedly warns Christian not to fall away from the Faith, other than claiming that such a person was never legally justified. (Robert A. Sungenis, Not by Bread Alone: The Biblical and Historical Evidence for the Eucharistic Sacrifice [2d ed.: Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, 2009], 62).
For more, see, for e.g.:
Full Refutation of the Protestant Interpretation of John 19:30 which includes an exegesis of 1 John 2:1-2 and Heb 2:17 which makes reference to Christ being a present propitiation (ιλασμος) for sin, and the Johannine text also makes reference to Jesus being an “advocate” (παράκλητος) for Christians (i.e., those who have entered a saving covenant previously).
Finally, we read that:
The extension of mercy will not be automatic. It will be through covenants with Him. It will be on His terms. His generous terms, which include as an absolute essential, baptism by immersion for the remission of sins. (p. 320)
Again, this blows out the forensic model of the atonement and salvation out of the water, as the focus is on, not legal contracts, but personal covenants. Covenants are only incidentally legal and largely personal (again, compare with a marriage, which is a wonderful parallel to salvific covenants). Furthermore, one enters a covenant, not through a legal declaration, but a personal act wherein God uses an ordinance wherein one’s personal sins are remitted (i.e., baptism).
Critics who abuse Packer’s “The Mediator” are only revealing their ignorance when they claim it is teaching a strict legalism.