Why Packer's Parable Doesn't Work

[volgadon]

Not to mention that anciently a recipient of grace was expected to show his loyalty to the one that granted him grace. This loyalty involved obedience and submission.

[Larrin]

Does Christ pay our debt or accept our punishment?

[Sargon]

Humm, Doest thou protest too much?

No analogy is perfect and therefore susceptible to misinterpretation and abuse.

There are those that only look for flaws, . . . .

and that is what they find, real or imagined.

There are those that look for understanding, . . . .

and that is what they find.

Perhaps you heard the story of the two young miscreants who wished to embarrass the wise old sage. The determined that one of them would hold a live bird in their hand behind their back. They would ask the sage if it was alive or dead. If the sage said "dead", he would produce the live bird. If the sage said "alive", he would crush the bird to death and produce the dead bird. However, much to their chagrin, the sage responded, "as you will".

This parable, as with many things in life, as YOU will.

BTW,

I second Lightbearer's complaint that you aren't showing proper respect to Elder Packer.

See what I mean Rob? Even I, a devout Mormon, get flak for critiquing ELDER Packer's parable. Some people just tend to be a little sensitive.

Anway, I'm just going to ignore the petty criticisms I've received.

Does Christ pay our debt or accept our punishment?

Larrin, this is exactly the right question to ask. Packer's parable has him paying our debt...there is no punishment being given to anyone. Again, as I said before, perhaps Elder Packer wasn't trying to capture the whole of the atonement, but he did miss a big portion of it.

[Jason]

Allowing a mediator to act in the first place is a form of mercy. When the mediator presented his offer the man's creditor could have refused mediation, which after all was not part of the original contract.

[LeSellers]

Does Christ pay our debt or accept our punishment?

He paid all of the prices required by justice for our debts.

His Atonement was infinite, so He does not need to accept our punishment since He already prepared and made ample provision to balance the scale. If we accept the Atonement, our punishment does not exist.

Lehi

[the narrator]

for our debts.

What 'debts'? What does that even mean?

Mormons and Christians love to throw this term around, but what does it even mean?

His Atonement was infinite

What does that even mean? Saying it over and over doesn't make it more meaningful.

our punishment

What punishment? What is the punishment? Why is the punishment required?

to balance the scale

What balance? What is being weighed?

[mapman]

What I think Elder Packer was trying to say is that when we commit sins, we become indebted to the law of justice. By debt I mean that we have to make a payment to the law of justice, or in other words suffer the consequences of our actions. With just the law of justice the scriptures explain that we could never be reunited with our Father in Heaven, but God has mercifully sent a mediator, Jesus Christ to pay this debt by suffering in our place. Elder Packer's parable was meant to illustrate the need for a mediator not illustrate the entire atonement.

The forgiveness and becoming one with God are a different part of the Atonement, I think. When we break a commandment, God is willing to forgive us if we repent and change to become more like Him. He is able to do this because Jesus Christ payed for our sins.

[the narrator]

when we commit sins, we become indebted to the law of justice.

What does that mean?

By debt I mean that we have to make a payment to the law of justice, or in other words suffer the consequences of our actions.

How is punishment paying a debt? What kind of debt is it? What does it even mean to call it a debt? What is the correlation between sinning and punishment? What does it mean to be punished?

Jesus Christ to pay this debt by suffering in our place.

But what is the debt in the first place that requires somebody to suffer?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

What does that mean?

I don't think you are asking this in good faith. What does it mean to be indebted to justice? I think you know what it means. Why play coy?

[the narrator]

I don't think you are asking this in good faith. What does it mean to be indebted to justice? I think you know what it means. Why play coy?

I'm asking it plenty of good faith--in fact I'm considered asking this question in a paper at the next SMPT conference. I know what debt means in terms of real-world trade and penal justice. I have no clue what it means in terms of sin and God.

[the narrator]

Pretend that Osama Bin Laden was caught and sentenced to be executed. Days before his execution I ask the government to let Bin Laden go and execute me in his place. Bin Laden goes free, I'm punished for him.

Even if we accepted that punishment and capital punishment had anything to do with justice (which I don't accept), who in their right mind would think that justice was properly served?

[Sargon]

Pretend that Osama Bin Laden was caught and sentenced to be executed. Days before his execution I ask the government to let Bin Laden go and execute me in his place. Bin Laden goes free, I'm punished for him.

Even if we accepted that punishment and capital punishment had anything to do with justice (which I don't accept), who in their right mind would think that justice was properly served?

I'd take it back even further and ask how, exactly, suffering on the part of the guilty erases the debt. Our institutional practice operates as if this is the case (executing bad guys, which I'm not against), but it isn't clear to me how suffering actually counts as a payment of any sort. If you steal an apple, and I cut off your hand for it, I'm still short one apple. The debt hasn't been paid.

[the narrator]

I'd take it back even further and ask how, exactly, suffering on the part of the guilty erases the debt. Our institutional practice operates as if this is the case (executing bad guys, which I'm not against), but it isn't clear to me how suffering actually counts as a payment of any sort. If you steal an apple, and I cut off your hand for it, I'm still short one apple. The debt hasn't been paid.

I agree.

[Lightbearer]

Pretend that Osama Bin Laden was caught and sentenced to be executed. Days before his execution I ask the government to let Bin Laden go and execute me in his place. Bin Laden goes free, I'm punished for him.

Even if we accepted that punishment and capital punishment had anything to do with justice (which I don't accept), who in their right mind would think that justice was properly served?

No it would not. Oh and regardless what Consig may think, apology accepted.

But back to Osama, I think the Book of Mormon explains this very point:

(Alma 34:8-16) "And now, behold, I will testify unto you of myself that these things are true. Behold, I say unto you, that I do know that Christ shall come among the children of men, to take upon him the transgressions of his people, and that he shall atone for the sins of the world; for the Lord God hath spoken it. For it is expedient that an atonement should be made; for according to the great plan of the Eternal God there must be an atonement made, or else all mankind must unavoidably perish; yea, all are hardened; yea, all are fallen and are lost, and must perish except it be through the atonement which it is expedient should be made. For it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice; yea, not a sacrifice of man, neither of beast, neither of any manner of fowl; for it shall not be a human sacrifice; but it must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice. Now there is not any man that can sacrifice his own blood which will atone for the sins of another. Now, if a man murdereth, behold will our law, which is just, take the life of his brother? I say unto you, Nay. But the law requireth the life of him who hath murdered; therefore there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world. Therefore, it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice, and then shall there be, or it is expedient there should be, a stop to the shedding of blood; then shall the law of Moses be fulfilled; yea, it shall be all fulfilled, every jot and tittle, and none shall have passed away. And behold, this is the whole meaning of the law, every whit pointing to that great and last sacrifice; and that great and last sacrifice will be the Son of God, yea, infinite and eternal. And thus he shall bring salvation to all those who shall believe on his name; this being the intent of this last sacrifice, to bring about the bowels of mercy, which overpowereth justice, and bringeth about means unto men that they may have faith unto repentance. And thus mercy can satisfy the demands of justice, and encircles them in the arms of safety, while he that exercises no faith unto repentance is exposed to the whole law of the demands of justice; therefore only unto him that has faith unto repentance is brought about the great and eternal plan of redemption."

Hopefully this answers your question.

[the narrator]

Oh and regardless what Consig may think, apology accepted.

thanks.

But back to Osama, I think the Book of Mormon explains this very point:Hopefully this answers your question.

this doesn't address my example at all. my example had nothing to do with atonement of sins.

[Lightbearer]

this doesn't address my example at all. my example had nothing to do with atonement of sins.

Why not? Is murder is sin? What were you trying to prove with your example? The quote from Alma is almost word for word showing that a man cannot satisfy the demands of justice for another, in other words you being punished for another's crime does not cut it. Jesus Christ was not a mere mortal man, His was not a human sacrifice, it was the sacrifice of a God, both infinite and eternal in nature. I do not know how else to respond to such a question.

[the narrator]

Why not? Is murder is sin?

Because I was using it to illustrate the problem of evoking penal/retributive justice to explain the atonement.

What were you trying to prove with your example?

I was using it to illustrate the problem of evoking penal/retributive justice to explain the atonement.

[WalkerW]

"...Christ hath ascended into heaven, and hath sat down on the right hand of God, to claim of the Father his rights of mercy which he hath upon the children of men?" (Moroni 7:27)

What is it about the atonement that makes it possible for Christ to make claim to the "rights of mercy"? Why could this not be done before? What implications does this have both in metaphysical theology and liberation theology?

And narrator, did you see my first post? I pitched a question at you. Perhaps your answer would tie in with this new question.

[CV75]

So while Packer's parable might be useful to a point, it doesn't seem to capture one of the most important aspects of the Atonement: forgiveness.

It does seem that the purpose of the parable, as stated in the talk, is limited to showing "how Christ

[Jason]

You can't take Osama's place for two good reasons:

1) You have no real connection with him.

2) You have your own crimes to pay for.

The Savior doesn't have these limitations.

[the narrator]

What purpose does the Atonement serve in liberation theology? I find much to agree with based on my limited reading of the subject (in the sense of the communal aspect of salvation), but what exactly does it do? Or is it just as mysterious as it is in metaphysical theologies?

There are many variations of liberation theology--some include a metaphysical aspect as well, others don't. A hallmark of liberation theology is that the death of Christ is inseparably tied to the life of Christ, and that the cross signifies the life which led up to the cross. Jesus didn't come to die. He came to live, and that life inevitably led to his death.

To paraphrase Jon Sobrino, instead of asking, "why did Jesus die?" we need to ask, "why did they kill him?" A hippie Jesus who went around healing people and teaching about love wouldn't have been killed by the Romans. The cross was used for rebels and threats to the state.

I wrote up a paper on liberation thought, The Passion, and Braveheart that I think is helpful for understanding liberation thought. I thought I had it posted online, but I guess not. If you are interested you can PM me your email and I can send you a copy when I get home tonight.

Also, I touch on it a little in the next issue of Sunstone. You can read a draft of that here.

[Chris Smith]

Packer's parable is usually seen as a version of the penal substitution theory of the Atonement. What I see as problematic here is that there is no forgiveness being granted. The scriptures very clearly teach that men are forgiven of their sins, but in Packer's model there is no forgiveness going on. The creditor (God the Father) isn't forgiving anyone, because as the friend (Jesus) says, the law of justice has been paid and he can't ask for more. The contract is fulfilled, end of story. The friend (Jesus) doesn't seem to be forgiving anyone either. All he has done in this parable is fulfill the obligations of the first contract and then set up a new contract with the debtor.

In short, there is really no forgiveness of debt in this parable. The debt is paid in full.

When I was an evangelical, I used to use this parable as an illustration of why I thought the LDS were wrong on the subject of faith and works. Today, I recognize that most LDS probably would not agree with Packer's implication that the debt still must be paid in full after death. Even so, for the Church to continue to use the parable would run the risk of fueling evangelical anti-Mormonism. My recommendation would be to modify it or repudiate it.

[mercyngrace]

Sargon,

As you know, gospel principles can be taught on many different levels depending on the understanding of the student and the intent of the teacher. Taking any one metaphor beyond its logical bounds will lead to confusion just as an overemphasis on exact wording or allegorical symbols can often cause us to miss the intent of the instructor.

God, personally or through prophets, teaches us based on who we are. Whether he warns of punishment, promises rewards, or inspires us to emulation, it's all based on the audience. If we look at the intended immediate recipient of scriptural messages, it's possible to see that certain messages, while adequate for some are woefully incompetent for others.

IMO, the theories of atonement follow this pattern. I'm not sure they are actually theories so much as explanations for different levels of understanding.

"The Mediator" is designed to instruct, on the most basic level, the concept of intercession. It is a call to repentance for the wicked who sense they owe a debt that they cannot repay. It is adequate for teaching people young in the gospel and new to understanding.

P.S. Hope your study of the atonement is a glorifying and edifying experience. And remember, it was through His act as Savior that Christ became exalted. My advice, fwiw, it to seek an explanation for the atonement that allows for your salvation as well as your exaltation.

[Chris Smith]

What purpose does the Atonement serve in liberation theology? I find much to agree with based on my limited reading of the subject (in the sense of the communal aspect of salvation), but what exactly does it do? Or is it just as mysterious as it is in metaphysical theologies?

You'd probably get a range of answers depending on who you asked, but one common answer would be that the atonement was God's way of standing in "solidarity with the poor". God-in-Christ gave up all his power and wealth to become poor, and to suffer alongside the poor, and to empower the poor, and to offer redemption to the poor, and to die among the poor. In so doing, he provides an example for all Christians to follow. In order to be true followers of Jesus, we must sacrifice everything to stand in solidarity with the poor, just as he did.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You'd probably get a range of answers depending on who you asked, but one common answer would be that the atonement was God's way of standing in "solidarity with the poor". God-in-Christ gave up all his power and wealth to become poor, and to suffer alongside the poor, and to empower the poor, and to offer redemption to the poor, and to die among the poor. In so doing, he provides an example for all Christians to follow. In order to be true followers of Jesus, we must sacrifice everything to stand in solidarity with the poor, just as he did.

Hmmm, if this is indeed an answer you would get it is flawed. Christ did not ultimatly give anything up in terms of power or authority or wealth or even his phsyical body.