Atonement

[Mordecai]

No misquote.

You have Because there is no sin in him, his sacrifice is infinite in quotes, as if that is written in D&C 19:19, when it's not. That's why I say it's a misquote.

Infinite atonement is from the Book of Mormon.

I don't dispute that it was infinite. I dispute why it was infinite.

Christ's suffering IS in one sense the greater because he could have ended it early or not undergone it at all, had he chose. How much harder is it to endure a terrible loss if you know all the while that one act of will is all it will take to get out of it?

I think it would be easier, actually. I think people can endure virtually anything, if they think it will end in one second... or at least could end. Of course, not ending it, when you have the choice would take a quality of will we literally can't imagine.

"must suffer even as I"

It's possible that the word as is to show that it is like Jesus' suffering in quality but perhaps not necessarily intensity. Your interpretation may be exactly right, and I am inclined, frankly, to read it the same way. That said, I don't know that that is what is meant necessarily.

..."you must study even as I"...

That could mean, "Study very hard," and not necessarily exactly to the same intensity.

[zerinus]

I was first wondering what on earth was meant by "penal substitution', and that being explained as Christ taking upon himself the punishment of my particular sins, well, then I reject it. As picturesque and as romantic as it sounds, I believe that it has nothing to do with it. Because if you add up all the punishment/suffering for every sin ever committed, and every sin ever to be committed, well, then you find that the cumulative suffering is Finite. It is said that Christ's atonement was an Infinite atonement, so a cumulative penal substitution isn't at all what it was. Up the wrong rabbit trail entirely.

The expression “penal substitution” is not found in scripture, and I am not aware of what theological nuances might be attached to it by Protestants/Evangelicals which might make it a questionable doctrine; but the literal meaning conveyed by that phrase does have scriptural support—i.e. that Jesus suffered as a “substitute” for us, so that we might suffer if we repent—as per the scriptural references previously given. Now “penal substitution” is not the same thing as “cumulative penal substitution”. The latter expression conveys meanings that are less easy to defend scripturally; and I was not agreeing with that expression.

With regard to the Atonement being “infinite,” I believe it means that it was performed by an infinite being—i.e. God. It is an atonement that could only be performed by God, which makes it an infinite atonement; and the Book of Mormon teaches that quite clearly.

I am not a fan of Protestant or Evangelical theology; but I don’t automatically dismiss it either. I look at it; and if I see a merit in something they teach, then I will acknowledge that.

[cksalmon]

If my position is based solely on the Bible and BoMormon, it's not presupposition on my part. Those came before I was even born . Now if you're saying there are presuppositions in the Bible and/or BoMormon, I suppose you can make a case for that. Or perhaps you think I presupposed the BoMormon and Bible to be true; I would have to disagree. I've studied them and thought about them a lot!

Okay. We may just be using the term in two different ways, M. By presupposition, I mean to refer to beliefs that are already in place before we start interpreting data and through which we interpret data. We all have those sorts of presuppositions. None of us is neutral in how we view the world (or biblical texts). When I said that your comment ("I don't think there are any presuppositions") was ridiculous, that's the sort of thing I had in mind. I hope that clarifies.

cks

[cksalmon]

As a side note, I spelled sow wrong. I used the spelling that implies the use of a needle and thread. ha ha

Sadly (English major that I was), I didn't even notice.

[LeSellers]

Jesus did not sew his own suffering.

Of course not. Jesus was a shepherd, not a tailor.

Lehi

[inquiringmind]

For a good survey of Atonement theories, including penal substitution, and the distinctiveness of the Book of Mormon description of at-onement, see Loren Hansen, The Moral Atonement as Mormon Interpretation.

https://dialoguejour..._V27N01_207.pdf

That's an interesting paper, but I have a question (and it has to do with inerrancy.)

I understand the book of Mormon contains a statement (from Moroni, I think) to the effect that if it contains errors, they're the errors of men, but I assumed this meant only insegnificant, non-doctrinal errors.

The author of this paper says:

Nephites worshipped God as a spiritual being—"Father," yet to be born as "Son." As the church has explained in retrospect, the pre-existent Jesus, by investiture from the Father, was acting and being worshipped as representative of the Father but was to be born in mortality as the Son, then to be generally recognized as truly the Son, a personal being distinct from the Father.

Is it possible the Nephite prophets were mistaken about something like this?

That they actually said (and meant) that The Father and The Son were the same person, but were wrong?

[Kevin Christensen]

That's an interesting paper, but I have a question (and it has to do with inerrancy.)

I understand the book of Mormon contains a statement (from Moroni, I think) to the effect that if it contains errors, they're the errors of men, but I assumed this meant only insegnificant, non-doctrinal errors.

The author of this paper says:

Is it possible the Nephite prophets were mistaken about something like this?

That they actually said (and meant) that The Father and The Son were the same person, but were wrong?

Errors are errors, and people make them. And we all have to start from the cultural background we are given, and somehow accommodate new information. At one point in the New Testament, Peter tells Jesus that nothing like death and crucifixion is going to happen to him. Peter later denies Jesus. In Acts 15 Peter and Paul argue about who should and should not be circumcised. I'm comfortable with the idea that prophets can have different understandings for various reasons, and can make a variety of human errors. And that they can change and grow in their understanding. On the other hand, I have come to believe there are specific cases where I think the scholars are the ones with the problem, the ones misunderstanding, and not, for instance, Abinadi. A good example is the famous paper on "The Reconstruction of Mormon Doctrine" which argued for a change in understanding between the Kirtland and Nauvoo. I'm not opposed to the possibility of changes and or differences in understanding. I just think that paper is wrong in its specifics.

Fifteen years ago, I was comfortable with the notion that Abinadi, for instance, might have had a different understanding of Jesus than current LDS. However, in light of other studies and books and contextualization, and what I now notice in articles that have made that claim, I tend to think that Abinadi has been mis-contextualized, selectively quoted, and consequently misread, and then designated as the one to blame.

I have a Father and I have a Son, which makes me both a father and a son. This confuses no one. Yet if Jesus has roles as Father and Son, almost everyone gets confused.

If Jesus says "I and my Father are one," we can interpret that in various ways if we like. But he also provides context when he says that he wants the apostles to have the same kind of oneness. He prays that they can "be one even as we are one," and later says "If ye are not one ye are not mine." That strikes me as describing social unity, rather than metaphysical, substantial oneness that comes from those immersed in Neoplatonic thinking.

Margaret Barker's book The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God changed my approach to this issue because it provides a context for my reading of the Book of Mormon. Plus this essay on the Book of Mormon theology:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=13&num=2&id=392

And Brant Gardner's FAIR essay is very helpful:

http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences/2003_Monotheism_Messiah_and_Mormons_Book.html

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Darth_Bill]

What do I do with the concept that guilt and blame cannot be taken by another? In our sense of justice, an innocent simply cannot, in any regards, pay for the guilt of another. You don't punish an innocent person. Yet isn't this what is happening with the atonement? The one person that cannot be punished, made to pay, is doing exactly that. And why don't the laws of Justice apply to Jesus? Why does he get to bypass the rules and pay for other's sins, if "pay" is the right word? If justice doesn't apply to him, then why does mercy?

I've had to contemplate this for the past three years, and I'm coming up short. It doesn't help that the Governemental Theory (Justice/Mercy) was one of those Methodist concepts that Joseph was inclined towards. Makes me question a lot.

[Mordecai]

What do I do with the concept that guilt and blame cannot be taken by another?

Guilt can be taken by true humility. Blame is often a healthy understanding of who caused what. No need to get rid of it.

In our sense of justice, an innocent simply cannot, in any regards, pay for the guilt of another. You don't punish an innocent person. Yet isn't this what is happening with the atonement?

No, if you believe the BoMormon, Jesus was not being punished. He was suffering as a means to heal us.

[volgadon]

What do I do with the concept that guilt and blame cannot be taken by another? In our sense of justice, an innocent simply cannot, in any regards, pay for the guilt of another. You don't punish an innocent person. Yet isn't this what is happening with the atonement?

Not in our understanding, but in the biblical world you were held accountable for the actions of your kinsmen.

[cksalmon]

Dare I throw my 2 cents into this? Yeah, I guess I will.

...

It is interesting, that when Christ himself describes the suffering he had to endure because of the Atonement, he doesn't mention the cross at all.

I find it interesting that when you refer to the suffering he had to endure because of the Atonement, you refer only to D&C 19.18. But, what is the "cup" referring to in the Gospel narratives picking up at, say, Luke 22.42ff and Matthew 26.42ff? Luke records the detail of his sweating drops as blood, but Matthew doesn't. I'll take Luke's account as literally as required, but in neither of their accounts does it make any narrative sense to suggest that the "cup" mentioned is that act of sweating drops of blood (which follows more or less immediately after his prayer in Luke). No. The cup is something further along in the narrative. Namely, the crucifixion.

It surely misses the point to point out, as you have, that lots and lots of folks were crucified and that Jesus' death by crucifixion was rather shorter than others. All true.

They will say that Jesus suffered the punishment of all sinners, or at least of all sinners who would repent; meaning that the suffering of Jesus was somehow additive, according to the numbers and severity of the sins the sinners committed.

No, I wouldn't say that at all.

For if the suffering of Jesus through the atonement were additive as I have described above [it's not--cks], then Jesus would have to bear the suffering that every single repentant sinner would otherwise have to suffer. That seems like a lot of punishment, but it turns out that this is completely inadequate for the task.

I'd suggest that your focus on the amount of physical suffering endured or length of time spent dying really misses the entire point of penal substitution. There is no 1:1 correspondence between the amount of suffering or length of time I (or you) deserve to suffer for my (or your) sins and the amount of suffering or length of time that Jesus suffered on the cross.

And I can't think of any Christian group who actually articulates the efficacy of the Atonement in the manner you've ascribed to your hypothetical opponents. That's not how Roman Catholics view the Atonement, nor Eastern Orthodox, nor the Magisterial Reformers, nor Arminians, nor the Anabaptists, etc. So, however well intentioned your critique may be, it appears to be contrived. A strawman. I'm not suggesting that all these groups would hold to my view (penal substitution). My point is that none of them would hold to your caricature of it.

If you can cite someone who actually espouses the view you reject, I will wholeheartedly agree with you that that person has a faulty view of the Atonement. But, I'd need more convincing than your interpretation of what Mel Gibson was getting at in a 21st C film you've never seen.

But what was the crucifixion to Christ? Merely the outward physical symbol of his real suffering, which was the passion of the Atonement. Christ did not need to die on the cross to achieve the Atonement.

I take it that you really mean: Christ did not need to die at all to achieve the Atonement. What did he need to do, short of what he actually and finally did do (die), to achieve the Atonement? Can you explain what he might have done differently to finally achieve the Atonement without actually dying? It appears that, for you, his death on the cross is incidental, if not accidental--but, at any rate, not strictly speaking necessary for the Atonement.

By the way, I take the "Atonement" writ large to have begun in Mary's womb and to have ended with the words, "It is finished." Penal substitution is not just his death in my place for my failure to perfectly keep God's law; equally, it is his perfect keeping of God's law, in my place, during his incarnated life. ("For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous" [Rom 5:19 KJV]).

I disagree much less with what follows in your post, though I have quibbles. But, you already acknowledge an infinite Atonement. The dividing line between us, then, appears to be that you don't recognize that Christ's sacrificial death on your behalf (since the wages of sin is [always and only] death) coupled with his perfect obedience to God's moral law (since by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous) is what constitutes Christ's infinite Atonement on behalf of those who are being saved by him.

[zerinus]

That's an interesting paper, but I have a question (and it has to do with inerrancy.)

I understand the book of Mormon contains a statement (from Moroni, I think) to the effect that if it contains errors, they're the errors of men, but I assumed this meant only insegnificant, non-doctrinal errors.

Errors are errors! However, it also says, “And if there be faults they be the faults of a man. But behold, we know no fault” (Moroni 8:17). So he is not expecting that there should be any faults; he just doesn't want to take any chances, knowing the fallible human agency through which they were produced. It also says something else which is interesting. It says, “And if our plates had been sufficiently large we should have written in Hebrew . . . and if we could have written in Hebrew, behold, ye would have had no imperfection in our record” (Moroni 9:33). That suggests the kind of errors he is worrying about has more to do with the method of communication (i.e. Reformed Egyptian vs. Hebrew), rather than human errors in general. Furthermore, given the miraculous nature of the book's production, and other statements made in the Book of Mormon, I believe that any such errors that might have existed in the Book of Mormon will have been ironed out by the revelatory process of the translation. I am convinced that Book of Mormon is perfect from a theological point of view, and there are no errors of a doctrinal nature in it at all.

The author of this paper says:

Is it possible the Nephite prophets were mistaken about something like this?

No.

That they actually said (and meant) that The Father and The Son were the same person, but were wrong?

Well, they could have said something like that; and if they did, it does not mean that they were in error. ". . . nevertheless, there are many mysteries which are kept, that no one knoweth them save God himself" (Alma 40:3). It is very foolish to suppose that we know everything that there is to be known about the Trinity, or of anything else.