Ostler'S Compassion Theory Of The Atonement

[Log]

http://blakeostler.c...rmonThought.pdf

I have two problems with this theory.

1. Hebrews 10:12 states, to my satisfaction, that Christ performed the Atonement in its entirety at one time.

2. D&C 19:16-18 states, to my satisfaction, that the unrepentant who die in their sins will suffer what Christ suffered during the atonement.

Ostler does not engage Hebrews 10:12 at all, and seems to overlook what is to me the plain meaning of D&C 19:16-18.

Every person decides, on the basis of background assumptions and beliefs, which scriptures to take literally, and which to take figuratively. Ostler takes those two sets of scriptures figuratively, rather than literally, in part because of his underlying assumption that libertarian free will pertains, which of itself implies limited foreknowledge of God. On this view, as God could not know, 2000 years ago, what precise sins his children would individually commit, Ostler believes Christ is continually performing mini-atonements. That's just my quick gloss.

I, too, believe libertarian free will pertains, yet I also take those two scriptures literally, and therefore take others figuratively. My personal view of how the Atonement is effected is closer to Skousen's view (which I don't think Ostler has done justice to in his gloss, and, in fact, in his description is pulling typical lawyer's tricks and is not addressing the strongest possible statement thereof).

Anyways, what do you think?

I've attached a Word document with Skousen's view as he related it, if any wish to compare.

the atonement.doc

Edited March 25, 2012 by Log

[Maidservant]

Just a small FYI, but D & C 19 says nothing about death, or after death.

Will reply more when I read Ostler and digest it.

[Log]

Thanks for the FYI. I believe, however, that in the context of the earlier verses, where the topic being discussed is "eternal torment" and "endless punishment," the notion that we're looking at states of affairs after death seems inescapable. Nevertheless, if anyone has a compelling reason to read it in another sense, please let me know.

[RadioFreeDeath]

I read Skousen's article on the mission and Ostler's article not long after returning. This discussion seems super interesting to me because I don't buy Ostler's Atonement theory but i do buy his kritik of Skousen's. How do you answer his four arguments?

1. Scriptural argument that Christ must actually take the sins upon himself and suffer the pain for it. In Skousen Christ suffers pain to placate intelligences but that doesnt seem connected directly to our sins.

2. If he suffered for sins in general 2k years ago how do my sins today connect to it

3. How does a God who sits preacriously on the edge of godhood based solely on the opinions of intelligences deserve worship

4. Why didn't God just suffer for the sins himself. Wouldnt that be a better answer for the intelligences?

I guess I would lean towards Dennis Potter's empathy theory but it still seems to come short.

[Log]

I read Skousen's article on the mission and Ostler's article not long after returning. This discussion seems super interesting to me because I don't buy Ostler's Atonement theory but i do buy his kritik of Skousen's. How do you answer his four arguments?

1. Scriptural argument that Christ must actually take the sins upon himself and suffer the pain for it. In Skousen Christ suffers pain to placate intelligences but that doesnt seem connected directly to our sins.

2. If he suffered for sins in general 2k years ago how do my sins today connect to it

3. How does a God who sits preacriously on the edge of godhood based solely on the opinions of intelligences deserve worship

4. Why didn't God just suffer for the sins himself. Wouldnt that be a better answer for the intelligences?

I guess I would lean towards Dennis Potter's empathy theory but it still seems to come short.

Forgive my general incompetence in carrying a sustained argument, but I can at least give some indications on what I have thought in consideration of these questions.

1. That's where I may take scriptures figuratively - it is possible, in my view, that Christ did not literally take upon him a specified set of sins in the sense of being considered guilty in someone else's place for any particular action. It seems that Alma 7:13 says it was sufficient to suffer in the flesh to fulfill the scriptures saying he would take upon him the sins of his people. My reading of D&C 19, for example, suggests that the torment suffered by Christ would have been the same if one, none, or all humans repented. There is save it be one punishment for sin, and that is spiritual death, and spiritual death is the same for all, and that is what Christ suffered. I don't think placating intelligences was necessarily the primary purpose of Christ's suffering; at least, not in the sense of propitiation. I think one of the purposes for Christ's undergoing "ultimate suffering" (literally) and remaining sinless in his internal and external being proved to the heavens that them possessed of the divine nature - Gods - are faithful in all possible circumstances and are hence worthy of complete faith, and that the Father's judgements are wholly reliable.

2. That concern is vitiated by my approach to #1, I believe. One's sins are remitted, and the divine nature bestowed, upon conditions of repentance, according to the judgements of the Father, whose judgements have been vindicated before all by Christ's accomplishment.

3. I think again this is touched upon in my thoughts on #1. Consider that the Father's laws and commandments are calculated to preserve eternal felicity and increase, and he has demonstrated that even in the furthest extremes possible a divine being shall not use nor abuse his fellow intelligences, and see if that doesn't begin to appeal to you.

4. The Father cannot die, neither physically nor spiritually, for starters.

Anyways, these are just some of my thoughts.

Edited March 25, 2012 by Log

[CV75]

Anyways, what do you think?

I think the Lord’s Atonement was a one-time event in the Garden of Gethsemane, and everything (the attendant appendages) He and the Father and the Holy Spirit did before that (by way of preparation), and all They did after that (by way of application), point to it. Because of faith in Their advanced knowledge and intelligence, God’s children in this world / universe can “[speak] of things to come as if they had already come” (Mosiah 16: 6) and believe in Him to come as if he was already come (Jacob 1:11).

Where there are “lords many” (I Cor. 8:5; D&C 121:28) it seems this pattern of one-time-only atoning act, with the attendant preparations, applications and appendages of it, continues worlds without end.

[Bob Crockett]

Am I the only one here to think that Ostler is unreadable?

You have your Nibley and Peterson, on the one hand, who articulate a very clear position on things related to the Gospel. Might not always agree with them, but it is hard for me to say that I don't understand them.

And then you've got Ostler, to a large degree, and a couple of our respected dear friends on this board who write roughly in the same style as Ostler.

Maybe I'm just dense.

[RadioFreeDeath]

I like your answer to the 4th argument actually. I think the problem though with suggesting that the Atonement is not personal in the sense of suffering is that it seems that General authorities have suggested otherwise.

"I read His words, the words He prayed

While bearing sorrow in Gethsemane;

I feel His love, the price He paid.

How many drops of blood were spilled for me" - Consider the Lilies James E Faust

There is another one somewhere where Monson talks about this but I cant find it. Are the general authorities just waxing poetic or does the atonement seem to be more personally connected?

[Darth_Bill]

Ostler was one of the reasons for my disaffection. After reading his books and then investigating theories of the atonement on my own, I couldn't find a logical reason to believe in it, other than a pure emotional response. I'm a very emotional person, but I need to understand my god and the machinations of why things are, and I couldn't find a good explanation of "why" in the founding event of my religion. Why can't God do what we do all the time, and forgive. If justice is to work, it must work for ALL parties, and the atonement is completely unjust to Jesus. It just doesn't fit in with what is expected of us (forgive all men) and all we can answer is that a "law" must be satisfied, with little to no information on what that law is or what it pertains to. If this is a law in the eternities, what kind of whacked system are we dying into? Let's kill the only innocent man to ever exist and that will make it all better. It just doesn't work for me.

That and a very personal issue happened at the time, which turned what I understood as forgiveness completely on its head.

Still, I do have hope...Jesus taught a wonderful way of life. For the most part, the church does too. I just don't understand the premises anymore.

[Log]

I like your answer to the 4th argument actually. I think the problem though with suggesting that the Atonement is not personal in the sense of suffering is that it seems that General authorities have suggested otherwise.

...

Are the general authorities just waxing poetic or does the atonement seem to be more personally connected?

I would say they could very well be waxing poetic.

Edited March 25, 2012 by Log

[Maidservant]

Okay, I did a heavy skim of the article, but not a thorough reading.

I think I learned at least one thing from Bro. Ostler that I shall be pondering for a while, and that is where he discusses how a perfect being enters into a relationship (covenant) with an imperfect being. So I think I will read Bro. Ostler a few more times to glean out of there what does seem true to me, at where I'm at in my understanding. But I don't know that I'm convinced by his argument entire, one reason being is that he seems to be afraid of a truly energetic solution (it's almost as if he says THAT can't be it); although, again, his criticisms seem good versus some of the other ideas that have been out there.

When I was a young woman, about 20 or so, it became clear to me in a few clustered a-ha moments that the gospel of Jesus Christ was not a bunch of stories, but a gospel of actual power. (I know that other come to the opposite conclusion, ha ha, but this was my journey.) As a child I had been imagining that Jesus' death on the cross (I did not know about Gethsemane when I was little) was so saaaad to our Heavenly Father, and that Jesus' love was so great as manifested by his willingness to have nails driven through his hands and feet, just to get Heavenly Father to change his mind about us due to the magnitude of this amazing sacrifice, and let us in to heaven. As a child I did not yet know about the brutality of men, and I thought that being crucified was the most abominable thing that could happen and that it happened to one person, Jesus. I didn't know yet that crucifixion doesn't really even rank in the top ten of what people do to each other.

But when I was about 20, I realized that this concept in my mind--the emotional story--was a futile thing, and I realized (at the time) that in order for Heavenly Father to permit this sacrifice to happen to his Son, there would have to be something effective, scientific, actual and energetic consequence and reality to THAT moment (Gethsemane) and connected to each of our souls as well, some actual energy that had the power to cleanse us and change us, spirituallly and bodily. (The fact that it had chronological forwards and backwards effectiveness is a non-issue for me, as I don't see time as a barrier in that manner.)

With a few details and insights over the years, that conceptual framework has stood me well for the last 2 decades. And, indeed, I am still trying to learn within it, and I am constantly calling on God to account to me the purpose of his entire plan including the centrality of the atonement.

Well, in the last less than two years, this framework for understanding the reality and necessity and mechanism of the atonement has been and is in the process of being dismantled in my mind and a new one is taking its place. And honestly, it is scary to me and feels a little like free-falling. And I am not in any finished condition on that. And I am not comfortable sharing the bulk of that--here or anywhere. I feel quite alone.

But I will share a small thing or two that may be of interest to others and be helpful no matter what understanding they have.

Jesus Christ and his atonement (suffering, death, resurrection, etc) as a symbolism is a powerful key to understanding our purpose here on earth, our way to return to our Father in heaven, our way to throw off the shackles of mortality and become awake, our way to become one with each other. Jesus Christ IS the crucifixion of the innocent by the guilty (with some nuances in there). Jesus Christ IS the lamb on the altar (also seen in Isaac's sacrifice). And what is that altar? It is earth life, or mortality. And we are all placed on that altar. We are all innocent (especially when we come as infants). And we are all guilty. We all are impaled by our brothers. And we must become willing for this, forgive them, and then rise again, and save them. Also we must wash our hands of our blood and guilt as we have impaled others. We say that Heavenly Father wouldn't have let Jesus suffer, or that that is not the way a God would go in order to help us all rise, but the fact of the matter is that we are ALL here suffering, so to answer one question (Jesus' sacrifice) will answer the other question (our sacrifice).

Ok, that is enough to begin.

My base point for scriptural understanding of the atonement is Mosiah chapter 15:1 "I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people." And then it goes forward with several mechanistic clues of which I have limited understanding, but I love verse 1 because I then think on 3 Nephi 17:5-7: "And it came to pass that when Jesus had thus spoken, he cast his eyes round about again on the multitude, and beheld they were in tears, and did look steadfastly upon him as if they would ask him to tarry a little longer with them. And he said unto them: Behold, my bowels are filled with compassion towards you. Have ye any that are sick among you? Bring them hither. Have ye any that are lame, or blind, or halt, or maimed, or leprous or that are withered, or that are deaf, or that are afflicted in any manner? Bring them hither and I will heal them, for I have compassion upon you; my bowels are filled with mercy." I'm actually not quite sure why I share this, what my point is anyway. Ha ha. Just good stuff.

When I think of my own sins and my own repentance and my own future of who I will become (sanctified) and my covenant relationship with Jesus Christ and my Father in Heaven, right or wrong, I think of Jesus Christ as being this huge ground for the charges of my sin, that I can just let that go to him (when I'm ready), an actual cleansing and change for me, but which doesn't change him as he has infinite ability to accept those charges and remain who he is. But this may just be an imagination on my part, so I appreciate a discussion like this to get to the nugget of the matter.

[CV75]

On this view, as God could not know, 2000 years ago, what precise sins his children would individually commit, Ostler believes Christ is continually performing mini-atonements.

I think that an atonement made by someone as great as God (Christ) would have to be as great (and as horrible) as if He had fallen and comitted the sins a fallen God is capable of committing, and that this would easily cover any sin commitable by any of the other intellgences combined, since He is greater than they all. This is another reason why He need only to have performed it once, and that it covers all His creations.

[blackstrap]

Was the suffering on the cross a necessary part of the process? Could Christ not have done all the suffering for our sins without the torture of the cross? I know of the prophecies and the shedding of blood etc.,but what about being shot with an arrow or thrust through with a lance and a relatively quick death ?

Also,if I do not repent then I must suffer for my own sins.This seems to suggest that the payment to the "law" has yet to be made . Christ makes the payment if I repent from His account.Otherwise I must build my own account. I know that I am stretching an analogy but analogies help me understand.

[mfbukowski]

Am I the only one here to think that Ostler is unreadable?

You have your Nibley and Peterson, on the one hand, who articulate a very clear position on things related to the Gospel. Might not always agree with them, but it is hard for me to say that I don't understand them.

And then you've got Ostler, to a large degree, and a couple of our respected dear friends on this board who write roughly in the same style as Ostler.

Maybe I'm just dense.

I kind of want him to get to the point. He dances around a bit much for me

[wenglund]

Am I the only one here to think that Ostler is unreadable?

You have your Nibley and Peterson, on the one hand, who articulate a very clear position on things related to the Gospel. Might not always agree with them, but it is hard for me to say that I don't understand them.

And then you've got Ostler, to a large degree, and a couple of our respected dear friends on this board who write roughly in the same style as Ostler.

Maybe I'm just dense.

From what I can tell, part of the ease or difficulty in reading Ostler may be a function of one's familiarity, or lack thereof, with the various philosophic schools of thought and how those schools address certain philosophical problems.

But, it may also be because some of us are dense.

For my part, and perhaps in the mind of my interlocutors, it may be a bit of both.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

From what I can tell, part of the ease or difficulty in reading Ostler may be a function of one's familiarity, or lack thereof, with the various philosophic schools of thought and how those schools address certain philosophical problems.

Agreed- I think that's it. He summarizes every possible point of view before he pulls the trigger on what he actually believes. I can see why he does that because his readership are bright people but probably most of whom do not have philosophy backgrounds, so he is trying to bring them up to speed on why he believes what he believes.

On the other hand, I think the education tends to be overkill and there is a lot of extraneous stuff there that doesn't contribute to his final conclusion.

It's a tough thing to do and I am sure that each of us in our areas of specialization can appreciate how hard it is to explain something which is technically complex in our area, to a total novice in 25 words or less. Do you go into all the details or not? You lose either way!

[rameumptom]

If you think his article is difficult to digest, try his books on the Attributes of God!

I find his Compassion Theory to be very plausible. There are serious problems with some of the standard theories out there, including Skousen's.

D&C 19 ties in well with the CT. When I read Alma 36, I think of Alma suffering even as Christ did. However, once Alma repented, he was immediately snatched into a loving embrace by Christ, redeemed from eternal hell and death, redeemed from the "exquisite pain" he had experienced. BTW, Alma's change, wherein he repents and immediately sees God on his throne, contradicts some of the other theories, where we have to work out our repentance and salvation in a very austere manner.

The atonement of Christ is not a one time thing, but continues on throughout the eternity. It began when he was called as our Savior in the Grand Council, met its climax in Gethsemane and the Cross, and continues to this very day. Parts of it are complete, as Hebrews suggests, such as Jesus bringing forth the resurrection. But the atonement is ongoing.

[wenglund]

I can agree with much of Blake's Compassion Theory as long as I view it as explaining only one dimension of atonement--the "relationship" dimension.

To me, his theory ignores the physiological or spiritualogical dimension. As I understand things, sin not only causes an alienation in our relationship with God, but, perhaps like physical diseases or injuries, it also affects the nature or disposition of our spirits, and potentially the nature and disposition our physical bodies as well. When we sin, our spirits may become infected with dark spirit matter, which, depending upon the type of infection, and the extent of the infection, may have significant repercussions on disposition of our spirits, causing us to become spiritually sick, and perhaps even to die.

If so, I don't see how Blake's Compassion Theory adequately addresses this.

But, then, I don't know if there is a unifying theory for the atonement. It may be that different theories may best answer different dimensions or aspects of the atonement. And, so, for those looking for philosophical theories for the atonement, perhaps an amalgam of theories may be best. Who knows?

It is enough for me to have faith that Christ is the Redeemer and made salvation possible, and to exercise that faith to that end.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Ostler was one of the reasons for my disaffection. After reading his books and then investigating theories of the atonement on my own, I couldn't find a logical reason to believe in it, other than a pure emotional response.

This is understandable and, in part, the reason why I believe it is wise to consider the effects of sin on our souls as well as our relationship with God, because it gives reason for a Savior and Redeemer beyond the advantages of an exemplary and inspiration, to that of absolute necessity.

By analogy, while the physical body may have the ability to heal itself of certain sicknesses and afflictions, there are certain illnesses and injuries the extent to which may require external intervention--they may require a physician to surgically remove the diseases and bind up our wounds, and provide medication and balm to assist in healing and making one whole.

To me, the same is true for the spiritual body that has become infected and injured by sin. Our need for a Savior to heal us is a matter of life and death.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mfbukowski]

This is understandable and, in part, the reason why I believe it is wise to consider the effects of sin on our souls as well as our relationship with God, because it gives reason for a Savior and Redeemer beyond the advantages of an exemplary and inspiration, to that of absolute necessity.

By analogy, while the physical body may have the ability to heal itself of certain sicknesses and afflictions, there are certain illnesses and injuries the extent to which may require external intervention--they may require a physician to surgically remove the diseases and bind up our wounds, and provide medication and balm to assist in healing and making one whole.

To me, the same is true for the spiritual body that has become infected and injured by sin. Our need for a Savior to heal us is a matter of life and death.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I am a big fan of the Didache, which is a first century text which describes the difference between two "Ways"- one leading to life (righteousness) and the other leading to death (sin)

We all sin, and have made choices which earn us death in following that path, as actual natural consequences of those acts. (Anger leads to murder, adultery leads to failure of the family and consequences for children, addictions lead to poor health decisions, stealing leads to revenge and idleness, even breaking traffic laws lead to unsafe situations which can lead to loss of life, etc- all of these are ultimately destructive behaviors)

We must repent of those behaviors to partially reverse the effects we have already earned through sin, but on our own, we can never be perfect.

We need an ideal image of perfection, and the contemplation of that ideal image and comparing Him to us causes us guilt by knowing how far we have strayed from the ideal. But that guilt is itself destructive- we need a way to rid ourselves of it and know that we can be healed of our past transgressions and look forward to being perfect in the future.

This to me is the bottom line in understanding how belief in the atonement actually works in our lives- it is my version of the "Pragmatic Atonement" in 50 words or less.

On this view, Christ becomes the major force in our lives and helps us individually to overcome the effects of sin by becoming our ideal, our healer, and our hope for future redemption as we repent and do our best to achieve perfection in our own lives and ultimately hope to become one with Christ and our Father.

There is probably a potential book in each of those paragraphs, but that's the short version!

I better get busy!

Edited March 27, 2012 by mfbukowski

[Log]

To redirect the conversation - "What did the Atonement accomplish, and how did it accomplish it?"

[mfbukowski]

To redirect the conversation - "What did the Atonement accomplish, and how did it accomplish it?"

Well from my point of view, all we can hope to know about any phenomenon is how it affects us and makes a difference in human life. Take dark matter for example- the only reason we even know it "exists" is that the theories we use to calculate things I will probably never understand don't come out right unless we postulate that something like that is out there in some way or other. Were it not for the fact that it messes up our picture (metaphor) of how the universe works, we wouldn't even postulate that the could be such a thing.

So I see the atonement in a similar way. It is so far beyond us that we will never understand the "physics" - the eternal forces- of how it works- it is important to us though because of the real differences it makes in our lives. That does not mean that it is not "real" or "only psychological" any more than saying that dark matter is not "real" but "just theoretical" because the only difference it makes is to make someone's theory add up properly.

The idea of that Christ sacrificed himself for each of us individually is what does it.

So for me, what that atonement accomplishes is its effect in our lives- the idea that we can give up our sins and surrender our guilt for our own lack of perfection and everything we have ever done with the negative consequences we actually deserve- that is huge!

It heals me, it makes me whole, it gives me hope for something beyond this life because I know that God will not judge me only for what I have done, but with the atonement shielding my stupid human failings and my own deliberate sins, so that if I am really doing the best I can, it is sufficient

It just makes sense that we cannot be perfect without something to bridge that gap between us and God- the gap we can never fill ourselves.

I don't need to know the mechanics of it- it's effect in my life is quite enough! For me it becomes real to me personally for its effect in my life and since we cannot know more, that is all we really need anyway.

Anything more is an attempt to explain what is unexplainable and must be experienced directly- again, back to the taste of salt, or explaining the color red to a blind person. It is as real and just as inexplicable as any direct experience.