Atonement Theory

[Lamanite]

I'm trying to gather scriptures from the standard works that express or define the need for an Atonement. I'm primarily focusing on the penal substitution theory and the satisfaction theory. Thanks for your help.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[volgadon]

Long time no see!

[Lamanite]

True dat! What's the word?

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Cobalt-70]

I'm trying to gather scriptures from the standard works that express or define the need for an Atonement. I'm primarily focusing on the penal substitution theory and the satisfaction theory. Thanks for your help.

I think the Book of Mormon perspective is actually the governmental theory of atonement. It is a type of substitutionary theory. This is the theory that God is our just ruler, and to maintain his status as the ruler of the universe there must be a penalty for sin. Therefore, Jesus suffered and died as a substitute for the actual penalty that everyone would have to suffer as a result of their sins.

This is not the same thing as Calvinistic penal substutition theory, which says that Jesus had to pay the exact penalty of every sin that has ever been committed. Under the governmental theory, the atonement is a substitute for the penalty. It is also an infinite and unlimited atonement, in the sense that it does not matter how many sins were committed in the course of human history--they are all covered, either hypothetical or actual. I don't think there is any support in Mormon scripture for penal substitution theory, because the Book of Mormon is pretty clear that it is an infinite atonement for all humankind, rather than a limited atonement only for the saved.

Book of Mormon verses that I think are in favor of the governmental theory include:

1. "[T]here can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world." Alma 34:12.
   
2. "And now, the plan of mercy could not be brought about except an atonement should be made; therefore God himself atoneth for the sins of the world, to bring about the plan of mercy, to appease the demands of justice, that God might be a perfect, just God, and a merciful God also." Alma 42:15
   
3. "...if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God." Alma 42:22
   
4. "...having broken the bands of death, taken upon himself their iniquity and their transgressions, having redeemed them, and satisfied the demands of justice." Mosiah 15:9 (admittedly, this is also compatible with satisfaction theory if read in isolation)
   

Edited May 24, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Lamanite]

Thanks so much Cobalt!

Big UP!

Lamanite

[DubaDNura]

Those words don't mean a whole lot to me, but I'm reminded of a paper written by a friend of a friend.

See https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V39N01_65.pdf

[Lamanite]

Regarding penal substitution the BoM teaches:

" 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." Alma 34:11

It appears that this scripture seems to reject vicarious suffering for sin. From Amulek's point of view it appears that he is referring to the eternal law of justice and not Nephite law.

*My comments come largely from an essay by Jacob Morgan The Divine Infusion Theory

Thoughts?

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Cobalt-70]

Regarding penal substitution the BoM teaches:

" 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." Alma 34:11

It appears that this scripture seems to reject vicarious suffering for sin. From Amulek's point of view it appears that he is referring to the eternal law of justice and not Nephite law.

I agree. I interpret Alma 34:11 as a rejection of penal substitution theory. But it is, in my view, consistent with the governmental theory of Hugo Grotius. In the governmental theory, Jesus is not vicariously suffering the penalty for our individual sins; he is, rather, suffering to "appease the demands of justice" (Alma 42:15). The word "appease" here is a dead giveaway for the governmental theory. So when Alma 34:12 says that "therefore there can be nothing which is short of an infinite sacrifice which will suffice for the sins of the world," that is not a contradiction with Alma 34:11. Jesus is making an infinite sacrifice for the sins of the whole world, and not suffering the exact penalty for the specific sins of any individual person.

Edited May 24, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I love that quote from Alma. I thought David T and others wrote some really good stuff on a very related topic in a recent thread: How Can God Forgive Sin?

Edit: Y'know, I haven't read Alma in a while, and man, everytime I come back there's something new. Such a good book!

Edited May 24, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Lamanite]

It seems the Bible has a few scriptures that seem contradictory to the theory of Governmental Atonement.

Matt 20:28 "even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Matthew 26:28 " for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

John 10:14 "I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep."

Thoughts?

Big UP!

Lamanite

Edited May 25, 2012 by Lamanite

[Cobalt-70]

It seems the Bible has a few scriptures that seem contradictory to the theory of Governmental Atonement.

Matt 20:28 "even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Matthew 26:28 " for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins."

John 10:14 "I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep."

I agree. The bible provides several contrasting models of atonement, which is why Protestants have had such intense disputes over the issue. Some of the models can coexist, although governmental and penal substitution probably are mutually exclusive, and tied to the rift between Arminianism and Calvinism.

[Maidservant]

3 Nephi 27:14-16 is also interesting. The "shall be filled" has always been a little puzzle for me (v 16).

[DH]

Call me crazy, but punishing an innocent man for other people's sins is not my idea of justice.

In my opinion, though it may involve punishment at times, true justice is not about punishment or revenge. The Gospel is all about relationships, so I think restorative justice fits better with the Gospel than retributive justice. Justice is about doing what's right, and sometimes showing mercy is the right thing to do.

I prefer the moral influence and Christus Victor theories of the Atonement. René Girard does an interesting reconstruction of the Christus Victor theory in his discussion about the scapegoating mechanism.

I also think the Passion is a wonderful revelation of the type of being God is. He is the type of being who would not lash out in anger at us, but would rather suffer indignity, pain, and even death at our hands in an attempt to win our heart, because he loves us. That revelation of God's love is so amazing it blows my mind.

Edited May 28, 2012 by DH

[mathman1550]

What I would really like to know regarding the atonement and God is as follows: We know there are lots of scriptures and modern day prophets that have equated showing our love for God and keeping the commandments. There are even more references to the benefits we recieve when we love God (i.e. keep the commandments). What is not shown (or at least not outright) is how we increase our love of God so that we are more willing to keep the commandments and get these blessings. So how do we do it? How do we increase our love for God? References?

[DH]

What I would really like to know regarding the atonement and God is as follows: We know there are lots of scriptures and modern day prophets that have equated showing our love for God and keeping the commandments. There are even more references to the benefits we recieve when we love God (i.e. keep the commandments). What is not shown (or at least not outright) is how we increase our love of God so that we are more willing to keep the commandments and get these blessings. So how do we do it? How do we increase our love for God? References?

I don't have references, but from personal experience I can tell you two ways to increase your love for a person.

One way is simply get to know the person better. Really pay attention to them, to what they have to say, what they're like, etc. Eventually you'll find common ground, or something that's not common ground that you like. There was once a fellow in my ward who I couldn't stand at all. Then they assigned us to be home teaching companions. After getting to know him that way, I came to truly love the guy.

Another way to increase your love for a person is to serve them. Of course, this goes hand-in-hand with getting to know them better, as you can best serve a person if you know what she needs. There are countless stories of missionaries who came to love the people in their mission because they served them. There are multiple reasons parents love their children, but one of them is because parents do so much to serve them. Serving people really can help you love them more, and I'm sure that'll work with God, too.

Edited May 28, 2012 by DH

[Cobalt-70]

3 Nephi 27:14-16 is also interesting. The "shall be filled" has always been a little puzzle for me (v 16).

I think "filled" refers to "filled with the Holy Spirit." I'm not sure whether this passage is an atonement theory. I think it is just an analogy regarding the final judgment.

[rameumptom]

I'm right now into Ostler's Compassion Theory, myself.

[Lamanite]

I posed these questions while corresponding with a family member. They are taken out of context but I'm sure most of you will be able to infer my meaning.

If there is a price to be paid for sin, or a debt of some kind that is owed, who or what is the creditor?

What does the suffering of God 2000 yrs. ago have to do with satisfying or avoiding the spiritual affects of sin? What does the suffering of God 2000 yrs. ago have to do with the healing process following sin.

Why can't God just forgive and heal without requiring the suffering and death of his Son? If God is Omni-benevolent and Omnipotent then surely he could have accomplished the Plan of Salvation without the unjust suffering of his innocent Son.

Couldn't God heal and bring us back into his presence without an Atonement? If we grant unto God the attribute of being Omnipotent then by very definition he could heal and restore us without the unjust sacrifice of His Son.

By overcomeing death I assume you are referring to the resurrection of the dead. How does Deicide somehow extend us the ability to live after death? In reference to your mentioning the "price of sin" I again ask who or what creditor demands a price for transgression and sin? And how does Deicide fit into sin nearly 2000 yrs. after the fact?

How does His resurrection extend to us or provide us immortality? Could an Omnipotent God not extend this blessing without the ignominious death and resurrection of his Son?

The notion that the suffering of a man who lived more than 2,000 years ago is somehow operative in enabling us to be forgiven of our sins here and now – or more technically to have our sins eradicated through expiation – is puzzling to the say the least. How could the fact that a man/God suffered and died 2,000 years ago still have some relation to my repentance here and now? How is it possible that the sins I commit now could cause him pain 2,000 years ago?

You mention his perfection in relationship to justification. Justification implies that the Atonement is somehow related to Justice. From Mormon Philosopher Blake Ostler we read:

"the atonement functions by God giving in to unjust demands and thus entails that God in fact is complicit in unjustly requiring his son to suffer to appease these unjust demands. Moreover, the biggest question it raises for me is: why doesn’t the Father himself undergo the punishment to assuage the unjust demands? This view seems to entail that the Father is both unjust and a coward." Atonement in Mormon Thought, pg.5

Harsh words to be true, but he does raise the question of the true nature of Justice. If justice requires that an innocent man be required to pay an infinite penalty for the guilty then it would seem that justice is unjust. Justice should require the guilty to suffer and pay for their own sins as opposed to innocent suffering. Shouldn't an Omnipotent God be able to provided redemption without all of the negative components embedded into Mormon theology?

Does spiritual and physical suffering not still exist despite what took place in Gethsemane and on the Cross? The Atonement does not alleviate suffering even though Christ already suffered for all sin.

Anyone that feels like answering some or all of these questions it would be appreciated.

Big UP!

Lamanite

Edited June 10, 2012 by Lamanite

[Maidservant]

I think "filled" refers to "filled with the Holy Spirit." I'm not sure whether this passage is an atonement theory. I think it is just an analogy regarding the final judgment.

Maybe, but see, I read things as they are and it doesn't say anything about the Holy Spirit (can't recall the surrounding verses). And I completely do not view the atonement in terms of penal or substitution theory. So I am open to lots of little clues in the scriptures.

I posed these questions while corresponding with a family member. They are taken out of context but I'm sure most of you will be able to infer my meaning.

If there is a price to be paid for sin, or a debt of some kind that is owed, who or what is the creditor?

Yes. We don't sin in a vacuum. When we sin, then our own self pays that price and others around us, especially those we love the most pay the price for our sin. And especially the innocent in this world suffer from the sins in this world. In our struggle to become what we are (just like a seed struggles to become a plant and bear fruit), here in the mortal plane, since we don't remember who we are from before we came here, in that struggle we harm each other. What has been violated and broken? Our union as the family of God--we are lost from our Father and lost from each other. And we violate each other further and further and destroy, were it not for the atonement of Christ and/or what that represents. Others owe us debts for how they harmed us (like our parents), and we owe debts for how we harmed (like our children). We are all creditors of each other. Father in heaven and Jesus Christ are trying to teach and to ACTUALLY CREATE us into a union again--you can call that a lot of things, assembly of the Firstborn, eternal family, Zion, reconciliation, etc.

What does the suffering of God 2000 yrs. ago have to do with satisfying or avoiding the spiritual affects of sin? What does the suffering of God 2000 yrs. ago have to do with the healing process following sin.

I will admit that I am in transition on my beliefs on this, having been shown some things in the last couple of years that are taking me conceptually and spiritually in places I never thought I would be, and the reality is far more mind-blowing. BUT a few years ago, I was firmly in the mechanical atonement camp, and, hm, have you ever read Dune? Where the ladies can take poison into their bodies, but they have learned to train their bodies to transform the poison and neutralize it. I still think it well within the realm of mechanical possibility that an energy of suffering was laid on the Savior in Gethsemane, and that his soul (chi?) literally transforms it into what we might call grace energy, and then we can drink from that water in our sanctification journey, and have HIS energy sent to us and not only be having to rely on our own. I still think that's real, or possible. The fact that it's in the past makes no difference to me, coz then you get into time theory.

Why can't God just forgive and heal without requiring the suffering and death of his Son? If God is Omni-benevolent and Omnipotent then surely he could have accomplished the Plan of Salvation without the unjust suffering of his innocent Son.

It's not about forgiveness. Unless you have been truly oppressive and violative toward the innocent, do you really think your Father in heaven is mad at you and going to punish you? I can't imagine him even feeling the need to fit that into his schedule. Lamanite, when he thinks on you, you DELIGHT him. He needs you! He longs for you! You take his breath away! He is in love with you! He is mourning with you on your sorrows and pains AND on your weaknesses. We are here on this planet to TRANSFORM. We are NOT little children anymore. We have been preparing for eaons, and now we are here in THE TEST and will come out Gods. Earth life isn't for wimps! ha ha We are ALL his sons and daughters and we are ALL suffering unjustly. And we are ALL innocent, or began that way. The type of the Savior is the type of ALL of us. And yet, here we are, you can call it the plan of salvation. But we are here to create ourselves and to be created by God. And it HURTS LIKE CRAZY! Just like giving birth and being born HURTS, but results in the most joyous of miracles. Mortal life IS the birth canal for the Gods (us).

It's not about GETTING into heaven or being GIVEN a reward for good behavior. That. is. not. the. story.

Couldn't God heal and bring us back into his presence without an Atonement? If we grant unto God the attribute of being Omnipotent then by very definition he could heal and restore us without the unjust sacrifice of His Son.

As God's children we chose very deliberately to come here and participate in this process and we knew exactly what we were doing, although sometimes I think it was more like WATCHING a roller coaster (then) and ACTUALLY RIDING one (now). Ha ha.

I have a story I call We are All Kings. I will share that in a second post and it is my answer for this part.

By overcomeing death I assume you are referring to the resurrection of the dead. How does Deicide somehow extend us the ability to live after death? In reference to your mentioning the "price of sin" I again ask who or what creditor demands a price for transgression and sin? And how does Deicide fit into sin nearly 2000 yrs. after the fact?

How does His resurrection extend to us or provide us immortality? Could an Omnipotent God not extend this blessing without the ignominious death and resurrection of his Son?

The notion that the suffering of a man who lived more than 2,000 years ago is somehow operative in enabling us to be forgiven of our sins here and now – or more technically to have our sins eradicated through expiation – is puzzling to the say the least. How could the fact that a man/God suffered and died 2,000 years ago still have some relation to my repentance here and now? How is it possible that the sins I commit now could cause him pain 2,000 years ago?

You mention his perfection in relationship to justification. Justification implies that the Atonement is somehow related to Justice. From Mormon Philosopher Blake Ostler we read:

"the atonement functions by God giving in to unjust demands and thus entails that God in fact is complicit in unjustly requiring his son to suffer to appease these unjust demands. Moreover, the biggest question it raises for me is: why doesn’t the Father himself undergo the punishment to assuage the unjust demands? This view seems to entail that the Father is both unjust and a coward." Atonement in Mormon Thought, pg.5

Harsh words to be true, but he does raise the question of the true nature of Justice. If justice requires that an innocent man be required to pay an infinite penalty for the guilty then it would seem that justice is unjust. Justice should require the guilty to suffer and pay for their own sins as opposed to innocent suffering. Shouldn't an Omnipotent God be able to provided redemption without all of the negative components embedded into Mormon theology?

Yes. But our children have to suffer every day for NOT THEIR SINS but ours. The sacrifice of the Son is a TYPE and that is all that I am going to say. Ask God to show you on this, because it is VERY difficult for me to explain it in words, I can only give elements on it.

Does spiritual and physical suffering not still exist despite what took place in Gethsemane and on the Cross? The Atonement does not alleviate suffering even though Christ already suffered for all sin.

Anyone that feels like answering some or all of these questions it would be appreciated.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Maidservant]

We are all kings now

================

I was thinking how nice it would be -- daydreaming -- if I was the ruler (queen) of a kingdom and could provide for my people: hospitals, and education, and celebrations, and peace, and housing and so forth.

Then I could see that the children born -- there would be no point to their mortality. There would be no knowledge or struggle (knowledge comes from struggle). They would be 'acted upon' (by me) and not 'acting'. Those children born into my unutterably glorious kingdom would only know life and plenty -- which would result in ???

It is the struggle to create gardens and libraries and healing that is so sweet to the taste.

And, so, then I thought, well, the only way my people would know the happiness and satisfaction I was feeling from creating this wonderful kingdom for them would be if they were kings themselves. I thought all of this innocently and 'logically' flowing from thought to thought; when I had that realization, I then heard the Spirit say, "You get it."

Because -- very well my Father has placed me in my own sphere -- independent to act according to truth and agency -- and that I should have my own world and kingdom -- as he does. (We are as the Gods knowing good from evil.) My Father is the king that had the glorious world into which I was born. But He wanted me to be as happy as He is when He created that world for the children He loves. The only thing He could do more for us was to let us do the same for others. So I left His kingdom, and I have been given my own, and I have the opportunity to provide for those I love. The miracle, of course, is that the conditions of mortality allow that every individual has that sphere as well without truncating mine.

(I have often prayed to know the purpose of mortality, and this was (part of) the answer.)~2007

[Log]

"the atonement functions by God giving in to unjust demands and thus entails that God in fact is complicit in unjustly requiring his son to suffer to appease these unjust demands. Moreover, the biggest question it raises for me is: why doesn’t the Father himself undergo the punishment to assuage the unjust demands? This view seems to entail that the Father is both unjust and a coward." Atonement in Mormon Thought, pg.5

Ostler has resorted to lawyer's tricks to protect his Compassion Theory of the Atonement. It is necessary to understand what motivated his theory, and why it fails.

Ostler denies that God has infallible foreknowledge. He believes that our future free actions are in principle unknowable with certainty. As he believes that Christ literally takes upon himself our sins, it must therefore follow that Christ is perpetually atoning - each repentant soul is a source of fresh suffering - after all, he couldn't have known 2000 years ago what sins you or I would necessarily have committed by now.

One problem is that Hebrews 10:10 says the atonement was performed once, for all. That alone should suffice to break his theory. But there's more.

Another problem is D&C 19 says that the unrepentant who die in their sins suffer exactly what Christ suffered during that one atonement. Ostler does not really deal with these - preferring to deal with D&C 19's use of "preparations" to deny Christ has reference to the one Atonement Hebrews 10:10 says happened.

Anyways. What is justice? To have a more clear view of things, you have to understand what the celestial society will be like.

All are indwelling. All are all-knowing. All are sealed, together, forever, worlds without end. They dwell in perfect harmony, peace, and love amongst each other. They know all there is to know about each other, and feel what each other is feeling.

Now, who would want to be united to a covenant-breaking, selfish, arrogant, self-willed, rebellious soul, to eternally feel of their enmity and pride and pains of debts owed, mistakes made, and so forth? No one. Justice is that those who do not wish to be united to such souls are not united to such souls. Anyone who has been in a bad marriage would have an idea what that would be like.

And, being cut off from that union is spiritual death.

That's justice. And we can see from this that calling for justice is not, itself, an injustice - I find it hard to conceive how anyone could verbalize such self-contradictory stuff.

Why did Christ have to suffer?

I gave my view here and beyond that post.

Why did not the Father suffer? Because he literally cannot - he cannot die, neither temporally nor spiritually.

Anyways.

[Lamanite]

Thus, justice is that them who will not abide by the law of God - those who are not possessed of the divine nature - are not received into the Celestial society, but are placed somewhere else, where they will be most comfortable.

Mercy is that one who did not keep the law, but did turn and repent with all their might, mind, and strength, are given the divine nature, which qualifies them for the Celestial society.

Can one apply the atonement at any point in time (even if it is eons after the "final" judgment) to become reconciled with God through complete repentance? Whereby the son/daughter can begin to nurture his/her "divine nature" and more fully abide the law of God and enter into his presence.

Big UP!

Lamanite

Edited June 10, 2012 by Lamanite

[Log]

Can one apply the atonement at any point in time (even if it is eons after the "final" judgment) to become reconciled with God through complete repentance? Whereby the son/daughter can begin to nurture his/her "divine nature" and more fully abide the law of God and enter into his presence.

There is no divine nature to "nurture." The divine nature - charity (remember - God [the divine nature] is love) - is fully and solely a gift of God which is given upon full repentance (and subsequent baptism and confirmation), which is complete submission to the will of God. There are some who receive the divine nature and with full knowledge of that which they do turn and choose the devil as their father by doing his works among men. I am not aware that it is possible for these to repent. I think it is possible for all others.

Edited June 10, 2012 by Log

[Lamanite]

From my earlier post.

"Couldn't God [bestow divine nature upon his children] without an Atonement? If we grant unto God the attribute of being Omnipotent then by very definition he should be able to bless us with any type of "nature" that is required to remain with him throughout the eternities, without the unjust sacrifice of His Son".

Thoughts?

Big UP!

Lamanite

Edited June 10, 2012 by Lamanite

[Log]

Couldn't God [bestow divine nature upon his children] without an Atonement? If we grant unto God the attribute of being Omnipotent then by very definition he should be able to bless us with any type of "nature" that is required to remain with him throughout the eternities, without the unjust sacrifice of His Son

That's a good question, and one I don't have a full answer to. In fact, it reduces to "what is the need for this mortal experience?" I think the short answer must be "there is no other way." God is not omnipotent - he cannot create nor destroy intelligences nor matter. Reality is what it is. He has to work with what he finds, and he cannot compel, or else the eternal order is one of eternal strife. God is apparently not omniscient, either - he apparently doesn't necessarily know beforehand which are the rotten eggs in the carton. If he did, and it is true as Christ said that it would be better for some to not have been born if certain conditions apply, then God appears condemnable for sending them here to be born.

Gotta think about that some more.

But the sacrifice of Christ was not unjust: Christ agreed to it, knowing beforehand exactly what it entailed ("the spirit knoweth all things..."). More importantly, it was Christ's sacrifice. Each of us, if we would receive the throne of God, must likewise perform a sacrifice, and the object thereof is not of our choosing. It may not be to suffer spiritual death, bleed at every pore, and die upon a Roman cross, but it will tax the desires of our heart and our submission to the will of God as severely as the atonement did Christ's heart and submission.