Atonement Theory

[Lamanite]

But the sacrifice of Christ was not unjust:

Is it not unjust to require an innocent being to suffer for the transgression of another? Especially if the offender does not want the sacrifice or intend to apply the potential benefits?

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Log]

Is it not unjust to require an innocent being to suffer for the transgression of another?

It was never required of him - and there was competition for the privilege of doing it. He agreed to do it of his own free will and choice. How can a fully informed, free decision which does others only good and harms nobody but oneself, and that only temporarily, be labelled unjust?

Edited June 10, 2012 by Log

[Lamanite]

It was never required of him - and there was competition for the privilege of doing it. He agreed to do it of his own free will and choice. How can a fully informed, free decision which does others only good and harms nobody but oneself, and that only temporarily, be labelled unjust?

"There is no eternal law that prevents God from forgiving us from sin. He could just forgive us. However, there is an unjust demand from subjects of the kingdom that requires that someone must pay the price for sin by suffering."

It turns out that the individual who volunteered would live a perfect life of love. The "satisfaction" and "penal substitution" theories fall short of being able to explain why an innocent man would need to suffer punishment and also satisfy (something). This innocent suffering although it was received of his own free will still seems to be a text book example of an unjust legal arrangement.

Perhaps God really could have just forgiven us.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Log]

It turns out that the individual who volunteered would live a perfect life of love. The "satisfaction" and "penal substitution" theories fall short of being able to explain why an innocent man would need to suffer punishment and also satisfy (something).

But did you see where I answered this? Christ, by his life, his sufferings, and his death, demonstrated that those who possessed the divine nature are altogether trustworthy in all things at all times in all circumstances. One might also add that through Christ, all in the heavens have access to a perfect record of just exactly how hard it is for us down here, and beyond - and that does engender compassion towards us.

Again with the "calling for justice is an injustice" claim. Does that sound credible to you, on its face? If so, why?

This innocent suffering although it was received of his own free will still seems to be a text book example of an unjust legal arrangement.

As I don't hold to the legalistic paradigm, neither Ostler's strawman version of Skousen, I am unable to agree with you.

Perhaps God really could have just forgiven us.

Something like that was Lucifer's offer. But even his offer encompassed the mortal probation and associated atonement. Why does the mortal sojourn require an atonement? That's the question I am most interested in.

[CV75]

From my earlier post.

Because we act and are not acted upon, God will not do anything that degrades our agncy--we can only do that to ourselves. This is why He will not save or condemn us without our consent. It takes some choice and effort on our part to deny that which He freely offers us. So likewise, He will not forgive us without our consent.

Edited June 10, 2012 by CV75

[CV75]

Is it not unjust to require an innocent being to suffer for the transgression of another? Especially if the offender does not want the sacrifice or intend to apply the potential benefits?

This might be called the "Work Theory": Jesus wanted, of His own volition, to repair what He had created under the Father's direction and which others had ruined. It took a great deal of work to create and to repair, even unto suffering. Some are grateful for that, and some are not, and some are with Him on this work and some are not. His motive was still love of the Father and of His children, reflected in His obedience.

Edited June 10, 2012 by CV75

[Lamanite]

Why does the mortal sojourn require an atonement? That's the question I am most interested in.

Indeed.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Lamanite]

Because we act and are not acted upon, God will not do anything that degrades our agncy--we can only do that to ourselves. This is why He will not save or condemn us without our consent. It takes some choice and effort on our part to deny that which He freely offers us. So likewise, He will not forgive us without our consent.

God's ability to forgive, heal, or restore us without an atonement would not nullify our ability to choose right from wrong, IMO.

Big UP!

Lamanite

Edited June 10, 2012 by Lamanite

[CV75]

God's ability to forgive, heal, or restore us without an atonement would not nullify our ability to choose right from wrong, IMO.

The atonement is the work entailed in the fruits of forgiveness, healing and restoration; they are synonymous. Even God cannot do something without doing something (that would be like creating a rock so heavy he cannot lift it...!). But that aside, nothing He does or doesn't do nullifies our ability to choose right from wrong.

I see our "natural man" state like a crack in a ceiling, which we caused by separating our plaster from God’s. God’s side of the ceiling is whole, and ours is not. He fills the crack (atones) so the ceiling can be seamless, or one again. But since we are beings that act and not things that are acted upon, we need to receive the plaster, not continue to retreat from it until the crack disappears completely at the edge of the ceiling and the wall, where there is nothing left of what we have taken/robbed/claimed to be "our side" of the ceiling.

We can lose our agency until for all intents and purposes of the perfect, whole ceiling, we do not exist anymore (D&C 93:30, 31).

[Log]

Why is the mortal sojourn necessary at all?

[Lamanite]

Why is the mortal sojourn necessary at all?

That's a great question. I suppose if one doesn't believe that God is omnipotent, then one might need to come up with something similar to the Mormon plan of salvation. This plan recognizes that God exists and acts having certain laws and boundaries imposed upon him. This may necessitate the need for an atonement. How the atonement actually works and in many aspects why it is needed, is never really spelled out within Mormon theology. More often than not, the atonement's use and benefits are taught exclusively, without completely vetting the doctrine.

Regarding our mortal sojourn, the plan of salvation implies that the primary purpose for our journey here is to become like God and ultimately return to his presence. The atonement of Jesus Christ enables God's children to become who we were meant to be. Having been true and faithful in all that God has asked of us we may return to the place where he dwells. Having been converted by and through the atonement we will be comfortable and joyous in his presence- because we will be like him.

Elder Oaks teaches us that:

"the gospel of Jesus Christ challenges us to become something.... The prophet Nephi describes the Final Judgment in terms of what we have become.... From such teachings we conclude that the Final Judgment is not just an evaluation of a sum total of good and evil acts—what we have done. It is an acknowledgment of the final effect of our acts and thoughts—what we have become. It is not enough for anyone just to go through the motions... The commandments, ordinances, and covenants of the gospel are not a list of deposits required to be made in some heavenly account.... The gospel of Jesus Christ is a plan that shows us how to become what our Heavenly Father desires us to become.

To testify is to know and to declare. [However] the gospel challenges us to be “converted,” which requires us to do and to become. The gospel of Jesus Christ is the plan by which we can become what children of God are supposed to become. This spotless and perfected state will result from a steady succession of covenants, ordinances, and actions, an accumulation of right choices, and from continuing repentance.

I testify with gratitude of the plan of the Father under which, through the Resurrection and Atonement of our Savior, we have the assurance of immortality and the opportunity to become what is necessary for eternal life. In the name of Jesus Christ, amen."[bold added]- Oaks, The Challenge to Become October 2000

Mentally and emotionally I'm at a very interesting place regarding my own understanding of the plan of salvation and the need for an atonement. Thanks for your responses. I hope you keep them coming.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[Log]

the plan of salvation implies that the primary purpose for our journey here is to become like God and ultimately return to his presence.

Mormonism does indeed deny that God is omnipotent in classical terms. It is a fact that the intelligences are uncreated and inanihilable, as is matter - it may be that God cannot, in fact, simply bequeath upon us the divine nature. It may be that our natures are not solely the product of divine action or the result of our choices.

Aw, man, I can't put stuff into words adequately.

[Lamanite]

it may be that God cannot, in fact, simply bequeath upon us the divine nature.

If that is accurate then how does the atonement facilitate our becoming what God has intended us to become.

Big UP!

Lamanite

[wenglund]

To better understand the atonement one needs to first understand the nature and affects of sin.

P.S. Good to hear from you again, Lamanite.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Lamanite]

To better understand the atonement one needs to first understand the nature and affects of sin.

P.S. Good to hear from you again, Lamanite.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

What's up Wade?!?!?! Good to see you around!!!

If understanding the nature and affects of sin leads one to an understanding of the atonement then consider me the Einstein of Christology!

Big UP!

Lamanite

[wenglund]

What's up Wade?!?!?! Good to see you around!!!

If understanding the nature and affects of sin leads one to an understanding of the atonement then consider me the Einstein of Christology!

Big UP!

Lamanite

While I would never think to question your brilliance on that subject, unfortunately Einstein's expertise was relegated to the physical rather than the spiritual realm, and my comment pertains more to the latter.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

As a way of exploring the depths and breadth of the spiritual as well as physiological affects of sin, consider the notion of "the sins of the fathers are visited on the children."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Lamanite]

Can you give me clue Wade as to what the correlation is between your scripture, sin,and the atonement?

Also,do you have an opinion on why we need an atonement in order for us to become converted to the Gospel, and thereby become like God having his image in our countenance?

BIG UP!

Lamanite

[CV75]

Also,do you have an opinion on why we need an atonement in order for us to become converted to the Gospel, and thereby become like God having his image in our countenance?

Atonement is conversion to the Gospel, or becoming like God, having His image in our countenance.

The way atonement is accomplished requires certain action by the saints, who can be considered to be the atoning or the atoned ones.

So far we have only been able to identify one saint (Jesus, the Atoning One) who acted such that He was at one with God (converted and like Him) all along. Only He could show the rest of us the way. To do so, He had to decend to our level and rise again to His rightful place, which required great effort and sacrifice on His part, as demonstrated in the Garden of Gethsemane.

Those who have been atoned for by Him in turn become saviors of others. The selfless service we render others has to be the best we can do.

[mrmandias]

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)
   

I think 2 Nephi 2 and Alma 7:11-12 can be read to support a different version of penal substitution then the one you advance here, one that is more 'Calvinist,' to use your term:

http://www.jrganymede.com/2010/08/17/you-want-justice-you-need-justice/

But the clear teaching fo the Book of Mormon that children and heathen must be atoned for is hard to fit in any penal substitutionary scheme.

[mrmandias]

Actually, thinking about it, 2 Nephi 2 might be compatible with the governmental theory after all.

The key move in 2 Nephi 2 is to point out that justice isn't some nebulous demand of the universe at large that God must satisfy. Justice is a necessity for agency, which requires meaningful choice. Meaningful choice means choice that have consequences. But if an omnipotent God just forgave our sins and undid the injustices we caused, our choices would be deprived of their consequence, which means we would have been deprived of our agency. But the consequences of our choices would damn us. How to square the circle? Christ agrees to accept the consequences of our choices on our behalf. That way we can have agency and salvation too. This 2 Nephi 2 teaching is also suggested in accounts of the pre-mortal counsel once you look for it. Its also what Terryl Givens is getting at in his own atonement account, in my opinion:

http://www.ldsmag.com/church/article/7500?ac=1?ac=1

So the question is, does the governmental version of penal substitution provide consequences just as well as a more "Calvinist" version where Christ is suffering the pain and misery of each person's each sin? Perhaps it can, depending on your views on causation. On the one hand, we might want to say that the atonement can't be a consequence of my sin, since in the governmental version the atonement would happen anyway and to the exact same extent regardless of my sin. But consider a firing squad, all with loaded bullets. All bullets strike, all would be fatal by themselves. Can we really say that any one member of the squad had no part in causing the death, since the death would have happened anyway? I think we can't. We probably should say that each member of the squad shared causation for the death and therefore that the death is a consequence of each agent's act of pulling the trigger. Similar reasoning suggests that the atonement can be a consequence of my sins even if it would have happened to the exact same extent without them. So if you accept this view of causation, the governmental theory can work with 2 Nephi 2.

I would also suggest that we not limit ourselves to One True Theory of the atonement. The fact that it overcomes death AND sin AND has empathic elements (see Alma 7:11-12, though it can also be read as a totalization of the incarnation) and that the Bible has various accounts and that Christians have advanced various accounts that many have found meaningful suggests that more than one thing may be circumscribed into the atonement.

[wenglund]

Can you give me clue Wade as to what the correlation is between your scripture, sin,and the atonement?

I believe that sin literally and figuratively changes (degrades) the composition of our souls (individually and in some ways collectively, and throughout generations). We cannot fully remove the darkness from our own souls brought on by sin, let alone the darkness we may bring onto others as a result of our sins. It requires someone who is sinless and transcendent to not only lead us into the light, but to cleans us from darkness and sanctify us in light. Hence, the atonement.

Also,do you have an opinion on why we need an atonement in order for us to become converted to the Gospel, and thereby become like God having his image in our countenance?

We may not need to the atonement to become converted to the the gospel. However, the gospel is relatively meaningless, and doesn't work without the atonement.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Actually, thinking about it, 2 Nephi 2 might be compatible with the governmental theory after all.

The key move in 2 Nephi 2 is to point out that justice isn't some nebulous demand of the universe at large that God must satisfy. Justice is a necessity for agency, which requires meaningful choice. Meaningful choice means choice that have consequences. But if an omnipotent God just forgave our sins and undid the injustices we caused, our choices would be deprived of their consequence, which means we would have been deprived of our agency. But the consequences of our choices would damn us. How to square the circle? Christ agrees to accept the consequences of our choices on our behalf. That way we can have agency and salvation too. This 2 Nephi 2 teaching is also suggested in accounts of the pre-mortal counsel once you look for it. Its also what Terryl Givens is getting at in his own atonement account, in my opinion:

http://www.ldsmag.co.../7500?ac=1?ac=1

So the question is, does the governmental version of penal substitution provide consequences just as well as a more "Calvinist" version where Christ is suffering the pain and misery of each person's each sin? Perhaps it can, depending on your views on causation. On the one hand, we might want to say that the atonement can't be a consequence of my sin, since in the governmental version the atonement would happen anyway and to the exact same extent regardless of my sin. But consider a firing squad, all with loaded bullets. All bullets strike, all would be fatal by themselves. Can we really say that any one member of the squad had no part in causing the death, since the death would have happened anyway? I think we can't. We probably should say that each member of the squad shared causation for the death and therefore that the death is a consequence of each agent's act of pulling the trigger. Similar reasoning suggests that the atonement can be a consequence of my sins even if it would have happened to the exact same extent without them. So if you accept this view of causation, the governmental theory can work with 2 Nephi 2.

I would also suggest that we not limit ourselves to One True Theory of the atonement. The fact that it overcomes death AND sin AND has empathic elements (see Alma 7:11-12, though it can also be read as a totalization of the incarnation) and that the Bible has various accounts and that Christians have advanced various accounts that many have found meaningful suggests that more than one thing may be circumscribed into the atonement.

Excellent post!!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Cobalt-70]

But the clear teaching fo the Book of Mormon that children and heathen must be atoned for is hard to fit in any penal substitutionary scheme.

I don't think the heathen salvation problem is consistent with penal substitution theory, at least. Under Calvinistic theory, the heathen are generally considered not to be the elect; therefore, Jesus has not atoned for their sins. As to infant salvation, I think it is consistent with penal substitution. Like Mormons, most Calvinists believe that people who die in infancy are saved. However, Calvinists are more likely to believe that original sin is an actual, culpable sin for which the infant is guilty and for which Jesus had to atone with respect to each infant. That view would be consistent with penal substitution.

Theoretically, the governmental theory of atonement has more of a place within it for the "heathen problem," in my view. Under that theory, Jesus would be fully able to suffer a propitation for the sins of the righteous heathen who die without law. The kingship and justice of God would be preserved if those who are not under the law are saved. Those who are not under the law have not affronted God's sovereignty by knowingly breaking the law, and God is free to be merciful to them without "ceasing to be God." John Wesley once said, "Inasmuch as to them little is given, of them little will be required."

The same is true under the governmental theory with infants. It is only when one has reached the age of accountability that one begins to rebel against God, and that is when salvation becomes no longer automatic. God requires faith and submissiveness as a condition to receiving that mercy which had previously been given unconditionally. Otherwise, the person is an "enemy to God," and the full penalty must be exacted.

[mrmandias]

I don't think the heathen salvation problem is consistent with penal substitution theory, at least. Under Calvinistic theory, the heathen are generally considered not to be the elect; therefore, Jesus has not atoned for their sins. As to infant salvation, I think it is consistent with penal substitution. Like Mormons, most Calvinists believe that people who die in infancy are saved. However, Calvinists are more likely to believe that original sin is an actual, culpable sin for which the infant is guilty and for which Jesus had to atone with respect to each infant. That view would be consistent with penal substitution.

The part in bold is a move Mormons can't make.

Those who are not under the law have not affronted God's sovereignty by knowingly breaking the law, and God is free to be merciful to them without "ceasing to be God." John Wesley once said, "Inasmuch as to them little is given, of them little will be required."

The same is true under the governmental theory with infants. It is only when one has reached the age of accountability that one begins to rebel against God, and that is when salvation becomes no longer automatic. God requires faith and submissiveness as a condition to receiving that mercy which had previously been given unconditionally. Otherwise, the person is an "enemy to God," and the full penalty must be exacted.

The Book of Mormon clearly states that infants and heathen are saved through the atonement of Christ. Your theory here that infants and heathen don't need to be atoned for is incompatible with that.