A Question About The Atonement

[Alan]

I have a basic fundamental question about the atonement, and despite reading a lot, listening a lot, and thinking a lot, I still haven't been able to satisfy myself with an answer.

 

If God is all-powerful, all-knowing, almighty etc, then why did he need his son to sacrifice himself for us? Surely, just as I can forgive my children for their transgressions against me without requiring a price, he too can forgive whom he pleases in the same way.

 

I know as well as anybody (I think) the mechanics of the atonement, I just don't understand why it was really necessary. For example, God says that if we repent he will forgive us and we can enter his presence. Well, why couldn't he do that (forgive us on condition of repentence) anyway without an atonement? He is all-powerful etc so whatever he says goes.

 

The more I think about it, the less the atonement makes sense to me.

[bluebell]

As I understand it, He's only all powerful as God. He does not have the power to eschew eternal law and REMAIN God.

And one eternal law is that mercy cannot rob justice. No unclean thing can live where God lives and mercy alone cannot make anyone 'clean'.

[David T]

I Don't think it has anything to do with any metaphysical stains or laws. I think Jesus showed his love by persistong to the extreme, revealing that God doesn't demand violence, Man does, and blames God, or does it in his name. It was a powerful sign to express ultimate devotion and love. It was a major attention getter to get us to look at him, and consider why he did it, and what it means. Its not God who needs to forgive us, its us who have to acknowledge that God loves us and has already forgiven us. God doesn't bar the gates to His house. We refuse to believe he wants us.

The notion of uncleanness and worthyness is a construct I believe we take too far.

Edited March 14, 2014 by David T

[bluebell]

I Don't think it has anything to do with any metaphysical strains or laws. I think Jesus showed his love by persistong to the extreme, revealing that God doesn't demand violence, Man does, and blames God, or does it in his name. It was a powerful sign to express ultimate devotion and love. It was a major attention getter to get us to look at him, and consider why he did it, and what it means. Its not God who needs to forgive us, its us who have to acknowledge that God loves us and has already forgiven us. God doesn't bar the gates to His house. We refuse to believe he wants us.

The notion of uncleanness and worthyness is a construct I believe we take too far.

Can you provide scripture references for your thoughts on this?

I'm not trying to argue but would love to understand where your beliefs on this come from.

[David T]

If someone steals a car, imprisoning my innocent brother and letting the known assailant off free doesn't constitute Justice. That is injustice to the extreme. The mercy/justice model doesn't make any sense to me.

[bluebell]

If someone steals a car, imprisoning my innocent brother and letting the known assailant off free doesn't constitute Justice. That is injustice to the extreme. The mercy/justice model doesn't make any sense to me.

So your beliefs are based solely on your own understanding of how justice and mercy have to work?

[David T]

If I, as a father, punish my innocent son for something my daughter did, does that make me a good Father? Would I be a champion of Justice?

[Duncan]

I see what you are saying, why do we need someone like Jesus Christ why can't God just forgive us without some intermediary. There was a talk given at BYU on this subject by Robert Matthews, you may find some good things in it

 

http://speeches.byu.edu/index.php?act=viewitem&id=932

 

Personally, I see it as I can't see it any other way. Like Stephen Robinson said you have God not wanting any unclean thing to dwell with him and he wants to bestow all that he has on repentant sinners like us-hopefully but we all sin and come short so we need someone to basically "argue our case" like this whole flap and fuss about Pres. Monson in the UK. The Church has to respond somehow and that person has to be legally recognized to do law in the England and not some schmuck off the streets. Jesus qualifies by being perfect. There are 3 ways to escape justice 1) not doing anything, ever wrong, 2) paying your debts on time all the time and 3) having someone else pay your debt for you. To me anyways I can't do the first two but I can cling to the Saviour who can do the first two

[Duncan]

If I, as a father, punish my innocent son for something my daughter did, does that make me a good Father? Would I be a champion of Justice?

 

 

what if your son volunteers to take her punishment?

[Tacenda]

This is why I like the non Mormon Christian line of thinking.  That God came down in the flesh.  He took on a physical body and died for us.  No intermediary. 

[Kevin Christensen]

It's a matter of having a judge who has the capacity to judge each one of us, as individuals in our particular circumstances. A very literal at-one-ment, Jesus not just entering into this life for himself, and dying on the cross, but from Gethsemane and on the Cross, entering into our lives with each one of us, in a most intimate and personal way becoming the sin-bearer, and thereby coming to understand us so well that he then has the insight, and power to be able to offer healing, if we choose to accept what is offered. That, I think, is what makes at-one-ment, and is where we get the light of Christ in our lives. Because he is literally there with us, observing and feeling, and in the act of observing, both changing us and being changed. Not an unmoved mover, but the most moved mover.

I like Barker's insights:

the ritual

texts describe the actions done by the priests,

whilst the non-ritual texts give

the meaning of those actions.

A priest smearing blood in the

temple ‘was’ God removing sin.

21

These six are the bases for any investigation of

atonement: first, that it could be illuminated

by the Enoch texts; second, that atonement was

associated with the eternal covenant; third,

that the temple service was the service of h

eaven; fourth, that the temple represented the

entire system of heaven and earth; fifth that

blood was life; and sixth, that it was places

within the temple complex that were ‘re

paired’ to remove the effects of sin.

http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/Atonement.pdf

At a Sunstone West many years ago, I heard Lorin K. Hansen deliver a version of what he later published in Dialogue vol 27 n1 (Spring 1994) as “The Moral Atonement as a Mormon Interpretation.” After surveying the various interpretations, he noted that he could divide them into “Objective” theories and “Subjective” theories, that is, “The Satisfaction and Penal Substitution theories of Christian Orthodoxy were predominantly objective interpretations: man and woman, according to these views were, are redeemed by God’s works, not their own works, for they are morally incapable of contributing to their own redemption. And the Moral-Influence theory (the predominant example of a “moral” theory of the Atonement) was a subjective interpretation; that is, man and woman are morally autonomous and are redeemed through their own initiative, responding to the moral example of Jesus Christ. So the polarization in Christian theology is primarily one of moral-subjective interpretation versus transactional objective interpretations.” (Hansen, 201)

So he made the case that the Book of Mormon uniquely includes both objective and and subjective atonement. (Hansen, 209). It’s a provocative piece that I’ve thought deserves more attention.

Nibley’s “The Meaning of the Atonement,”Ostler’s “Com-passion Theory,” Eugene England’s “Shakespeare and the At-One-ment of Christ” re-enforced the impact of the new thought that Hansen introduced. I’d also have to add in Margaret Barker’s “Atonement: The Rite of Healing” and Truman Madsen’s “The Olive Press.” And more recently, Rene Girard’s I See Satan Fall Like Lightning.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[David T]

what if your son volunteers to take her punishment?

That would be stupid. Justice would still not be served. I as a father don't impose punishment because it just has to be done for punishments sake.

If someone murdered your family, would justice be done by letting the murderer free and putting me to death just because I volunteered?

That is insane.

[Senator]

If I, as a father, punish my innocent son for something my daughter did, does that make me a good Father? Would I be a champion of Justice?

 

But what if instead, my innocent son, who loves his sister verily as much as I love her and as much as I love him and he loves me, says: "let me go and do whatever it take to reclaim her"?

[Gray]

An alternate theory of atonement that I really like:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_influence_theory_of_atonement

[David T]

There's an excellent book called Options on Atonement in Christian Thought, by Finlan. I highly recommend it. It ends on a fascinatingly Mormon (for a non-Mormon author) family-centered idea of Atonement.

http://www.amazon.com/Options-Atonement-Christian-Thought-Stephen/dp/0814659861

Edited March 14, 2014 by David T

[David T]

But what if instead, my innocent son, who loves his sister verily as much as I love her and as much as I love him and he loves me, says: "let me go and do whatever it take to reclaim her"?

That is a different idea than the penal substitution concepts of Justice and Mercy being defended.

[Senator]

That is a different idea than the penal substitution concepts of Justice and Mercy being defended.

Yes it is!

[teddyaware]

I Don't think it has anything to do with any metaphysical stains or laws. I think Jesus showed his love by persistong to the extreme, revealing that God doesn't demand violence, Man does, and blames God, or does it in his name. It was a powerful sign to express ultimate devotion and love. It was a major attention getter to get us to look at him, and consider why he did it, and what it means. Its not God who needs to forgive us, its us who have to acknowledge that God loves us and has already forgiven us. God doesn't bar the gates to His house. We refuse to believe he wants us.

The notion of uncleanness and worthyness is a construct I believe we take too far.

One of the things about this discussion board that has surprised me over the years is how rarely posters use the scriptures to help bolster the points they try to make. When making points on this board I try to use the scriptures as often as I can to help establish the validity of the points I'm trying to make.

Unless I'm misunderstanding your comments above, you seem to be at least partially invalidating the famous Book of Mormon scriptures that declares the eternal law of justice must be satisfied before mercy can be extended to man in his fallen state. Though the following quote from Alma 42 is a long one, I hope you will carefully read it and then explain to me how the principles set forth in these verses harmonize with your statement when you say, "I don't think it has anything to do with any metaphysical stains or laws."

15 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.

16 Now, repentance could not come unto men except there were a punishment, which also was eternal as the life of the soul should be, affixed opposite to the plan of happiness, which was as eternal also as the life of the soul.

17 Now, how could a man repent except he should sin? How could he sin if there was no law? How could there be a law save there was a punishment?

18 Now, there was a punishment affixed, and a just law given, which brought remorse of conscience unto man.

19 Now, if there was no law given—if a man murdered he should die—would he be afraid he would die if he should murder?

20 And also, if there was no law given against sin men would not be afraid to sin.

21 And if there was no law given, if men sinned what could justice do, or mercy either, for they would have no claim upon the creature?

22 But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentance granted; which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the claw, and the law inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God.

23 But God ceaseth not to be God, and mercy claimeth the penitent, and mercy cometh because of the atonement; and the atonement bringeth to pass the resurrection of the dead; and the resurrection of the dead bringeth back men into the presence of God; and thus they are restored into his presence, to be judged according to their works, according to the law and justice.

24 For behold, justice exerciseth all his demands, and also mercy claimeth all which is her own; and thus, none but the truly penitent are saved.

25 What, do ye suppose that mercy can rob justice? I say unto you, Nay; not one whit. If so, God would cease to be God.

 

Edited March 14, 2014 by teddyaware

[rlds_coc_lds]

There's something I'm wondering about in relation to the atonement and the plan of salvation as well. (Sorry if this should be in a different thread, but I feel it is close enough to post here.)

 

As far as I understand it (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the atonement was decided as part of the plan of salvation before mankind ever came to have physical bodies. The idea was that by coming to earth and using our agency to accept the atonement and follow the gospel we could achieve exaltation. But in order for that to happen we need a perfect being to be sacrificed in our place. I get the traditional orthodox christian view of how this works (Jesus as part of a trinity, existing as one within God and a distinct type of being from humans; even within mystical branches of christianity the idea is of being subsumed in the divine more than becoming a separate divine being).

 

But in the LDS church, it is taught that we (including Jesus) are all sons of Heavenly Father. My confusion comes from this point. How is Jesus qualitatively different from us? Jesus didn't have a need to come to the mortal sphere, live in it and accept any kind of salvation in order to become perfect. He was able to offer himself from the beginning as a perfect sacrifice. I take it from this that Jesus never had any need for mortality to become like Heavenly Father and become part of the godhead. So why was it necessary for the rest of us at all to go through the process of mortality and accepting of the atonement?

[jaxenro]

I have struggled with this for many years and this represents my own thinking and not LDS thinking.

 

I too am unsure if God needs the atonement to forgive us I think he can forgive who he will but I think we will need the atonement to forgive ourselves. Remember we must have come to earth with high hopes and perhaps a bit of bravado hoping or thinking we would accomplish much, remain faithful, be good to others, etc. We chose to follow Gods plan knowing the risks, and presumably the rewards, and considering ourselves up to the challenge. I don’t think God forces anyone to come here.

 

Yet at some point we will pass beyond the veil and remember all that came before and have a full awareness of all we have done here. I have seen enough people on earth destroyed by guilt and being unable to forgive themselves enough to change, the person who drinks to forget he is a drunk being a classic example, that I know that the belief in the forgiveness and the atonement can help here. I imagine that beyond the veil that sense of guilt, when we are able to fully see the ripple effect of all we did wrong here, things that we can’t even guess at today, will be a thousand times stronger.

 

So more than God I think we need the atonement to forgive ourselves. Christ did nothing but what He saw the Father do, as the Father laid down His life and took it up again, so too did Christ. So too will we, following the example of Christ, lay down our lives and take them up again at the resurrection and we will need the atonement of Christ to forgive ourselves for all the harm we have caused

Edited March 14, 2014 by jaxenro

[Duncan]

That would be stupid. Justice would still not be served. I as a father don't impose punishment because it just has to be done for punishments sake.

If someone murdered your family, would justice be done by letting the murderer free and putting me to death just because I volunteered?

That is insane.

 

 

and to me anyways God is the same way, I think we are punished by our sins and not so much for them. Justice wouldn't be served by letting the murderer go free, unless you had some terrible crown attorney I suppose. But our laws don't allow for that to happen, someone getting the Texas needle for someone else. Besides of which the let go murderer always would have a guilty conscience, wouldn't it be nice to have that go away-I wonder if there is a way for that to happen...(repenting fro murder is another discussion)

[David T]

One of the things about this discussion board that has surprised me over the years is how rarely posters use the scriptures to help bolster the points they try to make. When making points on this board I try to use the scriptures as often as I can to help establish the validity of the points I'm trying to make.

Unless I'm misunderstanding your comments above, you seem to be at least partially invalidating the famous Book of Mormon scriptures that declares the eternal law of justice must be satisfied before mercy can be extended to man in his fallen state. Though the following quote from Alma 42 is a long one, I hope you will carefully read it and then explain to me how the principles set forth in these verses harmonize with your statement when you say, "I don't think it has anything to do with any metaphysical stains or laws."

15 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.

16 Now, repentance could not come unto men except there were a punishment, which also was eternal as the life of the soul should be, affixed opposite to the plan of happiness, which was as eternal also as the life of the soul.

17 Now, how could a man repent except he should sin? How could he sin if there was no law? How could there be a law save there was a punishment?

18 Now, there was a punishment affixed, and a just law given, which brought remorse of conscience unto man.

19 Now, if there was no law given—if a man murdered he should die—would he be afraid he would die if he should murder?

20 And also, if there was no law given against sin men would not be afraid to sin.

21 And if there was no law given, if men sinned what could justice do, or mercy either, for they would have no claim upon the creature?22 But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentance granted; which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the claw, and the law inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God.

23 But God ceaseth not to be God, and mercy claimeth the penitent, and mercy cometh because of the atonement; and the atonement bringeth to pass the resurrection of the dead; and the resurrection of the dead bringeth back men into the presence of God; and thus they are restored into his presence, to be judged according to their works, according to the law and justice.

24 For behold, justice exerciseth all his demands, and also mercy claimeth all which is her own; and thus, none but the truly penitent are saved.

25 What, do ye suppose that mercy can rob justice? I say unto you, Nay; not one whit. If so, God would cease to be God.

Its a model that spoke to and worked for that author, and that society. But it was just one attempt to explain Atonement with a picture. It offers one solution to the questions of why and how. While accepting the what of his message (atonement saves us), the why and how doesn't hold up or resonate for me when pressed further to its implications. Edited March 14, 2014 by David T

[Duncan]

Its a model that spoke to and worked for that author, and that society. But it was just one attempt to explain Atonement with a picture. It offers one solution to the questions of why and how. While accepting the what of his message (atonement saves us), the why and how doesn't hold up or resonate for me when pressed further to its implications.

 

 

I think that's one of the questions about the atonement is how it works, I think Elder McConkie called it incomprehensible but we know why it works, because Adam fell that men might be and men are that they might have joy

Edited March 14, 2014 by Duncan

[teddyaware]

I have a basic fundamental question about the atonement, and despite reading a lot, listening a lot, and thinking a lot, I still haven't been able to satisfy myself with an answer.

 

If God is all-powerful, all-knowing, almighty etc, then why did he need his son to sacrifice himself for us? Surely, just as I can forgive my children for their transgressions against me without requiring a price, he too can forgive whom he pleases in the same way.

 

I know as well as anybody (I think) the mechanics of the atonement, I just don't understand why it was really necessary. For example, God says that if we repent he will forgive us and we can enter his presence. Well, why couldn't he do that (forgive us on condition of repentence) anyway without an atonement? He is all-powerful etc so whatever he says goes.

 

The more I think about it, the less the atonement makes sense to me.

You might be interested to look into Islam's understanding of salvation. According to the Koran, God does not need a son to appease justice by an infinite and eternal sacrifice for sin. The Koran says because God is God, and has all power he can forgive anyone anytime he wants to without any need to send to the earth atoning Savior.

•19:35 (Asad) It is not conceivable that God should have taken unto Himself a son: limitless is He in His glory! [26] When He wills a thing to be, He but says unto it "Be" -and it is! (The Koran)

[bluebell]

That would be stupid. Justice would still not be served. I as a father don't impose punishment because it just has to be done for punishments sake.

If someone murdered your family, would justice be done by letting the murderer free and putting me to death just because I volunteered?

That is insane.

Would justice be served if the judge just decided to be merciful on the murderer and reward him with wonderful blessings because he was truly sorry for what he had done?

That is mercy, but it comes at the expense if justice. No sane person would look at such an example and suggest the murderer got what he deserved (which is the definition of justice).

I know you believe that justice cannot be served if someone else is punished for another's sin, but is justice served if that sin is simply forgiven and no punishment is given at all?

Your view of the atonement does not seem anymore just than Duncan's.

So what is the answer? How can justice be served while mercy is also extended?