Anakin7 Posted January 23, 2016 Posted January 23, 2016 Which Form/Model of Atonement is correct ?, A Paper done by a non LDS Christian presents the theories,strengths,weaknesses of each form/model. His concluding analysis perhaps comes close to the True LDS Form/Model of Atonement as proclaimed by True LDS Doctrine/Teaching/Practice, I may be in error however. http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/atonement.html In His Eternal Debt/Grace Salvation Is Absolutly Free But It Costs Us Our Very Life Anakin7
SamIam Posted January 23, 2016 Posted January 23, 2016 3 hours ago, Anakin7 said: Which Form/Model of Atonement is correct ?, A Paper done by a non LDS Christian presents the theories,strengths,weaknesses of each form/model. His concluding analysis perhaps comes close to the True LDS Form/Model of Atonement as proclaimed by True LDS Doctrine/Teaching/Practice, I may be in error however. http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/atonement.html In His Eternal Debt/Grace Salvation Is Absolutly Free But It Costs Us Our Very Life Anakin7 While the paper notes some good inconsistences, I didn't feel like it properly addressed the atonement with the degree of understanding that I think can only be gleaned from the Book of Mormon. Justice is the crux of the atonement. We do not tend to see it that way because typically we hear the word justice and we think that it means we must receive a proper recompense for our sins. Surely that is part of the process. However innocent blood demands justice as well. God the Father has instituted a plan to deliver his children back to him but when the innocent blood of his son is shed; the Father is obligated to demand justice in his son’s death. We have already been justly dealt with by the death sentence we live under. (This points to what the sin was in the fall that necessitated our death) In this particular exercise of justice, it is not our sins that demand that justice be paid but it is the innocent blood that demands retribution to satisfy the demands of the law of the Garden. That's the price that has to be paid. We have already been cast out and are considered no longer citizens of the kingdom of God because of the fall. However, Christ never breaks the law of the Garden of Eden. He remains a citizen in full in the kingdom of God. When a citizen of the Kingdom of God suffers innocently, the King is obligated to recompense and seek justice in behalf of their subject - In this case Christ. In other words justice demands that God the Father cannot extend mercy to us because, we not being citizens of his kingdom, represent a conflict of interest in that as Alma 5 states - "Ye are murderers" and are stained with the innocent blood of Christ. The citizens of any kingdom expect the kingdom to see to their standing as citizens and if any should see that the king of a kingdom does not seek justice for its citizens the citizens begin to loose support for their king and thus we have that mercy cannot rob justice or God would cease to be God. Why because the law of being a kingdom would be broken because the citizens of that kingdom, by a vote of no confidence, cease to sustain the king and God would cease to be God. So the objective of the atonement is to somehow get justice to demand mercy as its proper payment. Not one soul can return to God the Father in his kingdom as long as innocent blood calls for recompense. Alma 12 references the two laws, the one of the Garden, and the one that the angels revealed to mankind to teach them of repentance and the commandments of God. Alma 41 discusses the law of restoration which has application to the second set of laws that were revealed to man. Justice is applied in both instances but has slightly different nuances to each scenario. So my question tonight as it is much too late to continue is how does the atonement get justice to demand mercy as its payment?
janderich Posted January 23, 2016 Posted January 23, 2016 In truth I do not believe LDS members hold to one model of the atonement. In fact, many members do not realize there are different models of the atonement, nor do they understand the nuances between each. However, if presented with some of the theories, I would guess that a large majority LDS would most closely agree with the Penal Substitution Theory. On this board there seem to be quite a few that hold to the Skousen theory of the atonement which posits that intelligence's small and great demand justice against sinners. These same intelligence's follow God, and if he did not meet out justice they would cease to follow him and thus God would cease to be God. Therefore, Christ came to change the intelligence's hearts and minds. When they see that Christ innocently suffers for these same sinners, they question their own demand for justice and see that it is not merciful. SamIam above appears to partake of some of the Skousen theory in which members of the kingdom demand our just punishment but Christ changes their mind. I am more partial to the Divine Infusion Theory which delves into the forms of justice and concludes that God simply gives a man what he deserves (Law of the Harvest). That once a person changes their behavior they no longer deserve to suffer and they are free. How does Christ fit in? His atonement gives us light and understanding. It is this light and understanding which inspires us to improve and to grow.
Kevin Christensen Posted January 23, 2016 Posted January 23, 2016 I'm fond of Loren K. Hansen's essay on "The Moral Atonement" https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V27N01_207.pdf Eugene England on Shakespeare and the At-Onement of Christ, not online but discussed here: https://susansworthreading.wordpress.com/2013/03/30/england-on-the-atonement-and-shakespeare/ Nibley's "The Meaning of the Atonement" http://publications.mi.byu.edu/fullscreen/?pub=1114&index=20 And Margaret Barker on "Atonement: The Rite of Healing" http://www.margaretbarker.com/Papers/Atonement.pdf FWIW Kevin Christensen Bethel Park, PA
Anakin7 Posted January 23, 2016 Author Posted January 23, 2016 Thank you all who have shared so far. In His Eternal Debt/Grace Anakin7
SamIam Posted January 23, 2016 Posted January 23, 2016 (edited) 5 hours ago, janderich said: In truth I do not believe LDS members hold to one model of the atonement. In fact, many members do not realize there are different models of the atonement, nor do they understand the nuances between each. However, if presented with some of the theories, I would guess that a large majority LDS would most closely agree with the Penal Substitution Theory. On this board there seem to be quite a few that hold to the Skousen theory of the atonement which posits that intelligence's small and great demand justice against sinners. These same intelligence's follow God, and if he did not meet out justice they would cease to follow him and thus God would cease to be God. Therefore, Christ came to change the intelligence's hearts and minds. When they see that Christ innocently suffers for these same sinners, they question their own demand for justice and see that it is not merciful. SamIam above appears to partake of some of the Skousen theory in which members of the kingdom demand our just punishment but Christ changes their mind. I am more partial to the Divine Infusion Theory which delves into the forms of justice and concludes that God simply gives a man what he deserves (Law of the Harvest). That once a person changes their behavior they no longer deserve to suffer and they are free. How does Christ fit in? His atonement gives us light and understanding. It is this light and understanding which inspires us to improve and to grow. I think you are absolutely right about members not holding to one model. I think the real problem is that they look around read someone else's material and then fail to take that material and validate it against the scriptures and let the spirit advance their understanding. Most theories have certain elements of truth splayed about in their presentation but when you genuinely study it out for yourself in time you can see the weak areas and shore them up for a more holistic understanding. The mistake is most do not study the atonement on their own dime between them and the spirit and seek that instruction. The Skousan explanation was the first time I really ever delved into the atonement before my mission many years ago. For a long time it was the best I had until I began to make it my own. He never grasps the mechanics of how mercy is brought into the mix and he places far too great of emphasis on God being subject to his creations as if they hold God hostage there. The point is that Justice is fulfilled when mercy is brought into the mix. There is no need for all of creation to not support God the Father because the plan of salvation provides for justice to receive complete and total satisfaction. Skousan also never seems to have grasped the nature of the transgression that caused the fall, required a death sentence, which of course justifies why we are sent to a place of a telestial level. That is where those who are under burden of that kind of sin are required to reside. Or if he did he never discussed it in his presentation or in the appendix A of his First Thousand years book. So yes, there are some similarities but key pieces of mechanics are missing. Once one understands how the scriptures define all of these elements it becomes easy to see how the two laws that we are subject to interact - The law of God the Father or as I call it the Law of the Garden and the Law of Christ. "Divine Infusion" only answers the demands of the second set of laws that Alma 12 discusses which is the Law of Christ. There are conditions that must be met before God "simply gives a man what he deserves" which in essence is the law of restoration of Alma 41. The law of restoration or divine infusion as you call it is only activated upon Christ successfully finding a means of answering the demands of the first law of the Garden that put us under a death sentence in the first place. Fail to address the demands of our death sentence and there is no "divine infusion theory" or law of restoration. Edited January 23, 2016 by SamIam sp
Recommended Posts