Comments on: Why the Parable of the Bicycle is Wrong

By: peetie

peetie — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 20:21:18 +0000

I find this conversation quite interesting. I only read the first half of the comments, but I had one thought that didn’t seem to come up in these previous conversations. I should first say that I think I fall b/n Robinson and Geoff in my interpretation of the Atonement.

I find the choice of a bicycle very apropos b/c it is a vehicle for *movement*. The Atonement allows for the choices to be made/unmade and actions to be changed.

The part I find lacking in the Parable of the Pianist was the place Gethsemane played. I agree that the track analogy might be a little better, but still, I am unclear on the place of Christ’s actual suffering.

By: Geoff J

Geoff J — Mon, 16 Jan 2006 18:13:57 +0000

Sounds like we are fundamentally on the same page, Phil. Check out my follow up "Parable of the Pianist". I think it works better based on our shared premises.

By: Phil

Phil — Mon, 16 Jan 2006 14:56:04 +0000

I agree with Geoff J., at least so far as I read. Robinson and all his fans utterly misunderstand agency and the fact that we are uncreated. We have never not been using agency. Only lack of knowledge (as in the allegorical Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil–opposition in all things) stops our use of agency. We developed (or not, but at our own pace–since we are agents unto ourselves) as intelligences, we continued to develop as “spirit children.” We continue to develop (and retrogress) in this mortal plane and we will continue to develop (again, based on our application of agency) in the next phase of our existence. It never stops. I guess that is what Geoff means by “multiple probations.” Agency is not created by God. It allowed Him to become. We get no rewards nor punishments from God for our behavior during this “estate.” We get the consequences (“whatever principle of intelligence we attain unto in this life, it will rise with us in the resurrection.”)

So, the atonement gave us something we couldn’t do for ourselves. It somehow (insert your own metaphor here) opened an otherwise closed door so that we could be resurrected and go on to one of the “mansions” in God’s kingdom. AND THAT IS ALL. Our degree of personal righteousness is totally up to us (agents unto ourselves–no if, ands, or buts). If we failed to become fully honest or fully humble, Christ can’t give it to us–no matter that we “saved all our pennies.” That is what Christ’s parable of the 10 virgins refers to. Others can’t share their oil.

On the other hand, the benefits of agency don’t cease with our death. We are still able to use it or abuse it in the next life–and for eternity–in our efforts to become like God. When we are all that He is, we will have all that He has.

By: Geoff J

Geoff J — Wed, 13 Jul 2005 05:03:32 +0000

Ha! Well it’s not quite that bad, Nathan. My real complaint is against the popular interpretation of this parable. I actually have read the book but it was long enough ago for me to not remember what caveats he included (plus I wasn’t thinking about it in these terms at the time).

Having said that, I still wonder what the definitions of “salvation” is to him. It seems to me that we are saved from death for free and we are saved from paying for our own sins upon repentance. Based on the parable, Brother Robinson seems to think salvation means something much more than that. If it isn’t full exaltation he assumes it is approaching it… else why the parable?

By: The Only True and Living Nathan

The Only True and Living Nathan — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 15:41:16 +0000

Wait — so this whole long thread would never have existed if Geoff had actually read Robinson’s book and found out that, yes, Robinson is specifically talking about salvation here and explicitly NOT exaltation?

By: Geoff J

Geoff J — Mon, 04 Jul 2005 00:35:06 +0000

arj,

I’ll try to respond to you over at the MMP thread. (I have a couple of other responses due there anyway…)

By: a random John

a random John — Mon, 04 Jul 2005 00:20:41 +0000

Geoff,

How often are we resurrected and why?

By: Geoff J

Geoff J — Fri, 01 Jul 2005 22:13:04 +0000

Thanks Jeffrey. I’ll see if I can find that article in the online archives. I have some atonement posts brewing in my noggin as well. I’ve been trying to do a little research before I put something up (maybe tonight).

I’ll answer you MMP question over at the recent MMP thread to kkep things more orderly. Casey has been making excellent related comments over at the “All the Worlds a Stage” post too so I’ll try to converge over there.

By: Jeffrey Giliam

Jeffrey Giliam — Fri, 01 Jul 2005 21:39:15 +0000

Geoff,
I great resource on this topic would be Potter’s “Did Christ Pay for Our Sins?” article that appeared a few years back in Dialogue. Basically the Penal substitution theory says that when we sin a debt of some kind is created which we must eventually pay, unless we accept the atonement. Unfortunately, it is very hard to determine what the debt actually is, who it is owned to, and how it is pay, especially be another person.

I’ve been sitting on a lot of potential posts on the subject where I will eventually go into more detail.

BTW, Geoff, how does the spirit birth work in your MMP model? I know that you don’t buy into a literal pregnancy with delivery sort of birth, but I’m still not sure what you do believe.

By: Geoff J

Geoff J — Fri, 01 Jul 2005 19:23:41 +0000

Jeff or Blake,

Can one of you describe how penal substitution theory differs from what I wrote in #44?

When I act contrary to the light I have received there is a certain amount of anxiety, worry, and guilt that is the natural consequence of that. When I repent, Christ takes upon him that consequence as my substitute… That I can comprehend.