Comments on: Theories on the Atonement of Christ – An Overview http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2006/04/atonement-theories-overview/229/ Mormon Musings by yer ol' pals Fri, 10 Feb 2012 02:02:11 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Clark http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2006/04/atonement-theories-overview/229/comment-page-1/#comment-257316 Clark Tue, 07 Oct 2008 14:48:26 +0000 http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2006/04/theories-on-the-atonement-of-christ-%e2%80%93-an-overview/229/#comment-257316 Actually Apple and Windows coexist pretty nicely. And I think we can make sense of the atonement as well. The limit is that not a lot has been revealed not the difficulty of the concept (IMO). Actually Apple and Windows coexist pretty nicely. And I think we can make sense of the atonement as well. The limit is that not a lot has been revealed not the difficulty of the concept (IMO).

]]> By: BHodges http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2006/04/atonement-theories-overview/229/comment-page-1/#comment-256860 BHodges Mon, 06 Oct 2008 23:24:07 +0000 http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2006/04/theories-on-the-atonement-of-christ-%e2%80%93-an-overview/229/#comment-256860 See? Yet another backlink. ARGH See? Yet another backlink. ARGH

]]> By: Mark Butler http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2006/04/atonement-theories-overview/229/comment-page-1/#comment-31035 Mark Butler Thu, 05 Oct 2006 07:02:14 +0000 http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2006/04/theories-on-the-atonement-of-christ-%e2%80%93-an-overview/229/#comment-31035 Greek metaphysics isn't entirely to blame, at least not in the general sense. What is to blame (in my opinion) is that like most of the early Christians, few want to take the scriptures at their word on a number of crucial doctrinal points, being dull of hearing. And as long as one insists on oversimplifying the gospel down to a singularity theory, certain aspects of the gospel, like aspects of any singularity, will always remain a mystery. One of the primary purposes of the temple is to shake the participants loose from such simple views, but so many are entrenched in the traditions of their fathers that the meaning of the ordinances goes right over their head. Greek metaphysics isn’t entirely to blame, at least not in the general sense. What is to blame (in my opinion) is that like most of the early Christians, few want to take the scriptures at their word on a number of crucial doctrinal points, being dull of hearing. And as long as one insists on oversimplifying the gospel down to a singularity theory, certain aspects of the gospel, like aspects of any singularity, will always remain a mystery.

One of the primary purposes of the temple is to shake the participants loose from such simple views, but so many are entrenched in the traditions of their fathers that the meaning of the ordinances goes right over their head.

]]> By: Glendon Cook http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2006/04/atonement-theories-overview/229/comment-page-1/#comment-31027 Glendon Cook Thu, 05 Oct 2006 05:37:31 +0000 http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2006/04/theories-on-the-atonement-of-christ-%e2%80%93-an-overview/229/#comment-31027 The mechanics of the cross will remain a mystery because, just as you can't mate a Windows circuit board to an Apple system, you can't mate Paul's gospel to Greek theology. Things will never fit that way. The cornerstone doctrines of Greek theology, the logos christology of pre-existence, the innate immortality of the soul, and all such myths of necessity suppose that Jesus had an inside track over the hopeless wretchedness of the ordinary sinner. Jesus, supposedly God in the flesh, began at a higher plain as the Forerunner of salvation. Born we presume with an inherent difference between true sinful nature of the sons of Adam and his own innate divinity, He appears to have taken a somewhat different path in his quest to establish salvation. How unbecoming to the simple Gospel fit for the rest of us to say the least. Is there anyone who can find a single exception, except in primacy, to the fact that he passed through every temptation common to man? Otherwise, Jesus' death and resurrection was a literal process to 'save' Him, a figurative 'sinner', while our figurative 'death and resurrection' appears to be the figurative process by which us sinners are saved from literal sin. Is it any wonder that our addiction to the venerated Greek theologies has cost the formulation of any coherent doctrine of the Atonement? The mechanics of the cross will remain a mystery because, just as you can’t mate a Windows circuit board to an Apple system, you can’t mate Paul’s gospel to Greek theology. Things will never fit that way. The cornerstone doctrines of Greek theology, the logos christology of pre-existence, the innate immortality of the soul, and all such myths of necessity suppose that Jesus had an inside track over the hopeless wretchedness of the ordinary sinner. Jesus, supposedly God in the flesh, began at a higher plain as the Forerunner of salvation. Born we presume with an inherent difference between true sinful nature of the sons of Adam and his own innate divinity, He appears to have taken a somewhat different path in his quest to establish salvation. How unbecoming to the simple Gospel fit for the rest of us to say the least. Is there anyone who can find a single exception, except in primacy, to the fact that he passed through every temptation common to man? Otherwise, Jesus’ death and resurrection was a literal process to ‘save’ Him, a figurative ‘sinner’, while our figurative ‘death and resurrection’ appears to be the figurative process by which us sinners are saved from literal sin. Is it any wonder that our addiction to the venerated Greek theologies has cost the formulation of any coherent doctrine of the Atonement?

]]> By: Geoff J http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2006/04/atonement-theories-overview/229/comment-page-1/#comment-13262 Geoff J Thu, 13 Apr 2006 21:11:28 +0000 http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2006/04/theories-on-the-atonement-of-christ-%e2%80%93-an-overview/229/#comment-13262 Mark: <em>if you really want to do that based on some more expansive criteria it would be better to invent a new category name.</em> Good point. You are probably right that the Satisfaction label is too loaded at this pointto be a category heading. I precluded ransom theory from the pattern in #14 because it includes more of a bartering/combat element with us as literal slave/hostages. But maybe that is a smaller distinction than I have been assuming. BTW - I agree with your point about necessities natural laws being akin to metaphysical necessities (at least as I understand the terms). Mark: if you really want to do that based on some more expansive criteria it would be better to invent a new category name.

Good point. You are probably right that the Satisfaction label is too loaded at this pointto be a category heading. I precluded ransom theory from the pattern in #14 because it includes more of a bartering/combat element with us as literal slave/hostages. But maybe that is a smaller distinction than I have been assuming.

BTW – I agree with your point about necessities natural laws being akin to metaphysical necessities (at least as I understand the terms).

]]> By: Mark Butler http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2006/04/atonement-theories-overview/229/comment-page-1/#comment-13255 Mark Butler Thu, 13 Apr 2006 19:59:03 +0000 http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2006/04/theories-on-the-atonement-of-christ-%e2%80%93-an-overview/229/#comment-13255 Blake, I do not believe that the actions of any free agent are a metaphysical necessity, but rather that the effectiveness of those actions is constrained by natural law. Or in other words, that all paths from A to B necessarily share certain properties. In this case A is our natural situation and B is an effective Atonement that overcomes sin and death, and the shared property of all paths is necessary suffering. I explain my theory of this necessity in a comment to the next post. Blake, I do not believe that the actions of any free agent are a metaphysical necessity, but rather that the effectiveness of those actions is constrained by natural law. Or in other words, that all paths from A to B necessarily share certain properties. In this case A is our natural situation and B is an effective Atonement that overcomes sin and death, and the shared property of all paths is necessary suffering. I explain my theory of this necessity in a comment to the next post.

]]> By: Blake http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2006/04/atonement-theories-overview/229/comment-page-1/#comment-13248 Blake Thu, 13 Apr 2006 18:24:17 +0000 http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2006/04/theories-on-the-atonement-of-christ-%e2%80%93-an-overview/229/#comment-13248 Mark: Christ's suffering isn't metaphysical because his suffering isn't a matter of some metaphysical principal or some logical law; but of choice to be in relationship with us. It is painful for a perfect being to be around us; but he could disregard us altogether. He could choose to not take notice of our sufferings rather than share them. What he could not do is to overcome our alienation without so loving us that he willingly accepts us into his life. That doesn't seem metaphysical to me unless everything just is metaphysics (as some seem to think). Mark: Christ’s suffering isn’t metaphysical because his suffering isn’t a matter of some metaphysical principal or some logical law; but of choice to be in relationship with us. It is painful for a perfect being to be around us; but he could disregard us altogether. He could choose to not take notice of our sufferings rather than share them. What he could not do is to overcome our alienation without so loving us that he willingly accepts us into his life. That doesn’t seem metaphysical to me unless everything just is metaphysics (as some seem to think).

]]> By: Kurt http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2006/04/atonement-theories-overview/229/comment-page-1/#comment-13242 Kurt Thu, 13 Apr 2006 17:58:19 +0000 http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2006/04/theories-on-the-atonement-of-christ-%e2%80%93-an-overview/229/#comment-13242 GeoffJ, I think the Atonement is incomprehensible at the level that we cannot grasp what infinite/eternal punishment (per D&C 76:44) is without being infinite/eternal beings. D&C 19:15-19 suggests Jesus experienced what the infinite/eternal punishment was while in a mortal context, which was pretty awful. What I am saying is we cannot perceive that in any way shape or form in a mortal context. The result is we cannot truly comprehend it. Can we try to figure out what is really going on? Sure, but people have been working on it for several thousand years and nobody has come up with an articulate matter of fact explanation which doesnt require some sort of analogy. I believe that is because in a mortal condition we are so afflicted with narrow-mindedness and near-sightedness that we cannot grasp what eternal laws and eternal justice really is and the consequences of breaking them as well. Jesus grasped it for a few moments in mortality and it was an exquisitely painful ordeal that caused him to bleed from every pore, and he had divine angelic assistance too. That doesnt sound like something average people are going to be able to perceive the nature of. As for giving Satan power, I dont buy that at all. There are eternal laws which we ourselves acknowledged premortally, and when we get resurrected we get pulled back into God's presence and know all of what we accepted and consented to. So, Justice is a matter of us judging ourselves and our own actions perfectly and Mercy is having the Son as our advocate so we can be spared the Justice we deserve for sinning against ourselves, our commitments and things that are eternal laws. I dont see Satan as having any literal power or authority over anyone other than himself. The power he has over us is to entice us to sin and therefore alienate ourselves from God, and that is it. GeoffJ, I think the Atonement is incomprehensible at the level that we cannot grasp what infinite/eternal punishment (per D&C 76:44) is without being infinite/eternal beings. D&C 19:15-19 suggests Jesus experienced what the infinite/eternal punishment was while in a mortal context, which was pretty awful. What I am saying is we cannot perceive that in any way shape or form in a mortal context. The result is we cannot truly comprehend it.

Can we try to figure out what is really going on? Sure, but people have been working on it for several thousand years and nobody has come up with an articulate matter of fact explanation which doesnt require some sort of analogy. I believe that is because in a mortal condition we are so afflicted with narrow-mindedness and near-sightedness that we cannot grasp what eternal laws and eternal justice really is and the consequences of breaking them as well. Jesus grasped it for a few moments in mortality and it was an exquisitely painful ordeal that caused him to bleed from every pore, and he had divine angelic assistance too. That doesnt sound like something average people are going to be able to perceive the nature of.

As for giving Satan power, I dont buy that at all. There are eternal laws which we ourselves acknowledged premortally, and when we get resurrected we get pulled back into God’s presence and know all of what we accepted and consented to. So, Justice is a matter of us judging ourselves and our own actions perfectly and Mercy is having the Son as our advocate so we can be spared the Justice we deserve for sinning against ourselves, our commitments and things that are eternal laws. I dont see Satan as having any literal power or authority over anyone other than himself. The power he has over us is to entice us to sin and therefore alienate ourselves from God, and that is it.

]]> By: Mark Butler http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2006/04/atonement-theories-overview/229/comment-page-1/#comment-13240 Mark Butler Thu, 13 Apr 2006 17:43:03 +0000 http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2006/04/theories-on-the-atonement-of-christ-%e2%80%93-an-overview/229/#comment-13240 Geoff, In your categorization above, I do not see by what criteria one might distinguish Ransom theories from Satisfaction theories. Taxonomizing things without formal bright line criteria is just a convenience - a convenience that when taken too seriously leads to bad conclusions. A family of theories of all things is not the type of thing one can easily make coherent generalizations about. In any case, the term "Satisfaction theory" is used to refer to the theory of Anselm and close derivatives which have the restoration of God's honor as their primary element. I think it is confusing to move other theories under that heading - if you really want to do that based on some more expansive criteria it would be better to invent a new category name. http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_atone5.htm has a good outline of several of these theories, including variants we haven't mentioned yet. Geoff, In your categorization above, I do not see by what criteria one might distinguish Ransom theories from Satisfaction theories. Taxonomizing things without formal bright line criteria is just a convenience – a convenience that when taken too seriously leads to bad conclusions. A family of theories of all things is not the type of thing one can easily make coherent generalizations about.

In any case, the term “Satisfaction theory” is used to refer to the theory of Anselm and close derivatives which have the restoration of God’s honor as their primary element. I think it is confusing to move other theories under that heading – if you really want to do that based on some more expansive criteria it would be better to invent a new category name.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_atone5.htm has a good outline of several of these theories, including variants we haven’t mentioned yet.

]]> By: Mark Butler http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2006/04/atonement-theories-overview/229/comment-page-1/#comment-13239 Mark Butler Thu, 13 Apr 2006 17:17:47 +0000 http://www.newcoolthang.com/index.php/2006/04/theories-on-the-atonement-of-christ-%e2%80%93-an-overview/229/#comment-13239 If the interpersonal association of Christ with us necessarily involves suffering on his part, that is certainly metaphysical necessity, is it not? If the interpersonal association of Christ with us necessarily involves suffering on his part, that is certainly metaphysical necessity, is it not?

]]>