364 Comments »

1. Geoff: It is rare that I feel that you have trivialized my view; but this is an exception. First, what is essential to atonement is precisely the sharing of life, light, love, intelligence, glory — the energies of the divine life. At the moment we accept Christ through trusting faithfulness (called “justificaion” by Paul and “redemption” by Alma and Amulek) we enter into a shared life. At that moment, we open to God and he gives us his life to share and to be in relationship overcoming our alienation. In that moment also we begin to live a shared life in which Christ takes up abode within us and the process of sanctification begins. The process of sanctification is also the process of deificaion. We live a holy life set apart to God because his life and light are within us and we have given him our lives and hearts. The giving of life is a sheer grace and all that we can do in the momnent of opening is to not resist it — though we are also free to resist it by closing off our hearts.

   So what atonement does is overcomes our ego-bound and alienated existence through shared life. What it gives to us is life and light; and what we give us our life and light. In giving away our life and light by giving as a sacrifice our open hearts and contrite spirits is the joy and pain of our lives. That is why it is at-one-ment. We enter into a relationship of intimately shared unity through opening and not resisting Christ’s entry into us.

   Now for a few important aspects that are essential to the com-passion theory: (1) God’s mercy consists in his willingness to place us on probation rather than execute judgment immediately. God could justly consign us to be forever cut off from his presence once we have chosen to alienate ourselves from him and leave his presence. He has chosen a plan of mercy instead. (2) The probationary period is a time to see if we will freely choose to enter into God’s presence again that we have freely chosen to leave just as Adam and Eve. (3) Justice is satisfied because we will still be judged; but the day of judgment has been stayed pending our decision and a space to repent (i.e., re-turn to God). (4) God’s justice and judgment consists in giving to each of us what we have freely chosen and truly desired. It is the Law of the Harvest. If we have loved, we will receive love and joy; if we have been angry and demanded justice, then we will receive wrath and justice. Justice and mercy are not metaphysical principals that make demands on God; rather, they are interpersonal realities of waiting to see what we will choose and then honoring our choices. That is how Alma 34 and 41-42 are explained in the compassion theory.

   D&C 19 is a primary basis of the revelation of atonement in the compassion theory. If we repent, then Christ suffers what we would otherwise suffer; if we don’t repent, then we will suffer. The fact that Christ suffers if we repent demands an explanation –and so does the fact that we do if we don’t repent. The most obvious basis for such suffering is that sin causes pain. If we repent we let go of this pain and he receives into his life the pain of our sins — and because our sins “cause” this pain there must be a reality that is an energy to cause something. We know that sins create guilt. However, Geoff, the notion of sin is much broader than just bad stuff that we do and so it also includes the things we do to ourselves like creating anger, high-blood pressure, ulcers and so forth.

   So atonement is not propitiation but expiation. That is, Christ’s suffering does not appease the Father’s wrath (appeasing the Father’s wrath is an essential feature of the Penal Subsitution Theory). Rather atonement expiates sin by releasing it and letting go (that is what expiation means). It eradicates sin by eradicating alienation and closed-ness. Atonement is a transfer of pain but not of moral culpability. An essential feature of the Penal Theory is that Christ’s righteousness is “imputed” or transferred to us. However, moral righteousness cannot be imputed or transferred because it is personal. However, what is given to us and transferred to us is Christ’s life and spirit to share with our lives and what we transfer to him is is our life. We begin life at-one.

   Gethesemane and the cross are essential because it is in the moment in Gethsemane when the pain of the flesh is fully comprehended by God and it is united with a full comprehension of all human pain in a single moment because God’s complete knowledge is united with human pain and suffering. Christ’s pre-earth glory is also restored to Christ in this moment so that the pain of the flesh is magnifed infinitely in the experience of God that knows no limits. In this moment, for the first time, God and humanity are united into a single experience and we see the pain it occasions — and the joy it makes possible. The divine compassion is then manifest because Christ proceeds as the united reality of a fulness of humanity and a fulness of divinty carrying a cross and givings as a sheer gift the sacrifice of his life on the cross.

   There, now I feel better.

   Comment by Blake — April 13, 2006 @ 6:41 am

2. Nice post Geoff, and nice comments Blake. I gotta buy his book.

   Anyway, either of you have an explanation of how Mosiah 3:7-10 fits in here? I agree mostly with this idea. I feel that the final judgement will be another climactic event in the process of the atonement.

   Comment by Eric — April 13, 2006 @ 8:56 am

3. So Blake, what your saying is that Christ didn’t suffer once for our sins, but that He is suffering constantly for our sins to the degree that we give them over to Him?

   I really appreciate your efforts to explain the atonement and that explanation might well have some merit but it appears that your particular explanation goes beyond what some Church leaders have taught.

   I’m not defending any Church leaders’ theories. I’m just pointing out that I’ve heard some (conservative) Church leaders state that Christ suffered once for our sins (during the atonement experience) and that to suppose that He continues to suffer for our sins goes beyond the mark.

   I’m not discounting your views, I’m just making a comparison.

   According to your view, Jesus is constantly in pain, due to receiving into Himself the pain of our sins as we give them to Him, right?

   Comment by Mark — April 13, 2006 @ 9:33 am

4. Thanks Blake. I apologize for not doing justice to your theory. I guess my biggest issue is that I can’t comprehend some of the concepts you are trying to describe. Secondarily, I am coming from a slightly different set of assumptions on other parts. I’ll respond to your comment to show what I mean.

   what is essential to atonement is precisely the sharing of life, light, love, intelligence, glory-the energies of the divine life.

   Alright, this is the kind of sentence that I cannot make any sense of. I know what it is like to share my life with Kristen and our children. I know what it is like to communicate with God and receive answers. I guess I am not sure what that has to do with atonement specifically. I mean, is my marriage also atonement (with Kristen and I becoming “at-one”) in this broad definition?

   At the moment we accept Christ through trusting faithfulness… we enter into a shared life. At that moment, we open to God and he gives us his life to share and to be in relationship overcoming our alienation.

   Your use of the term “shared life” confuses me. I have a shared life with my family. Is that the same thing? I share life with friends… is that what you mean? I have a communicative relationship with God, and have since I can remember… is that what you mean? But I know of no “moment” when I accepted Christ per se. It seems to me He has simply always been there and when I want to chat he’s ready.

   In that moment also we begin to live a shared life in which Christ takes up abode within us and the process of sanctification begins. The process of sanctification is also the process of deification.

   Again, this talk of “that moment” is throwing me off. It is like talking about the “moment” where I chose to be a relationship with my loving earthly parents; that moment doesn’t exist for me here — it just always has been available and I have called upon it in varying degrees throughout my life. I think your idea that God’s grace is the very offer of such a relationship is spot on, but I am thrown off by you describing this process in binary terms (as if an on/off switch is involved for us) when my experience is that my relationship with God ebbs and flows in a very organic fashion or on a continuum.

   (more in the next comment)

   Comment by Geoff J — April 13, 2006 @ 9:51 am

5. Blake: (1) God’s mercy consists in his willingness to place us on probation rather than execute judgment immediately. God could justly consign us to be forever cut off from his presence once we have chosen to alienate ourselves from him and leave his presence. He has chosen a plan of mercy instead.

   I am having trouble with this one. I thought this entire life was a probation. So when you say he could execute judgment immediately — when is that immediately? Immediately after we sin the very first time as a child? In Mormon doctrine our entire life here is the result of our choice to alienate ourselves from God so are you saying it is some incredible act of mercy that God doesn’t cut us all off from his presence at birth? Didn’t we all agree to a plan in which we knew that was not an option? What am I missing in this comment?

   (2) The probationary period is a time to see if we will freely choose to enter into God’s presence again that we have freely chosen to leave just as Adam and Eve.

   This sounds fine (though I suspect we are Adam and Eve).

   (3) Justice is satisfied because we will still be judged; but the day of judgment has been stayed pending our decision and a space to repent (i.e., re-turn to God).

   Ok. But this is no surprise right? Wasn’t this part of our pre-mortal agreement with God?

   (4) God’s justice and judgment consists in giving to each of us what we have freely chosen and truly desired. It is the Law of the Harvest.

   I completely buy the Law of the Harvest. So my question to you is do you see God being subject to the Law of the Harvest or the Law of the Harvest coming from God? It seems to me that the BoM (with all the risk of God ceasing to be God) claims that the Law of the Harvest is essentially a Universal principle which God must adhere to. But you seem to be averse to this whole notion when you say things like “Justice and mercy are not metaphysical principals that make demands on God.”

   Comment by Geoff J — April 13, 2006 @ 10:10 am

6. Blake: D&C 19 is a primary basis of the revelation of atonement in the compassion theory.

   Yeah I love that. I think it is the strongest aspect of you theory.

   The fact that Christ suffers if we repent demands an explanation-and so does the fact that we do if we don’t repent. The most obvious basis for such suffering is that sin causes pain.

   I’m totally with you here. Where I start to get cold feet is when you turn sin-pain into some real form of energy that is directly transferable to God. It seems to me that we are again dealing with the Law of the Harvest with section 19. Wickedness (which seems to me to be selfishly living at odds with God and the laws and principles of the Universe) never was happiness, but I get the impression that conforming to the laws of God and the Universe is the opposite of wickedness and that happiness is the natural harvest of such choices. But that admittedly leaves no explanation for why Christ had to suffer. I would prefer the idea that Christ suffers for us as a loving teacher/parent/mentor as I described in my Parable of the Pianist. Section 19 says that Christ suffered for all (whatever that really means) but that only those who change/repent would escape suffering themselves.

   So I guess I can also see some of the appeal of the empathy-related theories of the suffering of Christ — where Christ suffers general pain and alienation in an intense way mostly to be able to empathize with and succor us, plus so that he would have it worse than any of us in order to justifiably be our judge (as Eric has been pushing). But I can see why you have gone this route — it is very hard to get to the idea of Christ literally taking our personal suffering in Mormonism without such a position…

   Comment by Geoff J — April 13, 2006 @ 10:43 am

7. Ostler’s Compassion Theory of Atonement? Kurt [is not convinced].

   Comment by Kurt — April 13, 2006 @ 11:01 am

8. Mark (#3), an interesting problem is that in the scriptures past tense is often used to emphasize the surety of prophecies about future events. A good example is the statement that Christ was “slain from the foundation of the world” (Rev 13:8). A process based interpretation of the Atonement tends to rely on a similar transformation of scriptures that imply the atoning sacrifice is completely finished. If anything, Moses 7:28-42 implies it is not in certain critical respects. Other leaders have also generalized the work of the Atonement to temple work, following the lead of Obadiah 1:21. Not that our similar speculation here carries any authority of course.

   Comment by Mark Butler — April 13, 2006 @ 11:12 am

9. What a profound argument, Kurt - I am moved beyond words.

   Comment by Mark Butler — April 13, 2006 @ 11:15 am

10. Mark: One of the distinctions I see in the use that the Book of Mormon makes of the term “atonement” is that it applies to the way that God chooses to relate to us rather then to merely some specific event. Atonement consists in the way he makes us free and leaves us free to choose; it consists in the way that Christ suffers throughout his life; it consists in the suffering both in his full mortality and in Gethesemane and on the cross. Atonement is the way that God relates to us. In Gethsemane for the first time there was a union of divine experience with human suffering — the Book of Mormon calls it the suffering of the flesh. God through Christ learned something that he didn’t know prior to that moment. He learned to more fully succor his people. Yes, in every moment Christ feels the joy and pain of being in relationship with us. When we repent he feels the pain of our sins released to him and the joy of our repentance. It is both. However, if we don’t repent, we will feel that suffering and in addition the suffering of being alone and alienated. In sharing suffering the suffering is aleviated altogether.

    Geoff: I’m really surprised that you cannot make sense out of my statements (which are basically scriptural) that God’s spirit, light and so forth enter into us when we open to him. Such realities are the essence of being in Christ. When God’s spirit enters into us, it imparts divine knowledge, life, glory and so forth. It is indwelling life in each other.

    There may or may not be a first moment of opening — but there are moments of closing and opening to others constantly. However, there is a moment when we receive the Holy Ghost as a gift. There is a moment when we are baptized. There is a moment when we realize that we know that we know and that we know that God is in us.

    Now to your questions:

    (1) The notion of probation is taken from Alma 42. We have chosen to leave God’s presence (to become alienated). We have violated the law of love. God could justly consign us to be forever cut off from his presence and remain alienated (both because that is what we chose and because we have violated the law of love). He could do that immediately by failing to provide atonement or a basis for forgiveness. We could be lost before we are born, or lost once we have made choices that violate the law of love. However, he has chosen to place us on probation. He has chosen to give a space and time to see whether we will freely choose to re-enter into his presence. Only in this way can our relationship be genuine and progress from where we were with him prior to this life.

    (4) The Law of the Harvest is merely the way it is for us as well as for God. One cannot have loving, intimate relationships without being intimate and loving. We cannot send out hatred and expect to receive back love. We cannot shut others out and expect them to be a part of our lives. It is just the way it is and not even God could make hatred, anger, envy and so forth to be love.

    Comment by Blake — April 13, 2006 @ 11:17 am

11. Blake: God’s spirit, light and so forth enter into us when we open to him. Such realities are the essence of being in Christ.

    These are obviously all English words, but they I feel like I’m not really getting what you mean. When you say God’s spirit and light enter us — do you mean that truth is taught to our minds and that we feel the “love, joy, peace” etc. that is accompanied by feeling the Holy Ghost? I am just unaccustomed to using terms like “being in Christ” so I want to be sure I can pin down what you mean. I know what it is like to feel the presence of the Holy Spirit. And I know that the Gift of the Holy Ghost allows me to “always have his spirit to be with” me. So when am I “being in Christ” and when am I not? Am I being in Christ only when I do have his spirit with me noticeably or am I always being in Christ as long as I keep on keepin’ on?

    When God’s spirit enters into us, it imparts divine knowledge, life, glory and so forth.

    Again, you seem to be using poetic language here and I can’t make heads or tails of some of it. I fully understand the notion of God’s spirit imparting divine (or earthly for that matter) knowledge to me. But what do you mean when you say it imparts life to me? We are reportedly alive co-eternally with God after all. And what exactly is the glory that is imparted? I am having trouble with this interlacing of pragmatic and poetic language you have been employing.

    In Gethsemane for the first time there was a union of divine experience with human suffering-the Book of Mormon calls it the suffering of the flesh.

    Since you’ve said this twice I think I’ll pipe up and object. I think it is most likely that every inhabited planet has its own savior so Jesus Christ was following in the path of Divinity before him. (See posts related to this in this post and in this series) I know you will object to this but that will have to remain a point of disagreement between us for now.

    Comment by Geoff J — April 13, 2006 @ 12:09 pm

12. Geoff: If you don’t know from experience what it is to have Christ’s life, light and intelligence comingle with your own in living a life in each other, I cannot teach it or convey it. It is an experienced knowledge only (kinda like my attempting to explain what it is like to smell a rose if you hadn’t smelled one). There is a sense in which Christ is always a concurrent cause of our life, our intelligence and light and there is a sense in which we accept these into our lives. In the first sense, Christ’s prior-indwelling concurrent cause is a necessary condtion for us to live at all, for us to act all, for us to be free. There is a sense also in which we accept Christ’s life as the shared life that we live so that the process of deification and sharing the divine nature can begin.

    There is a bit of a paradox here (but it is not a contradiction). We have a relationship already with Christ; he now seeks a different kind of relationship (a peer relationship) that of necessity is freely chosen. We are already children of God; we seek to become children of God by adoption through our choice. So we are entering into this relationship in a new way in this life though we always already have a relationship with God.

    The language is not poetic except to the extent all life is poetry in the living of it.

    Joseph Smith stated clearly in the poetic rendition of the Vision pulished in 1843 in the Time & Seasons that Christ atoned for all worlds. That’s good enough for me. I believe that the revelations are not consistent with your view. But as you said, you knew that I would disagree.

    Comment by Blake — April 13, 2006 @ 12:19 pm

13. From what I have read here (I haven’t seen your second book yet), I generally agree with your compassion theory of the Atonement, Blake, especially its process oriented aspects. I am personally interested in what might be called the micro-metaphysical aspects of the Atonement and how they relate to natural law.

    When I say metaphysical necessity, I do not mean that Christ was constrained to perform the Atonement by any means, but rather that the means available for a truly effective Atonement (e.g. one that conquers death) are constrained by natural necessity. Although I disagree on the details, it is not hard for me to see that necessity (or something very similar) at work in your theory.

    Unfortunately, the natural language of process theories of the atonement has an unfortunate association with eccentric New Age spiritualisms. I partly avoid that by using the even more formal terminology of physics, but some are even more offended by that approach.

    My working theory is that suffering is an unavoidable consequence of the exercise of LFW by a personal agent. i.e. that an agent might more simply avoid most suffering by not creatively interfering with the natural deterministic evolution of his surrounding environment, in colloquial terms, “going with the flow” or “drifting with the tide”.

    That universal disorder (i.e. death) is the natural state of a universe where LFW is either not exercised or not exercised so as to sustain the order required to maintain life. More commonly known as the “heat death of the universe”. Or in other words, that the agent causal activity of LFW agents (”intelligences”) is the only thing that is capable, even in principle, of stopping this natural decay, which is not just a physical reconfiguration, but a loss of knowledge (”light and truth”) about the state of the outside world as well.

    That life does not maintain itself on auto-pilot, but requires continual creative interference with natural processes - the struggle to survive if you will - requiring sacrifice. (By natural I mean LFW-absent here).

    That sin, in any form, is characterized by actions that ultimately contribute to the natural process of decay and destruction, diminishing or making vain the sacrificial effort which was required to create and sustain our lives in the first place.

    That we are not independently capable of the necessary effort to sustain our own living existence even when free from sin.

    Therefore, on the conditions he has laid out, the Lord continually creatively exercises his infinitely superior abilities to sustain us so that we do not suffer death prematurely.

    That this sustenance is not the sort of substance that might be drawn effortlessly from an endless supply, but rather involves creative effort or interference of the type that is only performed by free agents. Or thermodynamically speaking, no mere artifice can roll back the natural consequences of the second law, only creative (”information injecting”) effort will do.

    That the Lord is a personal free agent whose interactions with others and with the material world differ in infinite degree, but not in fundamental kind, from our interactions. I.e. the same micro-metaphysics apply.

    That the primary difference beyond sheer degree is his ability to associate and interact with us at a distance, something we see hints of in QM, but which remains far beyond our abilities.

    Thus the Lord’s efforts to reverse and remediate the consequences of sin and death require the same type of suffering as our our efforts to do the same, only to an infinitely greater degree.

    Comment by Mark Butler — April 13, 2006 @ 12:33 pm

14. Blake, your soteriology is eminently unscriptural. Your starting point in comment #1 is to misdefine “justification” and “redemption” and then inject a lot of new age rhetoric into the discussion. And I dont know if you intend to come off as pretentious in your comment in #12, but it sure sounds like it. Who are you to question Geoff’s relationship with Christ? He isn’t questioning yours. All he is trying to do is understand your POV, which is rather difficult given your sophistry.

    Comment by Kurt — April 13, 2006 @ 12:56 pm

15. I’ve always believed in positive and negative energy. It seems pretty clear that the spirit and the Light of Christ operate within or through some type of medium that could bear the moniker positive energy. Just as people sometimes have positive and negative energy.

    We are often limited to thinking about spiritual things in terms of what we can see in the physical world, but its possible that Christ’s infinite atonement accomplished taking all the negative energy upon Himself.

    Certainly the compasion argument is one aspect of the atonement, but it seems that the atonement would be more like everything else in life, that is to say it consists of numerous levels. Any argument that the atonement can and should be viewed with one and only one paradigm limits our understanding which is, as Geoff so elequently put it, our goal, to better understand and in by so doing our faith will be more effective.

    Comment by Heli — April 13, 2006 @ 12:58 pm

16. If you don’t know from experience what it is to have Christ’s life, light and intelligence comingle with your own in living a life in each other

    I might indeed have had all of the experiences you are thinking of — the problem is that I am having trouble matching up your descriptions with my experiences. There is a language barrier here that I am trying to overcome.
    
    There is a sense in which Christ is always a concurrent cause of our life, our intelligence and light

    Hmmm… I’m not sure what you mean here. We exist independently and co-eternally with Christ. How is he a cause of that? Of course I am a believer in the Widstoe school of theology where Christ is our loving parent/mentor/teacher and that he is mostly ahead of us on the very path we are treading. Perhaps your entire theory is at odds with that notion and that is the rub. If I remember correctly you belief that there was never a time when Jesus Christ was not God right? I just don’t think that is true, therefore much of what you are saying here doesn’t fly for me. In other words, we are coming from very different theological assumptions about Christ and accepting your atonement theory requires one to first accept your assumptions about the nature of Christ (as always a God) — but I don’t accept your assumptions on that.

    Comment by Geoff J — April 13, 2006 @ 1:00 pm

17. Kurt, again, your comment in number 14 lacks foundation. Why should we believe what you say if you do not explain your reasons. There are many ways to interpret the scriptures - please explain the relevant aspects of your interpretation, why it conflicts with Blake’s interpretation, and what reasons we should have to prefer yours over his.

    Or I might say further, the focus of this weblog (correct me if I am wrong Geoff) is what might be termed speculative theology. This isn’t Gospel Doctrine class, and an appeal to authority doesn’t end all discussion (let alone an appeal to an unspecified authority - chapter and verse please).

    Comment by Mark Butler — April 13, 2006 @ 1:06 pm

18. Geoff: I go over this in ch. 4 of the first volume. We abound because of Christ’s light, spirit and truth; we are quickened by it (given life by it); but you may want to read about concurring grace in ch. 4.

    Comment by Blake — April 13, 2006 @ 1:07 pm

19. Blake,

    I think Mark might be on to something with this idea that process theologians use a lot of “eccentric New Age spiritualisms”. I know you have been quite immersed in those writings but I suspect you have come out of that immersion speaking a language that is completely foreign to Mormons. In other words, I know you well enough to be certain you are saying valuable things here, but the language you are using frankly comes off like a lot of New Age mumbo jumbo at times to me. That is why I am trying to get beneath that initial impression and down to what you mean in language I think Mormons can easily comprehend.

    Comment by Geoff J — April 13, 2006 @ 1:24 pm

20. Blake,
    I like reading your publications because you are very clear and I rarely go away not understanding what you are trying to say. But I’m with Geoff on this one, some of the things you are saying aren’t as clear as we are used to hearing from you. For example, you talk about an indwelling. Surely you do not mean a physical indwelling. We know that Christ is a being who is located in time and place and so a physical indwelling would be impossible. Maybe it could be some sort of other indwelling.
    For the most part I’ve really enjoyed this new stuff your putting out, but in many ways it’s created more questions than answers. In some ways that’s good, and in some ways it’s frustrating.

    Comment by Craig Atkinson — April 13, 2006 @ 1:44 pm

21. Kurt: I’m twice as arrogant and bad as you let on here. The other guys on this post all know that I am hopeless and they just indulge me. However, they are so charitable and non-judgmental that they let me get away with it. So I’m glad you came along to put an end to all of this charitable non-sense. It is about time someone not so charitable came along to call me to repentance.

    Craig and Geoff: Getting “clear and technical” will detract from the message since I am relying on scriptural language (not “new-agey” language as Geoff likes to put in in his so ad-hominem laden way). The language is given scriptural content in the prior chapter on soteriology; so I have a sense that a lot of the questions are being raised because that chapter hasn’t been read and/or digested.

    But since you asked, here is a more techinical way of putting it. God’s spirit is his knowledge and power to act without intermediary at any place or time. As such, God can bring about anything consistent with maximal power at any place without intermediary and he knows all that occurs without intermediary (or without depending on anything else for such knowledge and power). Our lives are made possible because God acts to give us life and the necessary conditions of consciousness. However, he cannot determine unilaterally how the power to act will be directed by us. So the basis of our lives and the ability to abound in life are completely dependent on God (in case you didn’t notice, you didn’t cause your own life); however, the specific ends toward which that power is directed is a matter of a faculty of choice given to us as a matter of grace.

    In atonement, there is a shared life in this sense. However, it is more. I’ll give an example. All televisions sets have a source of electricity. But a magnetic field could be used to create an electric field of energy to be used to power the television set that is internal to the TV itself. However, merely being able to turn on the TV isn’t sufficient to watch 24 with Kieffer Southerland (and if you’re not watching youre missing out on life and may well just get yourself a funeral now). However, the TV signal must come from outside the TV to give content to the TV picture rather than just chaotic firing of electrons on the screen. The energy for the TV picture is therefore both internal and external to the TV. It is a shared energy that gives “life” to the show 24.

    All of life is like that. We derive our life’s energy ultimately from the sun, which is used in plants for photosynthesis, which is eaten by animals and when we eat plants and animals the source of our life’s-energy (this is not an analogy at this point) is then used by us and directed toward specific purposes. In this sense, the light of the sun is the basis for our lives. In a very real sense, we derive energy directly from God to give life to us — it is called zoe in scripture. It is spiritual life but it is real. This zoe that is in us from God is also added to by our own lights, our own direction of our life’s energy toward what we choose to do.

    A life lived in Christ is a jointly-lived life. His spirit/light enter into us and energizes us, gives us knowledge, empowers us and begins to make us over in his image. However, this shared life is not something that just happens to us regardless of what we choose. We can reject or resist this light from entering into us. When it enters into us, it renews us and in a very real sense empowers us to let go of the ego-laden existence that characterizes a persons who is closed to receive such light.

    Does that help?

    Comment by Blake — April 13, 2006 @ 2:35 pm

22. I think there is a power in Blake’s concept of the Atonement for non-LDS, but there is one aspect of LDS thought that I think really brings home this new idea for me.

    In Elder’s quorum the EQP taught about the atonement. He mentioned that Christ not only felt pain for our sins, but he felt pain for our pains as part of his time in Gethsemane. He commented on how this was difficult to understand.
    The idea of paying for our sins does not explain how that atonement also includes experiencing our sickness and hurts and …
    Being the nice guy that I am, I waited till after the lesson to mention the Compassion Theory of the atonement (from Blake’s book). Being the trouble maker I am, I did bend my EQP’s ear about it for a couple of minutes after class.

    One other thing I wanted to mention. I only occasionally taste of higher communions with God, but I can certainly see the Compassion Theory in my marriage.
    I regularly pray for my wife that she can be delivered from the difficulties associated with my becoming who I want to be and failing her on the way. I have no doubt that being in a relationship with me causes her stress and even pain. I suspect there are positives too, but relationships are not simple things.
    I also know that the closer the relationship is the greater potential it has to cause joy and pain. I do not have any people in my life who treat me very negatively, but the slight offenses (and joys) that I feel (real or perceived) from my wife are thousands of times more painful (and joyful) than the larger offenses (and to a lesser extent joys) offered me through my other relationships. I suspect as my wife and I become closer the difference I note will only become more acute.
    And based upon my glimpses I think there is some reason to see this within the human/divine relationship too.

    Charity, TOm

    Comment by TOm — April 13, 2006 @ 2:52 pm

23. Blake,
    Actually that helps a lot. And your right, I have not read that chapter yet. I’m going very slowely through the book, but when school is finally over I’m going to go through it much more rapidly, and hopefully digest it more fully. Also I hope you were being sarcastic when you said that we (Geoff and I) think that you are hopeless and we are just putting up with you in a charitable way. I’m pretty sure you were, but I just wanted to make clear that we don’t think of you like that. Oh and one other thing, It’s good to hear your a 24 fan. My wife and I watch 24 religiously. Thank the heavens for Tivo.

    Comment by Craig Atkinson — April 13, 2006 @ 3:24 pm

24. Blake,

    Yes, that does help me understand some of the terms you have been using better. And I am remembering now some of the connections you made in the first volume with the LDS idea of “the light of Christ” and the immanence/spirit of God that can indeed be omnipresent. So at least I understand some of your assumptions better. I’ll read more and post separately on my objections to some of your assumptions (which I suspect probably all stem from our disparate readings of the KFD and Sermon in the Grove, plus our views on 19th century Mormon theology).

    I am relying on scriptural language (not “new-agey” language as Geoff likes to put in in his so ad-hominem laden way).

    In my defense, many of the terms you have been using here and in the book (”indwelling”, “sin energy”, “energies of the divine life”, “shared life”) are not scriptural. And I prefer to call it my “ad hominemy way”. :-)

    Comment by Geoff J — April 13, 2006 @ 3:24 pm

25. I think it is the “spiritualists” who have coopted the language, Geoff. The theologists certainly would rather avoid the association, or in particular the the opprobrium attached to describing spiritual things in real world terms - not as timeless Platonic abstractions but as closely coupled components of the everyday world, i.e. in terms of time, place, power, energy, flow, influence, etc. That hasn’t been particularly popular since the days of Descartes.

    However, that type of analysis has a strong heritage in Mormonism going back at least to the “All spirit is matter” thing in D&C 131. The Pratt/Roberts/Widstoe strain of theology depends on it. We ought to be among the the most hospitable to that mode of description - the Bible is full of such language.

    Comment by Mark Butler — April 13, 2006 @ 4:18 pm

26. Blake,
    This thread is my first real exposure to your compassion theory, so forgive me if this is something you brought up in your writings. From your first response (#1):

    Gethesemane and the cross are essential because it is in the moment in Gethsemane when the pain of the flesh is fully comprehended by God and it is united with a full comprehension of all human pain in a single moment because God’s complete knowledge is united with human pain and suffering.

    When I read this, it immediately reminded me of Alma 7:11-12, particularly the end of v.12:

    and he will take upon him their infirmities, that his bowels may be filled with mercy, according to the flesh, that he may know according to the flesh how to succor• his people according to their infirmities.

    I was reminded of this scripture about 2 weeks ago when my 2-year-old daughter was sick. She came out of her bedroom to find me and by the way she was acting, I could tell that she had a fever and was cold. Having been through similar experiences, I knew exactly what she was feeling and what to do to give her immediate comfort as well as how to take care of her to alleviate her suffering and aid in her recovery. If I could have taken the fever from her and transferred it to myself, I would gladly have done it to keep her from suffering it. The parallels to the atonement are obvious.

    Capt. O

    Comment by Capt. Obsidian — April 13, 2006 @ 5:02 pm

27. Mark Butler, #17, fundamental definitions like “justification” and “redemption” shouldnt need to be defined in a forum for speculative theology, they are stock and trade terms. For standard soteriological terms defined in the Scriptures and understood by pretty much everyone who takes any serious interest in the subject, see here. For “redemption”, see Lev. 25, Isa. 44, Gal. 3-4, Mosiah 15. The standard definitions for these terms are easily established via the Sciptures and require no fancy interpretations, this stuff is strictly peshat, and Blake’s definitions do not coincide with the Scriptural ones.

    Blake #21, thanks for doing my work for me. I wish more people were as up front and honest as you are when called out. As for being less charitable, call me a meanie, but I think its more charitable to not enable people.

    Comment by Kurt — April 13, 2006 @ 5:51 pm

28. Blake (#10): (1) The notion of probation is taken from Alma 42. We have chosen to leave God’s presence (to become alienated). We have violated the law of love. God could justly consign us to be forever cut off from his presence and remain alienated

    I am familiar with Alma 42 but not all of this other stuff. Is this covered in more detail in the book?

    Comment by Geoff J — April 13, 2006 @ 6:04 pm

29. Geoff: It’s all covered in prior chapters.

    Kurt: With all due respect, there are no definitions in scripture. I give two full chapters on justification in the book under review, several sections on redemption and I have an entire book forthcoming on deification. There are no “standard definitions” and the scriptures you cite don’t give any. Perhaps you could actually read the book rather than jumping to conclusions. Admit it, you haven’t read a page of the book, have you?

    Moreover, I have written two very long articles in Dialogue where I deal with these same notions in their scriptural (Hebrew and Greek) context and in the history of theology. So asserting that I’m just out to lunch is not merely facile but just too easily asserted without an ounce of real reasoning or argument on your part.

    Justification is the judicial result of act of faithfully trusting Christ and entering into relationship because Christ deems us as just or innocent before him — though it is a very rich concept and cannot easily be captured in a mere definition. In fact, I argue that it means that we are honored by God and that God is just because he honors his covenant with Israel (at least as far as Paul addresses the issues). Redemption doesn’t mean merely its etymological meaning of buying back, but means to enter into a state free of the past encumbrances primarily and freedom from Satan’s grasp. That is precisely the meanings that I give these terms. Now, so far as I can tell, you haven’t given or offered any suggestions but you have merely made far sweeping judgments without any argument or justification (pun intended). These are not “stock in trade” and the fact that you regard them as such only bespeaks a massive ignorance on your part (if you get to be honest, then so do I).

    Comment by Blake — April 13, 2006 @ 10:27 pm

30. Kurt, I am familiar with the standard Christian conception of justification and sanctification. However, stating that the standard conception (now identified) and Blake’s preferred definitions are different is not very helpful. If you want to ‘debunk’ the latter you need to demonstrate (or at least attempt to demonstrate) through some sort of logical, persuasive argument that they are either misleading, incompatible, or unreasonable. Otherwise why comment at all?

    Comment by Mark Butler — April 13, 2006 @ 11:28 pm

31. Alright boys — let’s keep it civil.

    Kurt - I appreciate you standing up for me in #14 (and I can see why you would see the need) but I consider Blake a friend (as I do you) so I was not offended by the implications of that comment.

    Blake - I do feel chagrined for staying up too late last night and writing a too hasty review of your theory in order to get it in before Easter. I should have read the intervening chapters first so I could understand more of your perspective and then posted on it. I’m not sure my overall feelings would have been different, but I do regret not being more gentle and thoughtful in this post. Anyway, I hope you will accept my apology for that.

    All - In the meantime, I don’t want a shouting match started between anyone (especially since I worry that the flippant tone of my post might have started us on the wrong foot) so please help me recover from my folly and let’s stick to the subject and charitably refrain from jabbing one another. Muchas gracias.

    Comment by Geoff J — April 13, 2006 @ 11:41 pm

32. Geoff: Do you see asking Kurt to give some reasons or examples of how his assertion that my views of justification and redemption are out of sync with scripture to be uncharitable or yelling? I would have thought it would be standard.

    You haven’t done an injustice here — you quoted portions of what I had to say. The questions you have raised are good ones and the ones that deserve to get fleshed out. Further, it is enlightening to me to see where the linguistic disconnect in what I have written is occurring (at least at this stage of the dialogue). I see no need or reason for apology.

    Comment by Blake — April 14, 2006 @ 6:36 am

33. TOm: I appreciate your comments. My experience is like yours. Those we love most are those we have given power to co-create the greatest joys and have the potential for the greatest pain in our lives. So you observations are right on. God, the greatest of all, is open to both the greatest joy and the greatest pain arising from his immense love.

    Capt. Yeah, I’ve always loved Alma 7 and the notion that God learns from his experience to love us with even a greater love. It takes real love to be open to learn through the compassionate sharing of experience with us in its fulness. I love that idea and the experience of it.

    Comment by Blake — April 14, 2006 @ 8:31 am

34. Blake,

    No, I don’t think the yelling had begun… yet. I did delete one comment that probably would have gotten it going though and I wanted to prevent a mess rather than clean one up.

    I’m very glad to hear you saw no need for an apology too.

    Comment by Geoff J — April 14, 2006 @ 9:04 am

35. Jeff Needle’s review is up.

    I must say I find this approach to the atonement much more compelling than any of the ones Geoff discussed in the previous post, but I’ll wait to comment till I get to that chapter. (I just got my pre-order from Amazon today.)

    Comment by Eric Russell — April 14, 2006 @ 9:31 am

36. I am at fault here - I am just impatient with people who disparage positions simply because they aren’t in perfect accord with something some Church leader said or wrote. As if history hasn’t abundantly demonstrated that the theological speculation of Church leaders is every bit as unreliable as the speculation of other commentators. Most of those things Church leaders don’t agree on even among themselves.

    Comment by Mark Butler — April 14, 2006 @ 12:44 pm

37. (#26) re Alma 7:11-13. Although these verses have been cited to suggest that God learns from his experience (also in #33 by Blake), as I read this Alma limits that learning to Christ’s mortal knowledge. So in the sense that Christ gained mortal knowledge by the things he suffered, I would agree; throughout his life he grew in mortal knowledge. But I don’t think God, outside the veil, “learned” anything from it. Alma seems to recognize this in v. 13 when he clarified what could otherwise be a misunderstanding by emphasizing that the Spirit knoweth all things.

    This could appear to be a minor point but I think it underlies Blake’s Compassion Theory of the atonement. Blake says “God through Christ learned something that he didn’t know prior to that moment. He learned to more fully succor his people.” This is pasting Alma’s description of Christ’s mortal experience onto the atonement. I see verses 11-12 as a short chiastic piece with death at the center and mortal suffering on both sides, but the atonement is not described until verse 13–after Alma clarifies that the Spirit knows all things.

    The other problem I have with the Compassion Theory is that it suggests Christ feels more pain by our coming unto him and repenting than by our not doing so. If we don’t, then we don’t transfer the pain to him that we would transfer if we do repent. Instead, we suffer the pain ourselves. Yet the scriptures talk about God’s joy in those who repent, not his pain. In Moses 7, Enoch asked why God and the heavens weep, and it was because of the wickedness of the people, and their refusal to repent. D&C 18 emphasizes God’s joy in the soul that repents.

    I assume the Compassion Theory holds that God’s joy in the repentant soul exceeds the transferred pain, but even if that is the case, it does require an ongoing infliction of pain on Christ as each soul repents. Others have referred to that debate (which I resolve by taking D&C 19:16 literally, that Christ has already suffered for everyone). Gethsemane was a one-time event, as was Golgotha. In whatever way Golgotha broke the bonds of death, Gethsemane also broke the bonds of sin.

    I do like many of Blake’s descriptions of becoming one with Christ, but I see this process as more analogous to a wayward child becoming one with loving parents. Whatever pains the child may have caused are immediately forgotten; the act of turning back extinguishes them. This seems to much more accurately describe the atonement (immediate forgiveness of sins, which are remembered “no more,” welcoming arms, and joy) than any notion that the turning back must be accompanied by Christ suffering pain anew. The atonement merely makes it possible for such immediate forgiveness, just as the resurrection makes it possible for regaining physical bodies.

    Comment by Jonathan N — April 14, 2006 @ 2:39 pm

38. Jonathan,
    I do not think the compassion theory of the atonement suggests that Christ would not feel pain if he did not enter into a relationship with us. I think that Christ surely does feel pain for every soul who chooses not to enter a relationship with him. Our own relationships are a perfect example. We may very well feel a lot of pain by entering into relationships with each other, but isn’t it so much better to be in the relationship rather than in not? So I think what I am pointing out is just because Christ feels pain by entering relationships with us, it does not imply that Christ would feel no pain if we did not.

    Comment by Craig Atkinson — April 14, 2006 @ 4:41 pm

39. No matter how well connected it seems to be, I don’t think Ostler’s concept of the ongoing atonement and needing to assuage the Father’s wrath even comes close to the truth. But, try something simpler–based primarily on a very few principles and logical connection between them–a la Occam’s Razor.

    That is: Knowledge enables our inherent agency, as we exercise it for unrighteousness (selfishness, pride, arrogance, dominion, and so on) we change in our “character” to become less righteousness. As we exercise it for/in righteousness (humility, charity, selflessness, or in repenting from our character flaws–leading to more “serious” sinful action) we are changing to become more righteous. At any point in time we are no more nor less righteous than we have made ourselves.

    The atonement had no specific connection to our individual sins (there is no “awful math of the atonement.”). The atonement was necessary to obtain mercy from all the intelligences in existence(”great and small” some to act and some to be acted upon). “They” (as articulated first by Skousen in “The First 2000 Years”) “agreed” (or something in the nature of the universe was changed) to let the children of God pass back into the realm/level/plane He lives on. That’s it. It is done; Christ finished that work. Whether or not we make our character of the sort that can exist in God’s highest plane is completely up to us and our use of agency.

    Christ can’t do it for us. He can’t give us the rest of the bicycle because we tried as hard as we could. That is what “agent unto themselves” means. This system wasn’t created, at all, let alone by Christ’s father. It is the uncreated nature of our existence. Our God’s plan to give us knowledge (vs. Satan’s plan to withold knowledge) was necessary so that we could use our agency to potentially progress and experience and be all that God is.

    Someday, after I retire and have enormous amounts of time, maybe I’ll write a long explanation of how I see all of what we are told (the parts I trust to be truth) supports my conclusions. For now, I am just that crank in the back of the high priest class spouting personal theories ;-)

    Comment by Phil — April 14, 2006 @ 6:04 pm

40. Blake #29 & Mark #30,

    There are plenty of definitions in Scripture, if you choose to see them. Take for example D&C 20:29-31 which plainly define both justification and sanctification, as do numerous other passages. The idea that these terms are not defined in Scripture simply isnt the case. If it were the case, then there would be no standard of understanding among all Christians who discuss soteriology, and there is.

    Justification is the expiation of sins by the Grace of Christ (cf. Romans 3-5, Galations 2:16-17, D&C 20:30), Sanctification is the cleansing of the individual from their sins accomplished by repentence of the individual with the assistance of the Holy Spirit (2 Thes 2:13, Romans 6:22, James 2:26, D&C 20:30), and if they endure to the end then they are exalted (Matt. 10:22, Romans 8:17, Rev. 3:21). The end. You guys failing to understand the meaning of plain terms that are easily established from the Scriptures doesnt mean they are not plain terms whose meaning is easily established.

    And if you say that justification isnt the expiation of sins by the Grace of Christ as Romans 3-5 very plainly say it is, I expect you to back that up with a thorough explanation and serious exegetical discourse on why Romans 3-5 isnt saying what it is very plainly saying.

    Blake #29, Have I read your book? No, of course not. Have you read anything I have written dealing with LDS soteriology? No? OK, then were even.

    Comment by Kurt — April 14, 2006 @ 6:13 pm

41. Jonathan: #37. You know the trouble that I have with your view. First, Alma 7. The distinction is clearly between what Christ learned “according to the flesh” and what he knew as “spirit.” Do you maintain that Christ was limited in knowledge? Moreover, the problem with your view of a one-time atonement ignores the problem that in the Book of Mormon people are forgiven before Christ’s atonement. I suppose you’ll assert backward caustion? Moreover, given that my sins caused a real effect on Christ some 2,000 years before I was born, it is more obvious than even that my acts are not free and are inevitable, for it is clearly incoherent to suppose that Christ experiences pain in 33 A.D. for what I do in 2006 and yet what I do in 2006 may not occur.

    Further, isn’t it precisely the suffering of Christ as a mortal that is relevant to atonement? The problem is that Christ must also be fully divine to atone, for no mere mortal can atone. Yet a fully divine person must know the future and all things on your view so Christ must be all-knowing as a mortal. So Christ cannot both be able to learn something from what he suffers and also know all things on your view; yet to be able to atone he must be both mortal and fully divine. You cannot have it both ways. So it seems to me that your proposal is inconsistent with what we must affirm about Christ and does nothing to explain how Christ’s suffering is related to forgiveness of our sins. However, I expect that you may have a fuller explanation of your view which I will await before any final conclusions regarding your interpretation of Alma 7. (On my view there is no problem because fully divine persons can learn from their experience on my view).

    Of course D&C 19:16 says that Christ suffers “that they might not suffer if they would repent; but if they would not repent they must suffer even as I.” So whether we suffer depends on our repentance. How is it just if we both suffer for my sins? If I repent I don’t suffer; but Christ suffers regardless of whether I repent on your view?

    Finally, your view doesn’t explain what a theory of atonement should explain. Why was Christ’s suffering related to my sins on your view? What difference does Christ’s suffering make on your view? As far as I can see, none. Moreover, his suffering is merely empathetic; it is not different from the way we suffer when we are aware of others we love who sin. But our suffering is not expiatory or atoning. So your view doesn’t explain what atonement must explain.

    Comment by Blake — April 14, 2006 @ 6:48 pm

42. Phil re: #39: You have mistated my view. I don’t believe that the Father’s wrath must be assuaged; that is something that I explicitly deny. Your view simply isn’t a view that connects Christ’s suffering to atonement in any way. Indeed, Christ’s entire life is irrelevant to atonement on your view. So it isn’t a theory of atonement but merely a social contract theory of what we agree will be forgiven — but just what could justify our judgments of forgiveness remains unexplained. That is the problem of Skousen’s and Eugene England’s views as well. Your view just isn’t one that connects to the scriptural view that Christ suffers for our sins as D&C 19 and the Book of Mormon repeatedly state. So that’s my concern with this very Pelagian view.

    Comment by Blake — April 14, 2006 @ 6:53 pm

43. Kurt re: # 40: I doubt that further discussion with you on this issue will be fruitful. Your definitions are not definitions. Take your supposed definition of “justification.” First, it isn’t justified by the reference to D&C 20:29 because that passage says nothing about expiation in terms of which you purport to define it. Referring ot several chapters in Romans as if it provided the definition you suggest is just non-sense. Further, without definitions of “expiation” and “grace” your supposed definition is empty of content. Yet all of those terms are multi-facted and themselves in need of definition (or explanation at least). An easy definition misses so much in these terms that misses what is being addressed. More importantly, you suggest that there must be a definition of these terms or “there would be no standard of understanding among all Christians who discuss soteriology, and there is.” There is no such standard understanding among all Christians. It is precisely this kind of assertion that demonstrates that you are just ignorant of the numerous different views of soteriology and the meaning of these terms not only among various Christian traditions, but within the various Catholic, Protestant and evangelical traditions themselves.

    If you want to see my serious exegesis of Paul’s thought and the meaning of terms like dikaiosyne (justification), then read chs. 8 & 9 and 11 of this book we are discussing.

    Comment by Blake — April 14, 2006 @ 7:06 pm

44. Blake,

    Youre right, talking to you is fruitless. Your hyper-selective choice of scriptural passages you choose to address, while ignoring all the rest, only indicates your approach to the Scriptures.

    You want me to read your book? Send me a copy and I will put it in my bookpile and get back to you in a couple of years when it comes up. Sorry, its a FIFO pile, and your patent disregard for the peshat of the Scriptures does nothing to change that order.

    Comment by Kurt — April 15, 2006 @ 1:13 pm

45. Kurt,
    Why the tone? You are slandering Blake by accusing him of being hyper-selective in his choice of scriptures, but have given no concrete examples. Seems pretty rude, and uncharitable to me.

    Comment by Craig Atkinson — April 15, 2006 @ 1:46 pm

46. Kurt,

    I have to agree that your tone is a bit over the top here.

    Comment by Geoff J — April 15, 2006 @ 3:53 pm

47. Blake, apparently you don’t believe in an infinite atonement. Why not when that would serve to solve many of the issues you seem to have with the atonement. If Jesus Christ suffered for ALL sins committed by mortal man, including the past, present, and future, then it doesn’t matter if He suffered for a trillion sins or a google plex number of sins because His atonement was infinite. Maybe you think your experience with repentence for being selfish is unique, but if the same experience occurred to a billion others then Jesus Christ probably only needed to experience it once.

    That scripturally sound doctrine appears to solve most of your logical issues with time, number, and suffering.

    Kurt, you have to understand, Blake appears to dismisses some generally accepted terms used to discuss the atonement. I assume this is because they are faith based rather than logic based.

    But, I do have to agree that Blake appears to be more willing to address passeges of scripture than you do Kurt.

    Comment by Heli — April 16, 2006 @ 10:08 pm

48. Heli,
    What makes you think that Blake doesn’t think the atonement is infinite? He may not define the infinite in the same way you do, but I have not heard him once say that he does not believe the atonement is infinite. Personally I think this word “infinite” has been arbitrarily attached to so many different concepts that it has becomes almost utterly meaningless. It seems to have taken the place of the word “divine.”

    Comment by Craig Atkinson — April 17, 2006 @ 4:13 am

49. Heli: Your post is ironic because I have an entire section in ch. 6 of the book entitled “Infinite Atonement” and I outline at least three ways in which the atonement is infinite. I argue that it is infinite because it is offered for all persons. However, D&C 19 suggests strongly to me that the atonement does not entail suffering for sins that we don’t repent of — instead, we suffer for those sins that we don’t repent of instead of Christ; and if we do repent then he suffers for them instead of us. I also argue that atonement is infinite because it is eternally ongoing at all times. I also suggest that there is no limit to the physical suffering of atonement and it is also infinite in this resect.

    Comment by Blake — April 17, 2006 @ 9:55 am

50. At the risk of you all thinking I’m just a Spambot, I’ll recommend the following story:
    http://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/0603/features/peru.html

    (I mean, how ’spammy’ can National Geographic be???)

    Anyway, I thought it was an interesting tie to the main post.

    Cheers!
    X

    Comment by XON — April 17, 2006 @ 8:54 pm

51. Jacob: Are you the one who wrote the article “The Divine Infusion Theory of Atonement” in Dialogue. I like that article in any event and note an immense amount of similarity between our views (if you’re that Jacob), tho I’m open to the possibility that I just tend to see more agreement than there is.

    Comment by Blake — June 6, 2006 @ 10:43 am

52. Blake,

    I am the Jacob who wrote that article, and I had the same reaction. I bought your book about three weeks after my article got published, and I was floored by how many of the same arguments we made. (I told my wife you were going to think I got an advanced copy of your book. [grin])

    The biggest differences seemed to be that you went farther and took on a couple of the issues which my paper dodged; namely, the problem of backward causation (which I fully ignored) and the reasons for a suffering atonement (which I avoid by openly hiding behind D&C 88).

    It’s nice of you to say you liked the article. Thanks.

    Comment by Jacob — June 6, 2006 @ 11:32 am

53. I completely agree with the reality of divine infusion, particularly in terms of theosis. The Eastern Orthodox have a profound tradition on this as well.

    My problem is that certain questions that the scriptures do not answer are just begging to be asked? In particular, what makes glory glorious? We cannot reduce glory to a simple phenomenon like light, as it is known to the laws of physics, for a variety of reasons. One is that the devil can appear as an angel of light, such that the appearance of such light is not adequate to identify righteousness, just energy.

    If energy were all that mattered, we should fall in with the Sun worshippers, or at least the Sun venerators. Divine glory must have a energetic component of course, but it must be more than just energy. To begin with energy is dumb.

    One scriptural aspect of the Spirit of God (speaking impersonally) is that it “quickeneth all things” - literally that it makes things run faster, however we must note that such quickening is discriminatory - it doesn’t generally accelerate death and decay, but life and healing.

    Normal energy is necessary for life and healing, but not sufficient. It is worth noting that a primary distinction between consuming “empty calories” (e.g. sugar) and healthy food, is *information*. Calories (energy) is necessary for life, but protein (pre-assembled amino acid chains) is necessary for healing. *Assembly* is information, form, structure imposed on raw materials. And we need the right kind of assemblies to re-incorporate into our bodies to heal.

    So the spirit as heat / statistical energy will not heal any more than sitting in a sauna or under a sunlamp will. Plants need sunlight more than we do, but it is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for growth. Sunlight carries no information, just pure energy.

    So one view of the activities of the spirit is that it speeds up time on a local basis, e.g. accelerating natural healing processes that are already present. However, since such undiscriminatory quickening would also accelerate natural decay, and hostile biological agents such as various pathogens - cancer cells, viral infections, bacteria, etc, that account is inadequate as it stands.

    Real healing must be discriminatory - quicken some things and not others, in other words it must reflect intelligence and a proper knowledge of what needs to be quickened and what not. Otherwise the little bacteria would say “mmm, yummy glory” and redouble their innocently destructive endeavors.

    I could go on, but my main point is that divine glory, grace, spirit etc. is most definitely *not* metaphysically simple - definitely a very complex phenomena, not some sort of liquid you can store in a jar. It has to bear both energy and information at a minimum. Scriptural metaphors about the cup of wrath and cup of mercy aside, we are talking about much more than substances here, more than information bearing substances, but semantic “bearing” substances whose greatest properties are not per se, but rather a consequence of applied intentionality for good or for evil.

    That is my analysis of how we avoid the neo-Manichean heresy of thinking that matter, pure matter has morality or magical properties. The argument that the goodness of spirit relies on a consequentialist semantics of how information modulated energy transfer will effect the aims of personal intelligences for good or for evil, life, healing, salvation in the spectrum of senses from basic to the most profound, rather than carry salvation like a fluid or a magical mist, is much easier to support given everything we know about semantics, meta-ethics, physics and physiology.

    Comment by Mark Butler — June 6, 2006 @ 12:25 pm

54. Mark,

    Interesting thoughts.

    One scriptural aspect of the Spirit of God (speaking impersonally) is that it “quickeneth all things” - literally that it makes things run faster

    I have never taken the word quicken to mean “speed up.” From dictionary.com:

    1. To make more rapid; accelerate.
    2. To make alive; vitalize.
    3. To excite and stimulate; stir: Such stories quicken the imagination.
    4. To make steeper.

    I think D&C 88 is using definition 2, which also goes better with the rest of your comments.

    By the way, in my paper I attempt to be as concrete as possible when I am discussing “divine infusion” (a vague idea to be sure) by focusing on the light of Christ as the source of conscience.

    Comment by Jacob — June 6, 2006 @ 3:13 pm

55. 1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

    That’s the scripture the church authority was referring to and although I enjoy your stuff Blake, eternal atonement does not mean Christ suffers forever. I’m curious if you have any scriptural proof to support your thesis.

    It’s unfortunate that Mormons don’t have a more developed theory of atonement, because I’ve seen members speaking over the pulpit more than once make reference to the ’satisfaction’ theory originated by St. Anselm in the 11th century. (aka: Latin Theory and penal substitution theory), which most Greek Orthodox and Protestants take issue with. The scripture state:

    2 Cor 5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

    The atonement was initiated by the Father, not to overcome or appease his own wrath as the Satisfaction Theory suggest. It was God’s love for man that set the Plan of Salvation up from the beginning, in the pre-existence which allowed for a Messiah to take away our sins.

    Anselm tried to grasp the mystery of the atonement and came up with flawed doctrine. Excuse me if I’m a little hesitant to embrace your theory without substantial proof. Nothing personal.

    Comment by Rob S — July 24, 2006 @ 8:20 pm

56. Rob: I appreciate your citation of 1 Pet. 3:18, but it won’t carry the weight you put on it. Look at 1 Pet. 3:20 “In it he went to the spirits in prison who had once been disobedient” (”once” being a translation of the Greek hapax the same as in 3:18). You don’t claim that the spirits were only disobedient one time do you? Or look at KJV 3:20: “Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.” You don’t claim that God was longsuffering only once do you? Or look at Jude 3: “Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort [you] that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” Again, the same term, hapax — but you don’t claim that the gospel was only preached once do you? All that the term means is “at that particular time” without any intent to exclude the possibility of ocurrences of the same at other times. A better translation would be: “Christ suffered for sins at that time [i.e., while in the flesh].”

    So 1 Peter 3 cannot be read as a statement that Christ suffered only once (indeed, Alma is clear that he suffered and learned to atone and succor his people thruout his mortal life). God was pained by the sins of Israel repeatedly. So he didn’t suffer only once.

    Comment by Blake — July 24, 2006 @ 8:45 pm

57. Rob S,

    “One” (and its cognates like “once”) is one of the most heavily overloaded concepts in the scriptures. If you read through the New Testament very carefully you will notice the apostles, particularly Paul, refer to some higher order doctrines (e.g. of exaltation and the conditions thereof) that do not get a lot of press. Hebrews 2:11 is an excellent example. However, I think Revelation 13:8 is more directly applicable to your question.

    Comment by Mark Butler — July 24, 2006 @ 9:54 pm

58. Blake: I have always admired your work and look forward to picking up your new book. I can’t really critique your case fully until I’ve read it. But I’m troubled by what I’m hearing. I’m still looking for some precendent in scripture or even from the ante-Nicene Fathers that supports this ‘eternal suffering’ concept and gives us a hint that this is not a new idea you thought was cool and wanted to throw into the pot. You have evidence of indwelling and theosis in the early church, I can support you on those. Tell me which part of your book supports this argument and where I’ll find evidence that you have discovered this doctrine rather than created it. I’m willing to listen, but I don’t recall any that supports your case. Most cases talk of Jesus in the past tense of having paid the price of sin, not that he continues to pay.
    John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished
    the work which thou gavest me to do.
    Where does God jump in and say, “No, You’re not done yet.”
    At least Margaret Barker can give Old Testament parallels for her Cosmic Covenant Theory, (an idea which I favor). Her idea of Atonement is one of healing. The Holy Ghost must come inside us and heal each one of us. Isn’t is possible that the ransom that was paid, was paid in full? Christ restores the broken Covenant of the Law and fulfills it, and is therefore able to set up a New Covenant rather than one that every sin has to be accounted for? This eye for an eye stuff is no longer valid. John 19:30 states that “its is finished!” and then he dies. The price has been paid, the law has been fulfilled. As for “once the long suffering of God”, the verse makes it very clear that it pertained to the days of Noah. I’m sure God was frustrated most the time in his attempts to deal with man. But the Atonement allows for a new relationship between God and man. Show me where it says God suffers AFTER Atonement has been made. I’ll hold off in saying your wrong, but right now, I’m still not convinced.

    Comment by Rob S — July 25, 2006 @ 10:06 pm

59. WHOAA. Just to show, I want to be fair about this. I actually thought of a scripture that might support your theory.

    Hebrews 6:6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

    Granted, this does not speak of all those who come to Christ, but rather those that fall away and then attempt to come back. You tell me, how do you see this fitting in? Does it mean that Christ didn’t pay the price of ALL sin, only for first timers? I agree with Barker that if we really understood the Old Testament meaning of what the atonement is and how all the sacrifices fit into it, we would have a better handle on this doctrine.

    (By the way, Mark B, I completely missed the point you were trying to make)

    Comment by Rob S — July 25, 2006 @ 10:21 pm

60. Rob, I am not obviously not Blake, but I have a couple of comments that might be relevant. If it were the case that God was not contrained by rationality, or by any natural laws or principles whatsoever, then no possible interpretation of the scriptures could be excluded based on logical or metaphysical principles, such as causality, fixity of the past, no travel backward in time, conservation of energy, and so on.

    One of the distinguishing features of classical Mormonism, however, is the belief in such constraints (no ex nihilo creation, spirit is matter, indestructibility and un-createability of intelligences, the *necessity* for a suffering Atonement, and so on). Those constraints restrict what is possible and what it not possible, so far as the plan of salvation is concerned. For example God cannot sanctify us by commanding that we hate our neighbor. That is a real world constraint that he has no power over. A similar constraint makes it extremely unlikely for the benefit of Christ’s suffering to be both complete and contra-causal (time travel).

    Now I have gone one too long for this forum, but the scripture says that “the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world”. There are many more that talk about how “the spirit is pained” or describe the passions of God over the inquity of his people. That is all part of the Atonement to me. There is no simple argument, ultimately you study it out in your mind and get a spiritual impression whether that is really the case. I have such an impression, but I am no authority.

    Comment by Mark Butler — July 25, 2006 @ 10:27 pm

61. Rob: I think that your question and challenge is a good one. In my book at chs. 6 & 7 the issue is more fully fleshed out. But let me take a crack at responding a bit.

    First, I don’t say that Christ’s suffering is eternal; raher, it is co-terminus with human suffering (however and whenever that occurs). Rather, God suffers empathetically with us as long as there is human suffering. Thruought the OT God is pained by sinful conduct — the OT often compares it to the pain a spouse feels when betrayed or a father feels when is child goes astray and rejects the parent. So God suffers with us because God empathetically suffers when we suffer and he suffers for our sins in the sense that He (they) is pained when we are sinful or in pain.

    The best explanation of God’s suffering is Encoh’s experience of God weeping in Moses 7. When Enoch marvels how God can weep, (7:29-31) God explains at length that he weeps because of the refusal to love and the hatred among us. The central purpose of life is to choose to be in relationship with God: “I have given commandment that they should love one another, and they they should choose me; their Father; but behold, they without affection, and they hate their own blood.” (7:33) God explains that is why he suffers and weeps.

    However, God explains to Enoch how human sin is addressed by divine love: “Enoch saw the day of the coming of the Son of Man, even in the flesh; and his soul rejoiced saying: The Righteous is lifted up, and the Lamb is slain from the foundation of the world; and through faith I am in the bosom of the Father.” (7:47) Christ’s suffering is atoning. So first suggestion: God suffers before Christ’s mortality is real.

    Second, God is all-knowing because he includes the experience of all things within His (their) experience. God knows our suffering and empathetically suffers in our suffering. However, God’s experience of our suffering is merely empathetic and not first-hand. A divine being cannot experience such first-hand suffering by experiencing our suffering second-hand. Nor can the divine persons in the Godhead experience alienation, isolation, being alone and hopeless because they experience our experience by sharing it with us and by being in an intimate relationship of indwelling unity — and such sharing and unity entail that God is not alienated, isolated and alone or hopeless.

    So the empatically important second point is this: Christ’s mortal suffering brings new experiential knowledge and com-passionate suffering to God’s experience. In John 17 Christ’s pre-earth, divine glory is restored to him while he prays, and as a mortal and fully divine being he experiences the bodily suffering and psychic pain of human alienation. For the first time, two fully divinep persons (Father and Son) share first-hand experience of mortal suffering, alienation and death. It is no mistake that Christ expresses both his absolute alone-ness in his feelings of being abandoned by the Father while on the cross and also divine forgiveness of those who crucified him. The fullness of divine love and mortal alieation and suffering are experienced together at the same time (at-one-ment) that he knows all human suffering and sin within his knowledge. So God in Christ does not merely suffer empathetically but com-passionately or with-us in full sharing our own human condition and alienation. This moment is the crowining moment of divine love being joined to a fulness of human suffering — Christ knowing in that moment not only his own physical suffering but now for the first time divine persons share in mortal pain and shared knowledge of all human suffering first hand. Something new was added to God’s experience from this suffering that makes it possible for God to succor us in our sufferings and share with us in our sinful condition of human alienation (and I define sin as essentially alienation).

    Thus, God suffered before Christ’s mortality with us empathetically or by knowing that we are suffering and sharing our suffering because he loves us. When the beloved suffers, the lover also suffers. However, after Christ’s mortal death, he suffers in a new shared with the Father — he suffers because he has first-hand experience of bodily pain and psychic pain in feeling abandoned and left to experience the rejection of hatred.

    This dimension of suffering an essential part of my theory of atonement — and so far as I know, it is accepted even by Geoff. But realize how far it is from the standard account of penal substitution theory. God can forgive us in a way that he couldn’t before — he has shared our alienation and pain and now has a dimension of knowledge and experience that enables him to forgive and share our lives in a way that was impossible before. He can be at-one with us in a way he couldn’t before.

    Now I add that there is another dimension of atonement that many here have difficulty accepting even tho it is well attested in scripture. The pain of our suffering for sins is actually transferred to Christ. he bears this pain and shares it with us. I argue that it is entailed in the com-passionate sharing of experience that others accept; but they don’t see the entailment. Our scriptures say that Christ suffers what we would have if we had not repented; but we suffer for our own sin if we don’t repent. Repentance is a letting go of our alienation and refusal to accept the life of another into our own — a choice to open to accept into our own being the light and life of Christ. If we don’t open and let go of the pain, we will continue to suffer for our sins; if we let go, this pain is transferred to Christ and he suffers it. That is what I take the scriptures are saying. So, as long as there is repentance, Christ will accept us into his life and the pain of our sins will be a part of his experience until we repent. At that point, Christ knows our pain for our sins; but we no longer experience it but rather experience the flow of the love of God into our hearts and the sweetness of forgiveness and the spirit. From darkness to light, from pain to joy.

    Does that explain it in a way that works better for you?

    Comment by Blake — July 26, 2006 @ 7:55 am

62. Blake #61: Your new post raised a couple new questions for me:

    (1) You say that b/c of Christ’s suffering God “can be at-one with us in a way he couldn’t before.” This might be an unfair or misguided question, but if the Father was already fully divine (in that he’d already experienced the type of suffering Christ did) before Christ’s suffering (in Gethsemane), is the Father’s ability to be at-one with us any different after Christ’s suffering? The problem I’m having is understanding how the suffering in your theory is necessary for us rather than for Christ (i.e. Christ couldn’t be fully divine without suffering like this and knowing our pain experientially like the Father knows such pain (I think this also begs the question of whether the Father knows our sin-pain personally, or he just knows our sin-pain through Christ, or he knows our sin-pain b/c he suffered infinitely and that is sufficient to know what sin-pain is, and there’s no personal aspect to sin-pain—that is, the Father empathetically feels our “type 1″ pain personally, but his previous suffering of “type 2″ is sufficient and he doesn’t need to suffer our type 2 sin-pain personally b/c it’s an impersonal type of pain…). So on your view is Christ’s suffering necessary for us (rather than just for his own benefit of gaining experiential knowledge) because someone must bear my sin-pain (myself or Christ as it turns out), and that although the Father already has experiential knowledge of this kind of suffering, the Father’s knowledge is not sufficient for the transference of my sin-pain? (Sorry if I’m retreading old ground, my memory may be failing me on certain points you’ve already covered….)

    (2) You said that Christ “bears and shares” our type 2 sin-pain. Maybe I’m just being pedantic here, but I thought this type 2 sin-pain is not shared but transferred. If you mean share in a general sense, like I share the burden of a backpack if I carry it halfway up the mountain and you carry it up the other half (as opposed to us both carrying one strap all the way up the mountain), then I understand. Otherwise, I think I’m still missing something….

    (3) I guess this isn’t so much a question, but a restatement of how I see an issue we disagree on: You say, “Our scriptures say that Christ suffers what we would have if we had not repented; but we suffer for our own sin if we don’t repent.” It is this claim that I contend (I’m not saying I don’t believe the conclusion, I’m too agnostic at this point to say that, just that I don’t think the scriptures clearly say what you say they are saying). The scapegoat symbolism suggests your claim, but I think this is only indirect support. D&C 19:16-17 could also be used to support your claim, but I think this is tenuous. In particular, it is the phrase “even as I” that is in dispute: I think it’s more natural to interpret this as saying that Christ has suffered a certain—possibly infinite—amount, and that we will suffer—doubly, since Christ has already suffered for this aspect of our sins (which betrays some of my doubts about your view of justice)—if we don’t repent. Again, I think we’ve already established this as a point of disagreement, but I wanted to try to restate it to see if we’re agreed about our disagreement.

    Comment by Robert C. — July 26, 2006 @ 10:24 am

63. Rob: 1) It is my view that the Father already has 1st-hand experience of mortal/bodily suffering but until his mortality, the Son does not. The Father participates in suffering because: (1) is it his Son who is suffering; (2) He knows our experiences “experientially” in the sense that our experience is a part of his 2nd-hand experience; and (3) he bears the burden of sending his Son on a mission to do His will and there is no way to love without the risk of suffering love. However, the Father does not bear our sins in the same way — the Father does not suffer in Gethsemane in an act of divine suffering (which entails suffering shared by at least two divine individuals) while mortal. So the Father suffered as a mortal while he was mortal, but he did not suffer fully as an all-knowing divine person which included as a mortal not merely his own personal suffering, but also the suffering of all humankind.

    So on my view Christ’s suffering is necessitated conditionally. By that I mean that it was not necessary that Christ would freely choose to love and to suffer with us; but given that he has made that choice, suffering is necessitated by the fact that: (1) he is all-knowing and includes within his experience our experiences of pain; (2) he must undergo a mortality to have first-hand experience of his own suffering to share in our mortality with us; and (3) love entails suffering with those who suffer.

    2) I don’t know what you mean by type-2 pain.

    3) I believe that the scriptures say repeatedly that Christ suffers the very pain of our sins. He takes them upon him, bears them, receives them, suffers for them D&C 19:16-17 says it explicitly. But consider some of the following: “For it is I that taketh upon me the sins of the world; for it is I that hath created them” (Mos. 26:23); “Behold, I say unto you, Nay, let us retain our swords that they be not stained with the blood of our brethren; for perhaps, if we should stain our swords again they can no more be washed bright through the blood of the Son of our great God, which shall be shed for the atonement of our sins.” (Alma 24:13) “the Son of God suffereth according to the flesh that he might take upon him the sins of his people, that he might blot out their transgressions according to the power of his deliverance” (Alm 7:13) “Behold, he offereth himself a a sacrifice for sin, to answer the ends of the law, unto all those who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit; and unto none else can the ends of the law be answered.” (2 Ne. 2:7) “Christ shall come among the children of men, to take upon him the transgressions of his people, and that he shall atone for the sins of the world; for the Lord God hath spoken it. (Alma 34:8) “And behold, I am the light and the life of the world; and I have drunk out of that bitter cup which the Father hath given me, and have glorified the Father in taking upon me the sins of the world, in the which I have suffered the will of the Father in all things from the beginning” (3 Ne. 11:11) “and he bore the sins of many, and made intercession for the transgressors” (Mos. 14:12)

    “That he acame into the world, even Jesus, to be crucified for the world, and to bear the sins of the world, and to sanctify the world, and to cleanse it from all unrighteousness” (D&C 76:41); “4 And surely every man must repent or suffer, for I, God, am endless… 15 Therefore I command you to repent-repent, lest I smite you by the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and your sufferings be sore-how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not. 16 For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent; 17 But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I; 18 Which asuffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit-and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink-” (D&C 19)

    Do I need to go on? To deny the transfer of the pain of our sins to Christ which caused him to suffer is essentially to overlook the major thrust of scripture regarding what Christ does to atone.

    Comment by Blake — July 26, 2006 @ 4:06 pm

64. Robert C.,

    Allow me to outline what I believe is going on:

    1. The natural consequences of sin lead to death

    2. To keep us from dying in our imperfect state, the Lord intervenes and sustains us, by various and sundry means

    3. This activity of the Lord causes him, and not only him but the very Eternal Father of heaven and earth, to suffer

    4. This activity of the Lord is efficacious to the degree that we repent of our sins and come unto him, ending the gratuititous suffering that is the result of sin.

    5. If we sin a sin unto death, or insist on continuing in sin, at some point there is no more welfare plan - the spirit of the Lord withdraws completely, and the Lord quits sustaining us by various and sundry means.

    6. This condition is known as hell, in its worst form the habitation of enemies to all righteousness, those who knowingly persist in sin, knowing full well the nature and consequences thereof.

    7. The end of the spiritual welfare plan means becoming exposed to the full measure of the law of justice. The person suffers the full consequences of their own sins, including the the full measure of divine vengeance on those who shed the blood of the righteous.

    8. This condition will persist until they humble themselves, repent, and willingly submit to God and his laws.

    Now notice here, that no sins are being suffered for twice, technically speaking. Suffering and healing in the past is made ineffective when someone returns to the path of sin, but effective once more when they return to the path of righteousness. Only the suffering on behalf of those who become sons of Perdition is ultimately ineffective.

    Comment by Mark Butler — July 26, 2006 @ 4:10 pm

65. Mark: There is a pretty large explanatory gap between 3 and 4. Why is this suffering related to our sins? How does the fact that God suffers make repentance possible? Why does Christ suffer for sins in a way that the Father and HG do not? My theory answers these questions but I’m left wondering how what you outline addresses it at all. Perhaps its my shortcoming — but I don’t see it.

    Comment by Blake — July 26, 2006 @ 5:38 pm

66. Blake: Actually I’m a little more confused from the way you put it. I can understand a God whose empathy causes him to suffer as his children suffer, but that’s not the idea that was previously presented. Previously is was said that Jesus suffers when we repent because our sins are transferred to him. I see these as two very different circumstances. Am I misunderstanding one of your positions?

    Comment by Rob S — July 26, 2006 @ 9:04 pm

67. Blake: Are you familiar with Margaret Barker’s work on the Cosmic Covenant? She a Methodist that teaches at Oxford and has written a number of books that I’m sure you must have heard of. Some of which have made her popular at FARMS. Here’s a link on things she had written about atonement.

    The gist of what she is saying is that the Covenant set at creation was broken with Adam’s fall which polluted the earth, corrupted our bodies, brought death into the world. Obviously, the atonement is a restoration of that covenant which brings us back to life (i.e. God). The separation from God is what causes the world to fall apart in a sense.

    Comment by Rob S — July 26, 2006 @ 9:12 pm

68. Blake (#65),

    I claim a pretty extensive metaphysical theory of that based in the natural law of the spirit and the conditions of life, but for now it is probably best to say simply that I see the Lord’s suffering as akin to that of a doctor healing a patient, or a parent raising a child, multiplied many times over. I have commented pretty extensively on previous threads about this subject.

    The only point I would like to emphasize is that when the Lord withdraws is spirit, and quits sustaining us - his suffering on our behalf stops, and then we suffer the full, and not just the partial consequence of our own actions, whether they be natural consequences, or occasionally that of whatever divine judgment is necessary to defend and protect the innocent.

    For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
    (Hebrews 10:26-27)

    I won’t quote the surrounding verses - as usual they are necessary reading to get the proper context.

    Comment by Mark Butler — July 26, 2006 @ 11:10 pm

69. Blake: What is you opinion on God the Father’s suffering while Jesus was on the cross? Did he suffer emphatically or was He indwelling in Jesus and shared, if not sustained Christ’s suffering?

    Comment by Rob S — July 27, 2006 @ 6:48 am

70. Rob: Re: 66 — The Father’s suffering is empathetic. The Son’s suffering in atonement is both empathetic and com-passionate. That is, the Father suffers empathetically with the Son — but in a way much more intense than mere empathy that we experience because he also knows the Son’s suffering second-hand. The Father indwells in the Son, but it does not follow that the Father thus suffers bodily or that he takes upon him the pain of our sins in the same way as the Son. The Son receives the pain of sin that we give to him and is transferred to him — he is literally caused pain in both body and spirit by the transfer. So the Father’s suffering is: (1) the kind of empathetic suffering that a Father has when his beloved son suffers; (2) a knowing participation in that suffering because the Father knows the pain by sharing it; (3) the Father does not suffer bodily or in spirit from the pain of ours sins — only the Son does that.

    Comment by Blake — July 27, 2006 @ 9:53 am

71. Blake #63:

    (1) Thank you for the clarification of the Son’s vs. the Father’s suffering in relations to our sins.

    (2) Sorry, I mean type 2 suffering roughly in the sense you described here. What I’m trying to get more clear on is the part of pain from sin that we experience ourselves and that God experiences compassionately/empathetically with us (”type 1 sin-pain”) vs. the part of pain from sin that is transferred to Christ (”type 2 sin-pain”).

    (3) Thank you for these additional scripture references on the transfer of the pain of our sins to Christ. The thought experiment I’m considering is a Dennis Potter style empathy view of atonement (type 1 sin-pain alone, without any type 2 sin pain). So I wonder to what extent these same verses you cite could be interpreted from a perspective that does not entail transferrable suffering. In other words, I’m looking for evidence of God suffering instead of us rather than suffering with us. With this purpose in mind, let me address the passages you cite:

    (3a) First, there are passages that say God bears our sins and takes our transgression upon himself (viz. D&C 19; Mosiah 26:23; Alma 34:8; 3 Ne 11:11; Mosiah 14:12). Other passages say that we “bear” (Mosiah 26:18; D&C 21:11; 24:10; Abr 2:6) and “take upon” ourselves (2 Ne 31:13; Mosiah 5:8, 10; 25:23; Alma 34:38; 46:21; 3 Ne 27:5; Morm 8:38; Moro 4:3; D&C 18:21, 24, 27, 28; D&C 20:37, 77) God’s name. It would seem silly to think that these verses are saying we take God’s name away from him when we bear or take upon ourselves his name. So why should we think that when God “bears” and “takes upon himself” our sins that he is taking away our sins and suffering instead of us rather than with us empathetically/compassionately?

    (3b) The other passages you quote build on the metaphors of sacrifice, scapegoat and cleansing (viz. 2 Ne 2:7; Alma 24:13; D&C 76:41; and Alma 7:13). I can think of at least one way to interpret these verses that doesn’t require God suffering instead of us rather than just with us: Building on your notion of agency as a gift-given space in which we can work out our decision to accept a relationship with God (I also have Clark’s notion of agency in mind here, which I think is similar in many ways; sorry if I’m conflating his view with yours…), each time I sin, I choose captivity to the devil all over again and effectively crucify Christ “afresh” (Heb 6:6) because without the Atonement I would lose my agency as an immediate consequence of my sin. Given this view of agency and Atonement, the sacrifice, scapegoat and cleansing metaphors could be taken to refer to this renewing aspect of our agency when we repent. Thus, on this view, these scriptures do not imply the a transference of sins in the instead of sense.

    Comment by Robert C. — July 27, 2006 @ 9:55 am

72. Rob: The passages you cite could be taken as you assert, tho I think it is much more natural to see them within a sacrifical system where the sins are transferred to the sacrificial animal and the sin is extiguished in its death. Such a transfer is very clear in the ritual of laying hands on one of two goats on the Day of Atonement to transfer the sins of the people to scapegoat and then driving out of the scape goat to the desert to drive the sin out of their lives. That was at least also the Hebrew tacit assumption in sacrifice. Further, there is no way to interpret D&C 19 as a suffering merely with us because we don’t suffer if we repent, but Christ suffers what we would suffer. So Christ cannot suffer with us what we don’t suffer! Moreover, his suffering is instead of us. Consider:

    4 And surely every man must repent or suffer, for I, God, am endless… 15 Therefore I command you to repent-repent, lest I smite you by the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and your sufferings be sore-how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not. 16 For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent; 17 But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I; 18 Which asuffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit-and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink-” (D&C 194:18)

    So Christ suffers infinite atonement (how is empathetic suffering infinite or any different from what we do?) and if he suffers, we don’t. He suffers instead of us according to D&C 19.

    What is pellucidly clear is that would be unjust both for me to suffer and also Christ to suffer for my sins. I see no reason that Christ’s suffering is related to atonement — and certainly not necessary — if the mere empathetic view is adopted. In other words, Christ could just feel bad for us when we feel bad for our sins and that is the extent of it. Is that really what you take the scriptures to be describing int heir description of Christ’s atoning suffering that causes him to suffer more than any man could? How is such empathy related to forgiveness of sins? I don’t see any connection. If you feel bad for me because I feel bad, find and good, but it doesn’t empower my repentance as the scriptures repeatedly state the atonement does. My theory accounts for that; your view does not.

    Comment by Blake — July 27, 2006 @ 2:40 pm

73. Blake: What is you conception of God indwelling in Christ? How could he avoid sharing Christ’s physical pain if he indwelled in his body?

    Comment by Rob S — July 27, 2006 @ 4:29 pm

74. Blake #72: Thanks. I’m pretty convinced now that you understand the main points I’m trying to raise since you’ve independently identified the three main issues I keep thinking about—the scapegoat metaphor, D&C 19, and double-suffering. (I was just starting to identify these as the three main issues here and here but did a poor job articulating this.)

    First, regarding the scapegoat: Doesn’t your view entail that the scapegoat symbolically takes upon itself the pain associated with the release of our since? This seems a bit forced to me. Rather, I think the more natural interpretation (which I think is a primary reason substitution theories are so popular) is that the scapegoat takes upon itself the future consequences of our sin. On the empathetic view I’m proposing, the scapegoat could symbolize how Christ’s atonal suffering provides us our agency—that is, Christ’s atonement provides us relief from the otherwise eternal consequence associated with our sin. How does Christ’s suffering accomplish this? Without Christ’s empathetic and atonal suffering, there would be no hope for us to change our ways and repent. God’s mercy in providing us time to repent is thus directly related to Christ’s suffering: without Christ empathetically suffering for us, we would be stuck with the consequence of our decision to choose sin over a relationship with God (perhaps b/c of our self-deceptive belief that God cannot forgive us…). My main point here is that your theory seems to entail a transference of the pain associated with the release of sin, something that I don’t think the scapegoat/sacrificial metaphor suggests.

    Second, regarding D&C 19: The alternate view I’m proposing is based