A rough and untitled outline of an atonement theory [Update 2: Exemplar-Empathy Theory]
I’ve been threatening for quite some time to post an atonement theory. Blake Ostler has written a good one of his own and has thrown out the challenge to the rest of us to come up with a better one if we can. As it turns out, coming up with a coherent theory of atonement is really quite difficult. We have discussed his theory and others here for months and no one has come up with a theory that answers the questions we have have discussed about the atonement. Jacob wrote an excellent paper on the atonement (it was published in the Spring 2006 issues of Dialogue) in which he critiqued some of the theories out there but ended up demurring when it came to answering many of the tough questions a theory should answer. Mark Butler has talked about a theory but has never written it down in a single and concise form that can be adequately engaged. So this post is my preliminary and very rough whack at an atonement theory.
Background
First, I want to catch you up on the conversations we have had on the atonement here at the Thang. In June of ‘05 I posted on why I thought Stephen Robinson’s well known Parable of the Bicycle is theologically misleading. I followed that up with an two attempts at what I hoped were better atonement parables. First I tried one I called the Parable of the Mortgage, but then decided that didn’t work either because like the bicycle parable it was treating exaltation like a thing rather than a state of being. So about a year ago I posted what I called The Parable of the Pianist which compared exaltation to achieving virtuosity at piano while at the same time becoming one with the teacher. I like that parable much better.
But parables are not atonement theories, so I can’t count that as my theory. Last Spring I began a series of posts the week before Easter. I had naively hoped to iron out a working atonement theory that week. I first posted on some perplexing questions that surround the atonement, next I posted an overview of the most popular theories of atonement over the centuries (and discovered that we Mormons tend to preach a hodgepodge of theories that predate the restoration by centuries, with penal substituion generally getting the most air time), I then posted on Blake’s Compassion Theory of Atonement.
I decided that of all the theories of atonement I had heard Blake’s rang the most true to me. One of the things I very much like about his approach is that he considers the overall atonement to be the ongoing and never-ending process of God working to help free-willed humankind become at one with Him. Blake focuses of the previent grace of God in the form of God’s outstretched arms toward us beckoning us all to enter a loving relationship even though we have not behaved in ways to deserve such an offer. He also focuses on salvation as a a state of being, with us potentially becoming unified and at one with the Godhead, rather than treating salvation like a Celestial admission ticket. All of that seems just right to me and I incorporate it into the theory I have in mind.
But I have a major complaint about Blake’s Compassion Theory as well. While Blake reject penal-substitution theories (a very good idea I believe and something we have discussed at some length here) his theory is still a variation on a substitution theory. That is because he believes that every time we repent Christ literally absorbs “painful sin energy” that is somehow stored in us. That is a concept that I simply don’t buy. (You can see hundreds of comments debating that subject in the thread on his theory). If we must accept a substitution theory I would take Blake’s “painful energy transfer” idea over the unjust penal substitution model, but I don’t believe we must accept a substitution theory variation at all .
A uniquely Mormon hybrid theory [Update: Stapley suggested calling it a “Royal Empathy” theory of atonement. I like it.]
I have hinted for some time around here that I favor a theory that is somewhat of a hybrid between the classic Moral Example theories and the more recent Mormon notion called Empathy Theory (a term coined by Dennis Potter in a Dialogue article as far as I know.) The complaints against these theories when taken alone are pretty straight forward: Empathy Theory has Christ learning how to be a perfect judge of humankind and how to empathize with us all. But it makes the suffering of the Christ Event portion of the overall atonement (Gethsemane through his death) exclusively efficacious on him and not on us at all. In direct contrast, Moral Influence theories hold that the suffering Jesus experienced in the Christ Event portion of the overall atonement had no positive effects on Christ and were in effect a massive attention getter to draw the attention of the world to him in sympathy and gratitude. The complaints against this model are 1) That the suffering of the Christ Event could have been faked and had the same effect so why the actual suffering? And 2) If the entire goal was to inspire obedience, is the suffering of Jesus really the most effective way to do so? - particularly if it boiled down to a massive publicity stunt in the end?
So how does creating a hybrid of two theories that don’t stand up on their own help create a theory that will stand up. The answer is: It doesn’t without a little massaging.
The first thing I need to do is describe some assumptions. There is a major strain of Mormon thought that sprung from Joseph Smith’s King Follet Discourse and Sermon in the Grove that holds that God the Father formerly a Savior on a previous inhabited world. I have heard this idea called “The Divine Succession of Saviors” before though I don’t know who coined that term. If we assume this model (along with many 19th saints from what I can tell) then such a hybrid model does work:
The Empathy Theory portion does indeed exclusively affect Christ but that is not a bad thing in this hybrid theory. His experiences in Gethsemane and on the cross allow him to, as Joseph Smith described, attain a higher exaltation. A firsthand understanding of the pain and sorrows and suffering of all people was given to Jesus during the Christ Event portion of the Atonement. It appears to me that such knowledge and experience filled in his experiential knowledge gaps and gaining that knowledge was a rite of passage allowing Christ to become as the Father is. It further seems from the teachings of Joseph that such has been the pattern on every inhabited world throughout all eternity.
The Moral Example Theory works as well then. Depending on the assumptions one makes about the nature of our pre and post mortal life, the literalness of The Examplar theory can vary; but in any case the example of Christ suffering our pains so that he can be our God and perfectly empathizing and loving judge does serve to turn us to him in love. Further, the moral example Jesus set throughout his life becomes the template for us all to follow if we wish to improve our personal relationship with him and the Father. On a separate level from the suffering he experienced in the Christ Event portion of the atonement, the ongoing example of Christ’s grace — his willingness and desire to enter a loving relationship with us now regardless of our past — is more than sufficient to inspire our love and repentance.
Questions answered:
So here are some questions Jacob recently asked that I think can be answered by such a theory:
Why was the atonement necessary? - See my definitions post. The overall atonement is the plan God follows to make us at one with him so of course the Plan of Salvation and Grace are necessary if we are to be at one with God. The Christ Event and suffering were necessary for Christ to know as the Father knows.
Why was Christ the only one who could perform the atonement? - In this case you mean the Christ Event portion of the atonement and it is apparent that such was the plan before this world. Who will fill that role on future worlds is another discussion.
Why would we have been hopelessly lost without the atonement? - Well it is obvious that we would be hopelessly lost without God’s overall plan for making us at one with him. But if you mean the Christ Event portion of the atonement only, answers to this question probably depend on your definitions of hopelessly lost and your assumptions as to how “at one” we humans can become with God in the eternities…
What caused Christ to suffer? - See above.
What did Christ suffer? - See above.
What did Christ”s suffering accomplish? - See above.
How does the atonement satisfy justice? - The overall atonement satisfies justice because it doesn’t offend justice.
How did the atonement bring about the resurrection? - No one seems to know how or why resurrection happens overall. But I don’t believe the Christ Event brought about resurrection. Rather I think Christ was the first on our world to be resurrected.
How is the atonement related to forgiveness? - The Christ Event gave Jesus the ultimate empathy which makes his forgiveness and grace toward all more understandable. The Father had this experiential empathy previous to Christ gaining it.
How is the atonement related to repentance? - Umm, inextricably…
How do we account for the various things scriptures say about the atonement? -Partially that they talk about different components of the overall atonement in different ways but use the same word (atonement) in many cases.
How was the atonement efficacious before it was performed? - The overall atonement is an ongoing process. The Christ Event affected Christ and he gained empathy there that he previously did not have (though the Father did.)
How did the atonement make us free? - The offer of a relationship, or to become at one with God, must come first from God. The overall atonement is partially synonymous with that previent grace that God offers all. We are only free to progress toward oneness with the Godhead because God graciously and freely offers that relationship first.
…
Ok, let me have it…
How does the atonement satisfy justice? - The overall atonement satisfies justice because it doesn’t offend justice.
I have read some of the recent discussion and although I don’t have the ability to articulate my thoughts very well in such a philosophical discussion, this one leaves my mind and heart feeling like something big is lacking. It just feels like things are missing here.
How is the atonement related to repentance? - Umm, inextricably…
Could you please expand on this? If repentance is so key, I think a theory should explain a bit more why and how. :)
How was the atonement efficacious before it was performed? - The overall atonement is an ongoing process. The Christ Event effected Christ and he gained empathy there that he previously did not have (though the Father did.)
So do you hold to the idea then that Christ could not offer compassion and mercy and love and empathy until after the Christ Event?
OK, and now what brought me over here to mull and muse tonite: (warning, long snippet follows, but I really want to hear your thoughts in response to Elder Scott, from this last Conference - I’ve bolded those things that seem problematic to your theory, or at least not well assimilated):
Elder Scott says we should seek to understand all we can about the Atonement. That is my purpose for being here…not to rip your theory apart, but to get other points of view and to ask questions. Hope I’m not taking you backwards in your discussion…. If I am, just push back, OK?
Comment by m&m — November 5, 2006 @ 11:56 pm
I think your thoughts are very similar to mine. I tried my hand at posting a Perfect Judge theory over at Small and Simple. I think our cobinations are similar.
Nice job.
Comment by Eric Nielson — November 6, 2006 @ 6:50 am
M&M,
First, welcome to the Thang. We are indeed trying to “look under the hood” and seek to understand the atonement from inside and out in our discussions here.
And that leads to my first comment. Comparing Elder Scott’s comments to our discussions here is really an apples and oranges comparison. Elder Scott is standing back and discussing what the atonement does for us. Or to continue with the car analogy I started above, rather than looking under the hood and getting greasy in this talk, he is doing what one is supposed to do in general conference — standing back and admiring the beautiful vehicle and extolling its value and virtues to our lives. A theological discussion of how the internal combustion system really works under the hood of that beautiful set of wheels is another discussion entirely. Elder Scott hints at a few things (some of which predictably sound penal-substitution-like) but is not giving a detailed theological discourse by any means.
(See my Parable of the Pianist for a step-back version of my theories on the atonement.)
I have read some of the recent discussion and although I don’t have the ability to articulate my thoughts very well in such a philosophical discussion
As you can see, this post is riddled with links to other discussions. As it turns out, atonement theory discussions get technical and complicated very quickly. This post is really built on the foundation of dozens of previous posts, many of which have hundreds of comments. I recommend those discussions and I can fully understand if some of the comments here seem confusing to those who are just joining us. The more technical and specific we get the more that will be the case. (Sort of like if we were talking details on how fuel injection systems work or something.)
If repentance is so key, I think a theory should explain a bit more why and how.
Again, this short response of mine was based on very long discussions in the past. As I understand it, repentance is the process of us choosing to turn to God and become at one with him so it seems self-evident to me that repentance is a key to us becoming at one with God. (As I mentioned, see my Pianist Parable for a higher level view on this subject.)
Comment by Geoff J — November 6, 2006 @ 8:55 am
Thanks Eric. Yes, I had your comments and ideas in mind for the Empathy part of this theory.
Comment by Geoff J — November 6, 2006 @ 8:56 am
Ok, I’ll give you a brief critique. I hope we can take it in the spirit of understanding.
I think you glossed over a lot of things, somewhat dangerously. Too many times above, statements were made “depends on how you define…” It is interesting because your major criticism of Blake is his definition of suffering for sin, but you fail to define it.
It seems that the concept of “The Divine Succession of Saviors” is completly irrelevent to your theory and only acts as diversion. I don’t see how such a concept, (which from skimming some of your old posts, seems to be too closely related to a concept of the false doctrine of reincarnation…) In other words, I don’t understand why this is important to throw into the mix or what value it adds. You only say that Joseph says this is the way it was on other worlds before, and no full expression of why.
Lastly, on the negative, Your description of what you mean by the moral influence theory here is completely vague.
On the positive:
I like the idea that Christ was showing us what was required to be an omniscient being like our father in heaven. (This to me is important because it puts Heavenly Father on the hook in that he, by omniscience, does suffer the pains, infirmites, sins, death, sicknesses of all.)
So in short, drop out the MMP, as I don’ think it is relevant, and elaborate. :)
Comment by Matt W. — November 6, 2006 @ 9:17 am
Matt,
Good catch.
There are two ways to look at the divine succession of saviors. One is the MMP view (which I favor) and the other is a view that J. Stapley (and I assume others somewhere) favors where there is an ontological gap between us and the race of Deity. So since there are different theories on how the divine succession idea works, I used that vague language in the post. The divine succession notion is a key to this theory though. If one rejects the idea of a divine succession of saviors then one would have to reject this theory as well. (That means one is left to Blake’s or one of the other theories we have discussed for now I guess…)
Comment by Geoff J — November 6, 2006 @ 9:30 am
I think I have made it pretty clear (on the ostler thread) I am currently strongly buying into Blake’s POV. Having not read his books, though, I can’t say I am stuck there, but the only grinding point I see is that I might tend to go with a more naturalistic explanation of what the pain of sin is than is described here by you and Blake. But again, I can’t truly say that as I have not read his books yet. I do think there is still room for other aspects of the atonement. Anyway, I don’t want this thread to devolve to a MMP debate or to anothe Blake thread.
One thing you say that does catch me by surprise is this:
I would love to see elaboration on this. Are you saying just that you don’t feel Christ’s suffering and death did not bring about the resurrection or that you don’t believe Christ brought about the resurrection as part of his overall purpose in what we call the atonement?
I can see your interpretation being ok on the one hand, but would have a hard time the other way.
Comment by Matt W. — November 6, 2006 @ 9:56 am
Matt: Anyway, I don’t want this thread to devolve to a MMP debate or to another Blake thread.
Nor do I.
Are you saying just that you don’t feel Christ’s suffering and death did not bring about the resurrection
Right, I’m saying the suffering and death portion of the overall atonement are not the specific things that cause our resurrection. In other words, God has enough power to be able to resurrect us even without the accomplishment of the Christ Event portion of the atonement. I believe Blake has said the same thing, BTW. Of course this question is functionally moot because Jesus did complete the work he was sent to do here on earth and was the first fruits of the the resurrection.
Comment by Geoff J — November 6, 2006 @ 10:16 am
Geoff is correct that this post covers both his and my views of the atonement. In fact, aside from that on little quibble he mentioned, I think that we advocate the same theory. Just to respond to a few of the questions a bit more:
Why was Christ the only one who could perform the atonement?
He had the capacity to be a perfect example and to expiate. I think it is fairly certain that no other human has had that capacity.
Why would we have been hopelessly lost without the atonement?
Because it is the only way you can have justice or a righteous judge.
How does the atonement satisfy justice?
You can’t have justice without righteous judgments and you can’t have righteous judgments without perfect empathy. The Book of Mormon is quite clear that despite the Spirit’s knowledge of all things, Christ needed to know according to the flesh.
Comment by J. Stapley — November 6, 2006 @ 10:42 am
…I would also add in response to Matt W. that the succession of Saviors fulfills many problems. We have established that you need to atone for a world to Judge the world. How does this effect Mormon cosmology? Well, there are two possibilities:
1) there is only one atonement in the history of the Universe, ours. All future and past worlds will be judged by our Christ. Christ ultimately then is greater than the Father, because he has knowledge that no other being in the Universe has. He is the Most High.
2) there are other atonements in the universe, perhaps one for each planet. If this is the case, which seems quite supported by the Prophet (e.g., the future of the Holy Ghost, KFD, etc.), then we have a divine succession of Saviors. They have to come from somewhere (the same place Jesus came from, I’d imagine). God the Father has the same capacity as Jesus and they share the same qualities and attributes.
Comment by J. Stapley — November 6, 2006 @ 11:06 am
I guess I should add a third option to the delineated cosmology. I think a lot of Mormons buy into it actually, but I think that it is rather flawed so forgot about it:
3) there are other atonements in the universe, perhaps one for each planet. However, the “God the Father” for other planets need not necessarily be former Saviors. Instead, they are simply good resurrected folk. This is problematic for all the reasons outlined in Blake’s theory. How do you have faith in this being? How could Christ submit to a being so far beneath him? Why would we worship him?
Comment by J. Stapley — November 6, 2006 @ 11:36 am
J. I would think there are other options availabe as well.
I don’t know why your #1 needs to imply that Christ has knowledge Heavenly Father doesn’t
I don’t know why your #2 doesn’t ring alarm bells for you with it’s implication that only Christ can be exhalted from this life we currently live. I think there are plenty of other reasonable interpretations of SiG and KFD.
I don’t know why Heavenly Father having once been like me should somehow diminsh my faith in him Or makes HF somehow beneath Christ.
Comment by Matt W. — November 6, 2006 @ 11:58 am
Matt, to respond to your questions:
I don’t know why your #1 needs to imply that Christ has knowledge Heavenly Father doesn’t
Well, because the scriptures would mandate it. The atonement was necessary to give Christ knowledge according to the flesh. Right? He gained perfect empathy from that experience. I think we are safe in saying that there was no other way to gain that knowledge. He is consequently a perfect judge. If there is only one Christ in all history, he is the only one with this knowledge and ability.
I don’t know why your #2 doesn’t ring alarm bells for you with it’s implication that only Christ can be exhalted from this life we currently live.
I don’t see that it does. Though I am not sure what exactly you are saying. I submit that the in the temple we find the most explicit details of our eternal future. Nothing in this option changes what is stated there and it in fact reinforces it.
I think there are plenty of other reasonable interpretations of SiG and KFD.
I haven’t seen too many that are particularly reasonable, actually.
I don’t know why Heavenly Father having once been like me should somehow diminsh my faith in him Or makes HF somehow beneath Christ.
This is where Blake comes in. He has masterfully outlined why this is the case.
Comment by J. Stapley — November 6, 2006 @ 12:05 pm
Nice work Stapley. I think you have described the situation accurately.
Matt: J. I would think there are other options availabe as well.
You are probably right… Do you have any other options in mind?
Comment by Geoff J — November 6, 2006 @ 1:36 pm
Sorry, Ithink I am talking too cryptically or something…
The atonement was necassary so we could overcome our sin, our death, our ignorance, and our alienation and from God. I don’t subscribe to Potter’s Empathy theory. While there are scriptures that state that Christ suffered for every creature in the family of addam so he could bring the resurection and judge righteously, I think has more to do with a deficiency in us that a deficency in our Father in Heaven to judge righteously without putting Christ through that pain. Further, what knowledge did Christ gain from suffering for us and why do you think that Hevenly Father didn’t have that knowledge. Any backup to support your position?
As for #2, it seems to me that Geoff and you are saying we will need to have another life after this life where we are Christ before we can be a Heavenly Father. This seems extremely unscriptural to me. Correct me if I am assuming to much.
I haven’t read Blake yet, but he is top of my list.
Comment by Matt W. — November 6, 2006 @ 1:40 pm
Geoff, thanks for your time in all these links with the various men and their theories. I have neither read Jacob’s, Dennis’s, or Blake’s attempts, but I am certainly interested if any of them addressed symbolic actions from the Old Testament in reference to the lamb. For instance, I have been camped out recently, meditating on John 1:29. How does that title of Jesus uniquely fulfill the Old Testament predictions?Has anyone addressed the O.T. cross-references that the KJV translators put in the margin there in John?
Comment by Todd Wood — November 6, 2006 @ 1:44 pm
Matt, I think the greatest esplaination is in Alma 7:
As for #2, it seems to me that Geoff and you are saying we will need to have another life after this life where we are Christ before we can be a Heavenly Father. This seems extremely unscriptural to me. Correct me if I am assuming to much.
I’ll let Geoff speak for himself, but as for me you are assuming too much. More explicitly, I am saying that we won’t be “God the Father” or God qua Father. There is nothing in the Scriptures, Temple or sermons of Joseph that even remotely suggest that we could be. I would suggest that suggesting that we could be is as you say, “unscriptural.” Joseph in the Sermon in the Grove goes over quite well what it means for us to be gods in the eternities.
Comment by J. Stapley — November 6, 2006 @ 1:49 pm
GeoffJ:
I hate to bust scripture on you, as I am afraid of becoming like certain other posters, whose names I shan’t name but rhyme with Shark Gutler…, but would love to know how you can reason this in light of scriptures like Alma 7:12
or 2 ne 2:8
or Alma 42:23
As for alternatives, to J.’s three, I will post some but want to re-read the SiG and KFD before I do. I think it is important to do so if I am going to give you all a fair shake at this…
Comment by Matt W. — November 6, 2006 @ 1:49 pm
…and are you saying Matt, that Christ didn’t need to atone in order to be a perfect judge or comprehend all things according to the flesh?
Comment by J. Stapley — November 6, 2006 @ 1:51 pm
J. - Alma 7 is one of my favorite texts of all time. I remember when I first noticed it when I was in the MTC and thought it was so amazing.
I defintely was assuming too much. We may be in closer harmony with one another’s point of view than I had previosuly thought. Please elaborate on what you mean then by Heavenly Father was once a Christ…?
Comment by Matt W. — November 6, 2006 @ 1:58 pm
Matt (#18),
My point is that there is nothing in those verses that indicates that it would be impossible for the Father to resurrect us without Jesus first accomplishing the Christ Event portion of the atonement. I agree that Christ loosed the bands of death for us on this planet, I just don’t think that means his Father did not have the power to do so also if that were His plan. After the climactic Christ Event portion of the atonement Jesus became as the Father is and thus could then do what the Father can do. That apparently includes the power to bring about the resurrection of all humankind.
Comment by Geoff J — November 6, 2006 @ 1:59 pm
J. (19) To be a perfect judge yes, but I am unsure of this “comprehend all things according to the flesh statment.”
The perfect judge portion is highly illustrated in Scripture, but I believe is generally coupled with the concept of resurrection as thus:
or
I understand where you are getting the idea from (Alma 7:12 I assume) but am not sure that is what it is saying.
Comment by Matt W. — November 6, 2006 @ 2:06 pm
Matt, I think Alma 7 is quite clear. Again:
He has to know “according to the flesh.” Do you deny this?
Comment by J. Stapley — November 6, 2006 @ 2:13 pm
Geoff (#21) wow, I am getting ganged up on. s’okay, we’d all be doing work now without me, right? :)
My point of view is that it would have been unjust for Heavenly Father to bring about the ressurection without the Christ event, otherwise, why didn’t he do so?
I think there is one or tow of those famous “God would cease to be God” scriptures about unjust actions, which reads to me as God being unable to do it.
Comment by Matt W. — November 6, 2006 @ 2:16 pm
Matt: it would have been unjust for Heavenly Father to bring about the ressurection
Why? What would be unjust about it?
I can see why someone who bought a penal substitution model of atonement might say this but I didn’t think you were a full-fledged penal-substitution supporter (and there are lots of good reasons not to be I might add…)
Comment by Geoff J — November 6, 2006 @ 2:21 pm
J. I do see that this scripture Christ needs to know according to the flesh how to succor his people. This says nothing to me as to Heavenly Father not knowing this already, so I don’t see how this puts Christ above Heavenly Father. In Fact, the scripture says “the Spirit knoweth all things” already. Are you suggesting an alternative explanation, that the Spirit knoweth all things because of Christ’s taking upon him our infirmities? Are you suggesting the Christ is informing Heavenly Father and the Spirit of these things which he would not otherwise know?
Are you saying that when Heavenly Father developed the plan of salvation he didn’t know how to succor his people and that he set up the plan to kill his son so he could figure that out?
Anyway, this is tangential. What do you mean when you say that Heavenly Father suffered what Christ suffered previous to him? Do you think he suffered this just as Christ did, on his own world?
Comment by Matt W. — November 6, 2006 @ 2:31 pm
I base the unjust statement on this scripture:
Alma 12:21-26 (sorry for the big scripture, feel free to skim for bold, just wanted to keep it in context if needed.)
So, if there would have been a ressurection or immortality prior to the atonement, we would have been forever miserable, which is unjust and makes the word of God and plan of salavation void.
To clarify, I think is unjust for us to be resurrected without an opportunity for our repentance to have efficacy, which I believe the atonement gives.
Comment by Matt W. — November 6, 2006 @ 2:41 pm
I don’t see it as tangential at all. It is a core principle. Yes, the spirit knows all things, but despite this, Christ had to know according to the flesh. That is to say, there are somethings that you must know empirically. Perfect empathy requires that Jesus atone. There was no other way. Are you saying that there is another way, Matt?
I submit that God the Father atoned on another world (see KFD), so he has this knowledge as well. But unless he atoned somewhere and sometime, he would lack that knowledge, empathy and ability to judge. At this point I am not ready to speculate to whether different atonements on different worlds give different knowledge (as different free actors are involved), but I tend to think not.
Comment by J. Stapley — November 6, 2006 @ 2:44 pm
Matt (#27): To clarify, I think is unjust for us to be resurrected without an opportunity for our repentance to have efficacy, which I believe the atonement gives.
I agree with this. Or if not unjust, it would at least be unloving of God. But remember that I am separating the Christ Event portion of the atonement from the overall atonement (the overall plan and process God uses to make us at one with him), so my question is why would it be unjust for the Father to bring about a resurrection at the end of this world as opposed to the Son doing so? (I think the answer is that it would not be unjust at all — it just is not the order of things.)
Comment by Geoff J — November 6, 2006 @ 3:17 pm
Todd (#16),
I’m not trying to ignore you — just didn’t want to threadjack. I think you are right that catching up on Jacob’s and Potter’s paper would definitely help anyone in this discussion.
Comment by Geoff J — November 6, 2006 @ 5:08 pm
Geoff: I agree, of course, with the emphasis on the atonement as God’s entire activity to be at-one with us. I also agree with the emphasis on what Christ learned according to the flessh to qualify him as the perfect judge and fellow-sufferer. Both are important aspects of the Compassion Theory.
However, as I have noted before the hallmark of the Book of Mormon and D&C is that Christ’s suffering was necessary as a part of the atonement. No suffering, no atonement. On your theory, there is no explanation of how Christ’s suffering is necessary to forgiveness of sins. It is entirely superfluous. For instance, consider these scriptures that were raised in the prior post:
D&C 18:11 For, behold, the Lord your Redeemer suffered death in the flesh; wherefore he suffered the pain of all men, that all men might repent and come unto him.
2 Nephi 9:5 Yea, I know that ye know that in the body he shall show himself unto those at Jerusalem, from whence we came; for it is expedient that it should be among them; for it behooveth the great Creator that he suffereth himself to become subject unto man in the flesh, and die for all men, that all men might become subject unto him.
2 Nephi 9:21 And he cometh into the world that he may save all men if they will hearken unto his voice; for behold, he suffereth the pains of all men, yea, the pains of every living creature, both men, women, and children, who belong to the family of Adam.
22 And he suffereth this that the resurrection might pass upon all men, that all might stand before him at the great and judgment day.
In these scriptures, Christ doesn’t just suffer in general and learn. Rather, he suffers the pains of all persons. In his suffering there is a release from sin for those who accept him and repent.
It is Mosiah 15:11-12: Behold I say unto you, that whosoever has heard the words of the prophets, yea, all the holy prophets who have prophesied concerning the coming of the Lord-I say unto you, that all those who have hearkened unto their words, and believed that the Lord would redeem his people, and have looked forward to that day for a remission of their sins, I say unto you, that these are his seed, or they are the heirs of the kingdom of God.
12 For these are they whose sins he has borne; these are they for whom he has died, to redeem them from their transgressions. And now, are they not his seed?
Alma 5:48: I say unto you, that I know of myself that whatsoever I shall say unto you, concerning that which is to come, is true; and I say unto you, that I know that Jesus Christ shall come, yea, the Son, the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace, and mercy, and truth. And behold, it is he that cometh to take away the sins of the world, yea, the sins of every man who steadfastly believeth on his name.
Christ bears sins, takes them away, suffers for them and because of them — the sins of every person. It is this aspect of atonement that is the most difficult to explain. Yet I see nothing in your theory that even begins to address these scriptures. A part of the problem is that instead of explaining scripture, at least in this post you attempt to answer jacob’s questions. Yet the primary question of atonement is one that both you and Jacob conveniently omit (tho at least Jacob is explicit that he is not addressing the toughtest question): Why is Christ’s suffering necessary to atonement? How is his suffering related to “bearing,” “taking upon Him,” and “taking away” our sins?
Any theory of atonement that fails to explain this transfer of the pain of our sins to Christ fails to explain the primary impetus of atonement in LDS scripture and the biblial record. If a theory doesn’t explain such scriptural lanaguge, what does it accomplish? It is precisely the scriptural record that we are seeking to explain.
Comment by Blake — November 6, 2006 @ 9:52 pm
J. (28), Sorry Tangential was a poor word choice. Need to buy a thesaurus if I plan to use words like that!
So after Heavenly Father was a Christ on another world, and had suffered all that, why would he need his son to suffer on this world. Would not Heavenly Father’s own suffering give him the experience needed to judge us properly?
I will read SiG and KFD and get back to you though, as I feel like we have a deeper issue than atonement…
As I see it, I am in a sort of rock and a hard place scenario, as I don’t see why at this moment there could not be another way…
I’ll study and get back to you.
Comment by Matt Witten — November 6, 2006 @ 10:06 pm
Geoff(29) the point isn’t the justice or lack of it in relation to who brings about the resurrection, since saying Christ or Heavenly Father doing something seems to be a bit of a false dichotomy. The point is whether the resurrection could happen justly without the “christ event” happening. I believe you are agreeing with me that it cannot, correct?
Comment by Matt Witten — November 6, 2006 @ 10:08 pm
:) Matt, I appreciate the candor. That is a great question, about if there was one atonement at one time, why would there ever need to be another. I see one problem with Mormon theology as described in scenario 1) above. There is the possibility that the premortal covenant (1st estate) required that we have faith, and such faith required an atonement that had not yet happened. I guess the most explicit reasoning was given by Joseph Smith in the KFD:
It would seem that there are more than one individuals that have the capacity to atone. We know of at least three (all in the Godhead). As such, to not receive that opportunity would deny them the full measure of that capacity.
Comment by J. Stapley — November 6, 2006 @ 11:36 pm
As to the relationship of the Christ event to the resurrection, perhaps it is because the resurrection and judgment are so interconnected. Section 88 speaks of being quickened by the a specific glory:
I’ll have to think about Blake’s question, but right now, I don’t see how what he is asking goes beyond the requirements of perfect empathy.
Comment by J. Stapley — November 6, 2006 @ 11:43 pm
That apparently includes the power to bring about the resurrection of all humankind.
I am not convinced that He could somehow resurrect us (which would be one aspect of the fall - physical death) without an atonement.
2 Ne. 9:6-7
For as death hath passed upon all men, to fulfil the merciful plan of the great Creator, there must needs be a power of resurrection, and the resurrection must needs come unto man by reason of the fall; and the fall came by reason of transgression; and because man became fallen they were cut off from the presence of the Lord.
Wherefore, it must needs be an infinite atonement-save it should be an infinite atonement this corruption could not put on incorruption…
Wherefore, the first judgment which came upon man [physical death] must needs have remained to an endless duration.
This tells me the atonement through Christ was essential for resurrection and redemption to happen. I don’t dispute the idea that part of the reason Christ had to experience what He did was for His experience (to gain empathy, etc.), but without His infinite atonement, this scripture said we simply would not have been resurrected. It says to me that God couldn’t have overridden that fact. So, to me, the get-greasy question is why? Why was an atonement necessary for resurrection to happen?
And…
However, as I have noted before the hallmark of the Book of Mormon and D&C is that Christ’s suffering was necessary as a part of the atonement. No suffering, no atonement. On your theory, there is no explanation of how Christ’s suffering is necessary to forgiveness of sins….Why is Christ’s suffering necessary to atonement? How is his suffering related to “bearing,” “taking upon Him,” and “taking away” our sins? Any theory of atonement that fails to explain this transfer of the pain of our sins to Christ fails to explain the primary impetus of atonement in LDS scripture and the biblial record. If a theory doesn’t explain such scriptural lanaguge, what does it accomplish? It is precisely the scriptural record that we are seeking to explain.
Whew. I feel like a huge weight has been taken off of my brain. I thought that I was the only one who felt this way. IMO, there is no way to ‘get under the hood’ without addressing these issues, either. Tough stuff, to be sure. :)
I love the empathy aspect of your theory. I love Al. 7:11-12. I love knowing that the Savior knows things experientially so He can truly be a perfect Judge and loving, merciful Being. But there is too much in scripture (including OT symbolic rituals) that feel left out of this theory. My gut tells me there has to be more than simply Christ’s learning and experience, or we wouldn’t hear so much about payment for sins, being cleansed through His blood, etc.
For example:
Alma 5: 21, 27
21 I say unto you, ye will know at that day that ye cannot be saved; for there can no man be saved except his garments are washed white; yea, his garments must be purified until they are cleansed from all stain, through the blood of him of whom it has been spoken by our fathers, who should come to redeem his people from their sins. (See also 3 Ne. 27: 19, Alma 13: 11, Ether 13: 10).
And from the Guide to the Scriptures: “As used in the scriptures, to atone is to suffer the penalty for an act of sin, thereby removing the effects of sin from the repentant sinner and allowing him to be reconciled to God.”
I’m anxious to hear others’ responses to this…. (Apologies if I’m jumping in in an annoying way, but this has been on my mind all day.)
Comment by m&m — November 7, 2006 @ 12:33 am
Luckily, my list of questions is so masterfully concocted that I can start at the top and take them in priority order. So, I begin by examining your theory in order to answer my first question, which was: “Why was the atonement necessary?”
Clearly, the purpose of your previous post was to define “atonement” so broadly that you could answer these questions in relation to God’s plan of salvation rather than in relation to Christ’s suffering and death in Gethsemane and on the Cross. This was a crafty trick, I’ll admit. However, I am too clever to allow this semantic game let you off the hook. Thus, I simply rephrase the question under your taxonomy as: “Why was the suffering in Gethsemane and on the Cross necessary?”
To make the question more clear, I can rephrase it as: “What would be different if Christ had not suffered in Gethsemane and on the Cross?”
The scriptures clearly answer that we would have been hopeless lost. All of us would unavoidably perish. There would be no escape from the first and second deaths. “If it were not for the plan of redemption, (laying it aside) as soon as they were dead their souls were miserable, being cut off from the presence of the Lord” (Alma 42:11). I don’t think the BofM could be any more uniform in saying this than it is.
By contrast, the purpose of the suffering, in your theory, is only for Jesus’ own personal progression–without suffering, Jesus could not have become as the Father is. According to you, if Jesus had decided not to suffer, the Father could have saved us just as easily as he can now. You have stated that God could resurrect us without Christ, and that the Father already had the firsthand empathetic knowledge necessary to judge us perfectly. So, on your theory is the suffering and death of Jesus really even necessary for our salvation? It seems that it is not. Where am I going wrong?
Comment by Jacob — November 7, 2006 @ 1:13 am
J. Stapeley # 35: My question is how it is our sins that Christ takes upon him and not his own lack of ability to understand. In Geoff’s theory the atonement is about Christ’s inabiliy to understand us and our being moved by Christ’s suffering if we pay attention. However, that doesn’t explain how the suffering is caused or occasioned by our sins. Rather, Christ suffers on Geoff’s view because he is physically abused and crucified. How does that relate to suffering in Gethsemane? What occurred in Gethsemane that caused him to suffer the pains of every person who had been mortal and repented? Christ can empathize with us by any kind of suffering — why is the suffering infinite? What causes such infinite suffering? I see a complete hole in terms of explanation — and yet this problem of pain caused by our sins is the very problem of atonement.
The second problem is how Christ’s suffring pain could be related to my release from pain. How does Christ’s suffering the pain of my sins create the ability to repent? Moreover, in what sense can Christ be said to bear, to take upon or to take away our sins? I see nothing in Geoff’s theory that accounts for such language that is ubiquitous in scripture. That is the problem with moral theories — they are good as far as they go; but they leave the atonement unexplained.
Further, why couldn’t the suffering of say Ghandi do the trick? Why did it have to be Jesus Christ? (On Geoff’s view it is explicit that it didn’t have to be because there are millions and trillions of others). So why isn’t the fact that some human or another suffered enough to pull off atonement?
Why did Christ have to be sinless? Why is atonement a blood sacrifice? I just don’t see anything in this theory that is really expressive or responsive to such questions.
Comment by Blake — November 7, 2006 @ 7:00 am
Interesting questions, Blake. Here are some thoughts in response:
1) Without more revelation or evidence, I see no evidence for a sinful energy. I.e., when I sin I do not become a carrier of evil wave/particles.
2) When I sin there is pain and suffering because my spirit is wounded in a similar manner to my physical bodies suffering when it is abused.
2.1) Sin also creates a physical change in the brain that most likely can only be healed in the resurrection.
3) With the proper knowledge a physical body can be healed when injured. Spiritual suffering and pain can be healed with the appropriate knowledge.
4) The knowledge to heal spiritual pain suffering can only come through an atonement.
As to the mechanics of the atonement, I am quite certain that all the events outside of the Garden relay a very finite set of experiences, albeit they are still miraculous and historically significant. In the Garden, Jesus experienced (somehow) the full set (the infinite set?) of experiences. To be frank, I have no idea how that is possible.
Comment by J. Stapley — November 7, 2006 @ 9:58 am
J. If there is no “sinful energy” then what causes the pain or suffering in your spirit? Anything that can be a cause is a form of energy, so your 2 is inconsistent with 1. Further, 3 is inconsistent with your 1 for the same reason. Further, 3 begs the question. It simply asserts that God knows enough to heal us and the question is why he doesn’t know enough to heal us without Christ suffering in some sense.
Comment by Blake — November 7, 2006 @ 10:29 am
Blake, I would respond with the reference to our physical bodies. Is there evil physical energy that causes pain when we pull a muscle? No, there is just a defect in our physical being. I propose that sin introduces similar defects into our spirit (and body, 2.1). This seems much more likely than the invention of a novel energy.
As to why the atonement is necessary to heal those defects, I think it is the same for why the atonement is necessary for a perfect judgment. No doubt that the premortal Lord knew according to the spirit how to assuage our spiritual suffering, but he likely knew according to the spirit how to judge us as well. We are saying that he needed to know more to judge us justly. I think it is fairly reasonable to purport that he need to know more to fully heal our spirits.
Comment by J. Stapley — November 7, 2006 @ 10:38 am
J. Stapley, do you have any link where I can read more fully your explanation of Christ’s atonement?
I have been reading Jacob’s theory but I see no engagement with O.T. and N.T. scripture except Isaiah 53.
Blake, does your Compassionate theory, engage more with the broad scope of biblical data? I do appreciate your questions raised to your friends on this thread.
Sincerely,
Comment by Todd Wood — November 7, 2006 @ 11:01 am
Actually Todd, a lot of the development has gone on off-line. I think that this is the first post where we have gotten into the nitty gritty. I defer to Blake’s treatment on the eternal nature of God and the Empathy requirement of the atonement. The Empathy/Compassion portion of the theory is the main constituent. How it relates to other areas are the real differences, it seems to me.
Comment by J. Stapley — November 7, 2006 @ 11:30 am
With the proper knowledge a physical body can be healed when injured
This isn’t completely true. The body does a lot of healing on its own…part of the miracle of the creation. A doctor’s knowledge doesn’t help my sore scab over and grow new skin.
I’m not sure if there is a parallel, but regardless, I think there is more than simply Christ’s knowledge that heals our spirits.
Comment by m&m — November 7, 2006 @ 11:34 am
And I also wonder what y’all think about how Christ was able to heal broken spirits before he lived and learned compassion through experience. The BOM teaches that they believed in the blessings of the Atonement before Christ came. There is no indication that they somehow had to wait for the blessings anymore than we do, and it’s clear that we can feel the blessings and healing from the atonement in our lives, now. How do you factor that in?
Comment by m&m — November 7, 2006 @ 11:37 am
I think there is more than simply Christ’s knowledge that heals our spirits.
Indeed, it is his power. But isn’t the whole point of the Empathy theory that Christ needed to “know according to the flesh, that he may know according to the flesh how to succor his people according to their infirmities”?
Comment by J. Stapley — November 7, 2006 @ 11:39 am
m&m, as to the timing of the event. There is a lot that is hard to reconcile without some sort of four dimensionalism, but really, I haven’t come to any conclusion on the free will/foreknowledge debate yet, so I am not a good one to comment.
Comment by J. Stapley — November 7, 2006 @ 11:43 am
45
Yes, definitely. But my whole argument is that there simply has to be more to the atonement than just empathy, even though that is such a wonderful and important part of it (!!). Christ’s empathy isn’t what removes my stain if I repent, have faith, etc., IMO. His blood paid for my sins in some way, and that removes my stain. And the Spirit, effectual in my life because of the Atonement, then heals my spirit. That can’t be rooted in empathy alone in my mind.
As to #46, Elder Eyring once said that God works in n dimensions. Makes it that much harder for us to comprehend. We aren’t just going to be adding one dimension when we are able to comprehend God’s view and “time” and all of that. ;)
Comment by m&m — November 7, 2006 @ 12:03 pm
Todd: i discuss the sacrificial cultus in the OT and how it relates to atonement in the Hebrew. I also discuss Pauline use of various terms related to atonement and how the sacrificial system relates to expiation — not propitiation.
I agree that there is more than simply knowing. As I have pointed out repeated (and it has fallen on deaf ears), the scriptures state repeatedly that Christ takes upon him our sins, bears our sins, takes away our sins, suffers infinite atonement because of our sins. The notion of a transfer of pain for sin from us to Christ and healing from Christ to us is essential to explain the scriptures about atonement — but mere empathy cannot explain such language. If you’re not going to explain the scriptures about atonement, why bother?
Christ’s learning from what he suffered is only one asepct of Christ’s mortal experience and atonement; but it is a mistake to make it the entire explanation.
Comment by Blake — November 7, 2006 @ 12:04 pm
Blake (et al.),
I hope I have not demonstrated deaf ears on your point. I think it is a crucial point you make. However, I don’t think the language of “taking upon” and “taking away” requires a literal transfer of my specific individual sins to Christ. I do believe that Christ’s ability to offer us his life and light required him to descend below all things. Not to descend below each thing one by one, but to descend below them all, to fully experience the depths of pain, suffering, disappointment, sickness, and so forth. I do _not_ think that means Christ got lung cancer one billion times (or how ever many cases of lung cancer there turn out to be). I also don’t think he had to die once for me, and once for you, and once for Geoff. It is interesting to me that we are okay explaining the effects of the atonement in a more global way when speaking of sickness and death, but not sin. Why should he have to suffer for each sin, any more than he must suffer for each case of the flu?
The same logic is worth considering in relation to justice. For all the people who believe justice is what demands the suffering which Christ endured, do they also believe justice demands someone else suffer for their sicknesses? Does justice demand someone else physically die? To me, the obvious answer is that justice does not demand these things, which is another reason to suppose that there is more to the mechanics of the atonement than a payment to “justice” (justice in quotes since what it is supposedly demanding is not just in the first place).
As to “taking away” sins. I fully believe the atonement takes away sins, but as I have said before, I don’t think sins are the sorts of things that are taken away on the back of a truck. My sins are “taken away” when I become the kind of person who doesn’t sin. Christ’s work in taking away our sins happens inside us as he offers us his light, as a free gift, which teaches us the moral law, entices us to obey, and helps us overcome our weakness. The natural man is an enemy to God unless he yeilds to the enticings of the Holy Spirit and becometh a saint through the atonement of Chrst the Lord (Mosiah 3:19). This is how I see the atonement taking away our sins. It is complete when we become sinless, without spot–new creatures.
Comment by Jacob — November 7, 2006 @ 12:25 pm
Jacob: So why did Christ suffer and how is it related to atonement? What does it mean that Christ took upon him our sins and bore them? Does it just mean he suffered as a mortal as you seem to say? If so, why isn’t the suffering of some other mortal good enough?
Comment by Blake — November 7, 2006 @ 12:30 pm
Todd,
My paper had to fit into a very small space and Biblical exegesis takes lots of room. I didn’t even have room for an exegesis of the key BofM scriptures. (I was glad I got a chance to go through Alma 34 in some detail in a recent thread, but that is still only one passage in the BofM.)
Blake’s book devotes chapters to Biblical soteriology and I quite enjoyed what he had to say.
Comment by Jacob — November 7, 2006 @ 12:31 pm
The notion of a transfer of pain for sin from us to Christ and healing from Christ to us is essential to explain the scriptures about atonement-but mere empathy cannot explain such language.
I simply disagree, Blake. The scriptures state that:
1) there is a transfer of pain for sin from us to Christ.
2) there is a transfer of healing from Christ to us.
We both agree. What we seem to disagree on is the mechanics.
You state that Christ is a receptacle for our pain because that is the only way to get rid of pain - for some else to bear it.
I am saying that Christ is a receptacle for our pain because that is what gives him the capacity to heal us.
Comment by J. Stapley — November 7, 2006 @ 12:41 pm
All - sorry to have gone M.I.A. here today. I am buried under some pressing duties right now but hope to catch up later tonight.
PS - The Thang may be down temporarily later as well as we will likely be switching servers very soon.
Comment by Geoff J — November 7, 2006 @ 12:45 pm
Blake,
It is quite clear in my theory why the suffering of another mortal would never do. I have suggested that the crucial effect of the suffering was to infuse Christ’s divinity through each one of us and indeed the universe. First, even if by suffering you could infuse a bit of your nature into me, it wouldn’t help. I already have plenty of the screwed up kind of natural tendencies and weaknesses. Second, I don’t believe suffering, per se, accomplishes anything (when you suffer you do not, in fact, infuse your nature into anything). Suffering was required because of the type of task it was for Christ to do the thing he did. Ghandi was not doing that task (and could not) so his suffering is totally unrelated to what Christ did by atoning. Do you see why I say other mortals could not atone on my theory?
As to why he had to suffer. Perhaps the atonement required Christ to suffer because, as you say, being joined to us in such an intimate way is inherently painful for a perfect being like Christ. I am weary of conceding that I have not taken a definitive stance (that is, I am leaving myself open to learn from you and others) on why the suffering was required to accomplish what it did, but D&C 88 says that it did have that effect, and the claim seems very plausible to me (for example, it does not offend my sense of justice as penal-substitution does). The divine infusion of the light of Christ to each of us is fairly mysterious, so if a mystery must be put somewhere, this is a good place for it.
Comment by Jacob — November 7, 2006 @ 12:48 pm
Blake,
By the way, you skipped addressing my points in #50 by going on offense in #51. That’s fine, I deserve it, but I would still be interested in your response to my points in #50.
Comment by Jacob — November 7, 2006 @ 12:52 pm
Jacob(49), you don’t think it would be unjust if you were the only person to get sick or the only person to die? please clarify…
J.- You said:
I am having trouble with this sttement. Aren’t these two things really the same? After all, isn’t getting rid of pain the same as healing? I guess the difference is you are saying that Blake feels that the taking of the pain is the healing, while you are saying the healing occurs outside of the taking of the pain, but because Christ now knows how to take the pain? Am I capturing your perception clearly?
Comment by Matt W. — November 7, 2006 @ 1:13 pm
All — please note Jacob’s comment in #37. It was hung up in moderation and only he could see it until now.
Comment by Geoff J — November 7, 2006 @ 1:27 pm
Matt: After all, isn’t getting rid of pain the same as healing? I guess the difference is you are saying that Blake feels that the taking of the pain is the healing, while you are saying the healing occurs outside of the taking of the pain, but because Christ now knows how to take the pain?
I don’t believe the Christ took away my pain in the atonement. That is something that he does when I turn to him. I submit that in the atonement, Jesus suffered all things and therefor knows how to heal me. I don’t believe there is a cosmic balance of pain that must be experienced. I.e., if we were to quantify all the pain in the history of the world, it would be 1,345 pain units. All 1,345 pain units must be felt by me or by Christ for the universe to maintain order.
Sure, entering a relationship with a human is going to be painful for God, regardless. It is the nature of fallen and imperfect beings. But this pain is different than the suffering of the atonement and it is a pain felt by all that are divine when they enter a relationship. Hence we have a God that weeps.
What we have is Jesus that experienced the full set of possibilities. Miraculously, he experienced my suffering and because of that he can heal me. The suffering of his atonement is not added to or detracted from by my choice.
Comment by J. Stapley — November 7, 2006 @ 1:37 pm
Jacob: Unfortunately the lack of #37 led me to believe that you were endorsing the view that we need only what Geoff has provided. I can see that you have the same concerns that I do.
I think that we simply disagree as to the import of scritural language. I read them to say that Christ actually feels pain for our sins and in his pain we are release from this pain and healed. Otherwise, what we get is something that God can do without any suffering at all.
Matt: I was going to ask J. the same thing as you did in #57.
The notion that God’s suffering in general for the pain of the world in general because he empathizes with us doesn’t require the kind of suffering in Gethsemane and the cross that the scriptures point to it seems to me. We need some explanation as to why the suffering in Gethsemane was so intense — why it was related to atonement rather than just the fact that God has a plan.
Comment by Blake — November 7, 2006 @ 1:41 pm
Ok, back for more- About this Sin Energy….
I think this term is causing problems here. If I understnad correctly, this is the term we are using for the suffering in consequence of sin. I would like to see what the scriptures say this suffering is in consequence of sin.
(ok, this one I don’t get, but am trying to be objective as I am not arguing for anything, just participating for thhe enjoyment)
2 Ne 9:38-48
Ok, I think that is enough.
exegesis to follow
Comment by Matt W. — November 7, 2006 @ 1:44 pm
Blake: The notion that God’s suffering in general for the pain of the world in general because he empathizes with us doesn’t require the kind of suffering in Gethsemane and the cross that the scriptures point to it seems to me.
To follow up on my comment 59, I submit that Christ took upon himself the suffering for my sins regardless of whether I turn to him to be healed or not. I don’t see why my description of the suffering of Christ (i.e., the full set of human experiences, and the consequences thereof) doesn’t fulfill the scriptures.
Comment by J. Stapley — November 7, 2006 @ 1:55 pm
Ok, exegesis in a nutshell to follow, because a man’s gotta work.
I see the scriptures pointing to the consequences of sin as being death in both the physical and spiritual sense. Death is seperation from man and god.
We set ourselves apart from others when we are selfish(prideful, whatever) either in self-loathing, self-righteousness, self-gratification, etc. This selfishness causes us to live in self-deception, where we turn others, including God into objects, and not real persons equal with us in validity. God wants us to be equal with him, which in the sense of the plan of salvation, we know we could not be without experiencing this life. Even with this life, we could not be equal with him, because we still seperate ourselves from God by sinning either against him directly or by sinning against “the least of his people” and thus him.
This is my view, not yet having read blake’s book and being a late comer, of what this sin energy is. Now you all can start shooting. :)
Comment by Matt W. — November 7, 2006 @ 1:58 pm
J.- I don’t know that Pain and Suffering for Sin are the same thing. I believe Christ did suffer the afflictions(including the consequences of sin on the sinned against) and pains of all to counter the deterministic effects of being a fallen person, but I have come to believe from discussion with Blake that this is seperate from the suffering for Sin, which Christ bears for those who are willing to give up their sinful nature by hearkening unto christ, believing in him, and, for want of a better term, loving him.
Blake and I discussed this at length here (in the final comments)
Comment by Matt W. — November 7, 2006 @ 2:07 pm
Yep, I am aware of that Matt, I simply disagree.
Comment by J. Stapley — November 7, 2006 @ 2:09 pm
J. (65)
I can live with that, after all:
“There is even greater danger of making the study of the Atonement a study in dogmatic theology… The work of Christ in reconciling the world to God has occupied so central a place in Christian dogmatics that the very term atonement has come to have a theological rather than a practical atmosphere, and it is by no means easy for the student, or even for the seeker after the saving relation with God, to pass beyond the accumulated interpretation of the Atonement and learn of atonement.”
-(From International Standard Bible Encyclopedia)
In otherwords, as long as the atonement works, I don’t mind if we all disagree how it works. But it is certainly fun to discuss. I guess that’s why we’re here.
Comment by Matt W. — November 7, 2006 @ 2:19 pm
J said: You state that Christ is a receptacle for our pain because that is the only way to get rid of pain - for some else to bear it.
I am saying that Christ is a receptacle for our pain because that is what gives him the capacity to heal us.
Actually, I don’t say that the only way for us to get rid of pain is for someone else to bear it. I say that the only way to get rid of pain is to stop doing what causes it and let go of the past. However, I so say that anyone entering into a relationship of union with us will feel pain at being in relationship with us. I also agree that Christ heals us by entering into union with us.
Comment by Blake — November 7, 2006 @ 2:47 pm
Matt: Jacob, you don’t think it would be unjust if you were the only person to get sick or the only person to die? please clarify… (#57
I think you are asking if I think my death would be an injustice if I were the only one who was ever born and died. Right? No, I don’t believe my death would be an injustice.
Incidentally, in #27 you cited Alma 12 as evidence for your view that it would be unjust, but the scripture you cite does not mention justice at all. Your conclusion after the blockquote is a non-sequitor.
If anything, you seem to have it exactly backward. If death is really analogous to sin (I am claiming it is not, but supposing it were), then my death should be demanded by justice (just as suffering is demanded for my sins), and the atonement should be seen as a way to enable mercy to overpower that demand of justice. What am I missing here?
Comment by Jacob — November 7, 2006 @ 2:54 pm
I must be confused Blake. Are you saying that it is painful to enter a relationship with a fallen being (something I agree with) or are you saying that by entering into a relationship with a fallen being Jesus extricates their pain of sin and internalizes it thus experiencing pain? I see these as two very different scenarios.
Comment by J. Stapley — November 7, 2006 @ 3:07 pm
Jacob, 68, no I mean if we were all born and only you got sick and only you died and we all didn’t. If we are all equal, then death and sickness should be equally possible to all of us. I don’t really think that is what you think justice is… Can you clarify what you mean by this? Are you just taking another swing at the Alma scripture where one man can not pay the penalty for another? Not sure what you are getting at…
As for Alma 12, does a scripture have to use the word justice to be all about justice? I’d say that scripture is all about justice… I stand by my position there.
As for sin = death. Are we talking physical or spiritual death? I am defining death broadly as seperation of self from others (as in #63) Is that what you mean? In this case, yes, justice does cause death as a result of sin. When I sin, I am cutting myself off from others. Thus my sins are causing me to suffer. The atonement gives me the power via Christ to overcome justice by seeing that I am really equal with others, and not apart (either above or below) them. So I guess the answer is no, you’re not missing anything there, I guess… (not sure what you are getting at.)
Anyway, gotta go home.
But first a question- Jacob, if the atonement happened so we could be infused with a little of Christ’s divinity in us, why was our own divinity not good enough?
Comment by Matt W. — November 7, 2006 @ 3:36 pm
J. re: 69: I same that entering into union entails receiving and sharing a spiritual life in which we indwell in each other. I suggest that such sharing of life is painful for a perfect being who enters into relationship with the likes of us.
Comment by Blake — November 7, 2006 @ 3:48 pm
Matt: re #70 — I don’t mean to answer for Jacob, but divinity just is shared. There is no such thing as divinity all by ourselves. We have a potentiality perhaps to have divinity arise in us; but we don’t do it alone any more than hydrogen all alone can be water.
Comment by Blake — November 7, 2006 @ 3:49 pm
Matt (#70),
If you think Alma 12 is about justice, convince me. Saying that it is about justice and standing by it does not make it so. The verses you quote do offer various rationals for the statements being made. The verse says:
You conclude from that:
Your insertion of “which is unjust and” is unwarranted and changes the meaning of the text. The text says the fact of their being forever miserable is what frustrates the plan (since the plan is to make them happy). You are reading into the text the idea that it is actually the injustice of their being forever miserable which frustrates the plan. It is just not there in the verse, and for that matter, I don’t believe that it is a correct idea. I believe the verse as written.
Now, on the topic of justice and death, we seem to be talking past one another, so let me try to restate very succinctly what I was trying to say in #50 where this began. I understand why a person could conclude that justice demands suffering for sins. I do not understand why a person would conclude that justice demands suffering for sickness or death. That idea makes no intuitive sense to me. Thus, I conclude that the atonement’s triumph over death is not some sort of interaction with the demands of justice.
Comment by Jacob — November 7, 2006 @ 3:57 pm
Blake (#70) then we are in complete agreement.
Comment by J. Stapley — November 7, 2006 @ 4:05 pm
Matt: Jacob, if the atonement happened so we could be infused with a little of Christ’s divinity in us, why was our own divinity not good enough? (#70)
I agree with what Blake said in #72, but I am using divinity in a slightly different sense than he is. The reason our divinity is not good enough is that we are not divine. Having divine potential is different than being divine already. Think about the effect of conscience on who you are and how you behave. Imagine how you would act today if God had never given you this gift of conscience (the light of Christ) which puts you in touch with the moral law in a most intimate way and makes you feel that you ought to be good. Conscience is a borrowed light. Does that make more sense out of what I am saying?
Comment by Jacob — November 7, 2006 @ 4:12 pm
Blake, your answer (#71) to Stapley’s #69 seems to be only part of the picture. After lots of discussion before, I thought it had been made quite clear that you are saying both of the things Stapley lists in #69. Everyone had a much easier time agreeing with the first proposition which you reiterate in #71. There was a lot more disagreement about the painful energy of sin which is transferred in your theory. Significantly, you have accounted for the suffering in Gethsemane and on the Cross by reference to this painful energy saved up from all previous sins in all previous worlds. Am I remembering incorrectly?
Comment by Jacob — November 7, 2006 @ 4:20 pm
Jacob: I account for the suffering in Gethsemane by referring to the fact that human and full divinity have been conjoined and Christ experiences the fulness of being in relationship with imperfect beings — including a perfect memory of their pain in a process sense.
Comment by Blake — November 7, 2006 @ 5:04 pm
Jacob: (70) I guess I see anything that would frustrate the plan as unjust, as only following the plan is just. Thanks for the challenge on this, I will get back to you. I will try and find something else that helps my position. For now, I have to get to school…
and yes, Comment #75 helps very much.
Of course, now I have to think about what it means to be divine in the first place, but I will try not to bring that here.
Comment by Matt Witten — November 7, 2006 @ 6:10 pm
there is a transfer of pain for sin from us to Christ.
I have never understood the pain as a direct transfer from us to Christ. Is bearing our sins the same thing as receiving the pain via transfer?
Comment by m&m — November 7, 2006 @ 6:11 pm
I suggest that such sharing of life is painful for a perfect being who enters into relationship with the likes of us.
Doesn’t that mean that God is in pain all of the time? Why would Jesus need to be the one to do that if the relationship He is facilitating is actually with God?
And is there a difference in this perspective if we are the ones entering into the relationship, and He is the constant?
Comment by m&m — November 7, 2006 @ 6:16 pm
I do not understand why a person would conclude that justice demands suffering for sickness or death.
Not that I am sure how I feel about this issue, but just to throw out a question, by the definition of the fall and God’s word, wasn’t death demanded? God’s word was that if they partook of the fruit, they would “surely die.” In that sense, since mortality was the result of a broken law of sorts, justice perhaps does demand sickness and death. Or no?
Comment by m&m — November 7, 2006 @ 6:23 pm
Ok, I’m back.
Blake (#31),
Thanks for bringing up specific scriptures you think point toward a substitution model of one kind or another. As you know, I believe that there is no substitution for our suffering in the atonement. I think our suffering from sin is entirely explainable via the law of the harvest: when we sow sin we reap the associated suffering and misery; when we repent and turn to God we are no longer sowing seeds of suffering and misery. Like you, I don’t think God or some disembodied Justice must be appeased with somebody suffering even after we repent so penal substitution is out for me. Unlike you, I also don’t believe that sin causes any kind of painful energy to be stored up in us that we must then transfer to Christ when we repent.
Now on to those scriptures. All of them seem consistent with an Empathy Model reading to me:
What is it in these scriptures that you think cannot be read as supporting the theory I have proposed? It all seems to fit with the Empathy and Moral Example hybrid idea I mentioned to me.
You said: In these scriptures, Christ doesn’t just suffer in general and learn. Rather, he suffers the pains of all persons.
I agree.
In his suffering there is a release from sin for those who accept him and repent.
I disagree. And this sentence does not follow from the sentences preceding it.
This one is probably your strongest supporter. (You should give Matt a virtual high five for finding it for you.) I suspect that this is probably a better proof text for a penal-substitution model than for yours though. Look at the verses leading up to it:
So I’d be careful about getting too excited about those verses. The implication of the whole is that Christ substituted for us to appease justice — not to absorb our painful energy of sin as you Compassion Theory has it.
I suppose you are focusing on the “take away” part here, right. I think that via his moral example he takes away sin from the world. Both the moral example he set in his life and the influence he currently has on the world through the Spirit now that he has become as the Father is.
Why is Christ’s suffering necessary to atonement?
I think I answered that in the post actually. He suffered to become as the Father is himself, and in the process to show us how we should be in this life: totally committed to the Father and willing to do anything that is required to improve our relationship with him.
How is his suffering related to “bearing,” “taking upon Him,” and “taking away” our sins?
By bearing and taking upon him the suffering of every person ever he filled in his experiential knowledge gaps. He thereafter knew as the Father knows. He became our perfectly empathetic God. Via his moral example and his interaction with the world through the Spirit now he invites all men to repent and thus “taketh away” our sins.
Any theory of atonement that fails to explain this transfer of the pain of our sins to Christ fails to explain the primary impetus of atonement in LDS scripture and the biblial record.
This is comment is assuming your position on the subject. I contend that there is no transfer suffering. I believe, apparently along with many others around here, that the notion of such a transfer causes more problems than it solves.
Comment by Geoff J — November 7, 2006 @ 9:18 pm
Jacob (#37): So, on your theory is the suffering and death of Jesus really even necessary for our salvation? It seems that it is not. Where am I going wrong?
Perceptive question. I think my theory (and my definitions) only hold that the overall atonement is necessary for our salvation. I don’t make claims that any specific component or event of the overall atonement makes our salvation possible.
Comment by Geoff J — November 7, 2006 @ 9:25 pm
Geoff: I am leaving for awhile and won’t have time to respond. However, my initial reaction is that you are dodging the fairly evident. Look again at the scriptures cited in #82 —
D&C 18:11 For, behold, the Lord your Redeemer suffered death in the flesh; wherefore he suffered the pain of all men, that all men might repent and come unto him.
2 Nephi 9:5 Yea, I know that ye know that in the body he shall show himself unto those at Jerusalem, from whence we came; for it is expedient that it should be among them; for it behooveth the great Creator that he suffereth himself to become subject unto man in the flesh, and die for all men, that all men might become subject unto him.
2 Nephi 9:21 And he cometh into the world that he may save all men if they will hearken unto his voice; for behold, he suffereth the pains of all men, yea, the pains of every living creature, both men, women, and children, who belong to the family of Adam.
Here what Christ suffers is the pains of all men. On your view Christ doesn’t suffer the pains of all. They aren’t their pains; but Christ’s pain alone. It is a generalized pain in empathizing with us as I understand your view. So this scripture requires something more specific — they are our pains that Christ’s suffers; not his.
Look again at Mosiah 15:
8 And thus God breaketh the bands of death, having gained the victory over death; giving the Son power to make intercession for the children of men-
9 Having ascended into heaven, having the bowels of mercy; being filled with compassion towards the children of men; standing betwixt them and justice; having broken the bands of death, taken upon himself their iniquity and their transgressions, having redeemed them, and satisfied the demands of justice.
10 And now I say unto you, who shall declare his generation? Behold, I say unto you, that when his soul has been made an offering for sin he shall see his seed. And now what say ye? And who shall be his seed?
11 Behold I say unto you, that whosoever has heard the words of the prophets, yea, all the holy prophets who have prophesied concerning the coming of the Lord-I say unto you, that all those who have hearkened unto their words, and believed that the Lord would redeem his people, and have looked forward to that day for a remission of their sins, I say unto you, that these are his seed, or they are the heirs of the kingdom of God.
12 For these are they whose sins he has borne; these are they for whom he has died, to redeem them from their transgressions. And now, are they not his seed?
The reason that Christ satisfies justice is that he is filled with compasion — he is filled with compassion because he bears our pains and suffers as a result of our sins — having “taken upon himself their iniquity and their transgressions.” So your suggestion that there is a notion of penal substitution in this scripture is reading into what isn’t even mildly hinted at. What it does say is that Christ takes upon him the very pain of the transgressions of those who accept him and repent. Your theory (and mine to the limited extent that I also adopt the notion of God’s empathetic suffering as only a part of the atonement) just doesn’t accomodate this aspect of atonement — Christ’s experience of pain for our transgressions. On your view, He feels bad because we feel bad (that is empathy); but that isn’t at all the same because these scriptures (among many others) say that it is the pain of our transgressions that he feels.
Comment by Blake — November 7, 2006 @ 9:39 pm
Geoff (#83),
Wow, I applaud you for admitting this. I think this point will be a deal-breaker for most people. Certainly I am not willing to accept a theory which says Christ’s suffering in Gethsemane and on the Cross are not necessary for our salvation. As I mentioned in #37, I think this puts your theory at odds with the scriptural record because I think it can be demonstrated that the scriptures do not use the term atonement in the broad way you have defined it.
Comment by Jacob — November 7, 2006 @ 9:44 pm
Blake (#38): However, that doesn’t explain how the suffering is caused or occasioned by our sins.
As I’ve said, I don’t believe Christ’s suffering in Gethsemane was occasioned by our specific sins. (This is a version of the old “every time we sin we hurt Jesus a little more” stories we have all heard — I don’t buy that for a second.) Rather, experiential knowledge of all types of suffering was given to Christ by the Father in Gethsemane. It filled in all gaps in Christ’s understanding and after he completed his work he was as the Father is. My guess is that the Father was able to transfer such knowledge because of his omniscience and because he had atoned on a previous world as well. That is why the suffering is infinite — it was a download of sorts from the Father(s?) that allowed the embodied Christ to fill in all gaps in his experiential knowledge. God did not inflict the suffering on Jesus, but rather revealed it so that Jesus could fully understand it in his mortal condition.
That is how I currently fill the explanatory hole you mentioned. I think it is very consistent with the teachings of Joseph in 1844.
The second problem is how Christ’s suffring pain could be related to my release from pain.
It isn’t. When you repent the natural consequence is that the pain and suffering from your former sin goes away.
Why did Christ have to be sinless?
Only a soul who had progressed as far as Jesus had could handle the next level of exaltation.
Why is atonement a blood sacrifice?
Gethsemane was apparently so intense that it caused blood to drip from Jesus. That is likely the way it has worked on every world throughout eternity. The same is surely true of Christ’s martyrdom (though certainly details varied).
Comment by Geoff J — November 7, 2006 @ 9:47 pm
Blake - I think my #86 addresses most of your questions in #84. Also, I didn’t dodge those scriptures, I just see no reason why we must read them to mean there is a transfer of suffering to Jesus. I admit that is a legitimate reading, but reading them to support an empathy theory works just as well. In other words, they don’t work as proof texts for the notion of a literal transfer of suffering from us the Jesus.
Jacob: I think it can be demonstrated that the scriptures do not use the term atonement in the broad way you have defined it.
I don’t. Perhaps that should be our battleground on this theory. (PS, I suspect I’ll have Blake on my side on this one too because claiming the word “atonement” means exclusively the Christ Event portion of the overall atonement in scriptures would be a blow to the Compassion Theory as well.)
Comment by Geoff J — November 7, 2006 @ 9:52 pm
Jacob (70)- I think you know this correlates very well with what I was saying before…
Comment by Matt Witten — November 7, 2006 @ 11:00 pm
Geoff #36: The second problem is how Christ’s suffring pain could be related to my release from pain. It isn’t. When you repent the natural consequence is that the pain and suffering from your former sin goes away.
I agree with Jacob on this one and I suspect that this will be the deal breaker. It makes atonement superfluous. The entire point of atonement according to the Book of Mormon is that it makes repentance possible and as a result Christ suffers for our transgressions by taking them upon him. This very specific language supports my view of atonement rather strongly (and it is why I adopt it). Your view has the Father imposing pain on Christ: “experiential knowledge of all types of suffering was given to Christ by the Father in Gethsemane.” Surely you have mispoken here. You really don’t mean that the Father “gave” suffering to Christ do you?
Comment by Blake — November 7, 2006 @ 11:00 pm
God did not inflict the suffering on Jesus, but rather revealed it so that Jesus could fully understand it in his mortal condition.
And why was this necessary in your view? What did all of this accomplish if He is there as intermediary to get us to God, and God was already where He got to? I don’t understand what the purpose of having a Christ is in your model?
And I’m sensing that maybe I’m kinda getting in the way…because my questions have basically gone unanswered. That’s OK. I thought I would give it one more try and then I’ll go back to lurkerdom. :) I’m probably taking you too far back to other discussions, so sorry. :)
Comment by m&m — November 7, 2006 @ 11:24 pm
Matt (#88), the scriptures you cite from Alma 42 are key scriptures in my understanding of the atonement, so I am happy to discuss them if you think they disagree with me. I don’t see them supporting your reading of Alma 12, but maybe that is not what you’re referring to. Would you oconcisely restate the view you are trying to support so I don’t miss what you’re saying?
Comment by Jacob — November 8, 2006 @ 12:01 am
m&m,
I thought I saw several of your points picked up and engaged. I hope you are not feeling ignored. Your 79, 80, and 81 got sort of swept aside b