I think I agree with your atonement theology, but I’m confused about your claim of conflicting teachings in the BOM. I’m wondering which part of Amulek’s teachings in particular you find contradictory. If it’s Alma 34:8, then Alma himself says almost the exact same words in Alma 7:13. Although he says “according to the flesh” it’s the same thought. You might view this not as vicarious suffering as such, but rather that despite God (the Spirit) already knowing all things (i.e. he didn’t need to experience to know), he still needed to personally experience in order to atone. However perhaps the suffering is only part of the atonement. Usually we think of the suffering to overcome spiritual death and death/resurrection to overcome temporal.

The BOM writers clearly understand the difference between temporal and spiritual death, but seem to write as if his death and resurrection (but especially his death) account for both, particularly in 2 Nephi 9, or 1 Ne 11:33. They are understandably focussed on his shedding his blood, a perspective which I assume is weighted by their Mosaic symbolism. I can accept that not all the details of the atonement were known to them, just as they aren’t to us, but they seem less aware (or acknowledging) of the difference (if any) of the “suffering” and the “death” of Christ. I suppose this is your main support for what I feel is perhaps an overly-resurrectionist view of the atonement, because it is so prominent in the BOM.

I’m surprised your detractors didn’t elaborate more on D&C 19. The Lord describes the punishment of the impenitent, then immediately states he has suffered “these things” that they might not, otherwise they must suffer “even as I”. That sounds pretty vicarious – the suffering is the same, either ours or his for us. However I do reject the crude penal interpretation, or the quantitative perspective (how many drops of blood for this particular sin, etc). We are “bought with a price” but he didn’t necessarily “pay the price” of our sin, because the effect of sin is not counted in demerit points.

Rather it is implicitly stated that our punishment/suffering is just as infinite as his atonement. Any degree of sin warrants punishment, endless and eternal. Only an infinite atonement can overcome the effects. But rather than it being a specific vicarious payment for debt incurred, it is a positive infinite effect to absorb/overcome a negative. The actual effect is to mercifully allow us to avoid the punishment. His suffering what we would have to suffer gives him the authority/credibility/whatever to allow those who appeal to him to avoid punishment.

You mentioned Alma 42. We all sin, and are worthy of endless punishment. The atonement allows the penitent to avoid punishment for sin, and be left to be judged for their works (it’s up to them to ensure they are good). His mercy hasn’t robbed his justice, it’s just filtered it to leave only that which rewards to happiness. The impenitent don’t have the benefit of mercy’s filtering and are left to the full spectrum of justice. To those who appeal to (faith/repent) and align with (baptised) him he gives mercy and justice, to those who don’t he gives only justice.

That’s my understanding of your perspective, but I can’t see how Amulek or anyone else is in variance with it. I guess I’m uncomfortable with the idea of internal contradiction, however benign. Mormon compiled the book – he would exclude anything inconsistent, and I’m convinced he and Moroni had a more informed retrospective understanding of the atonement than their predecessors. And besides, if it’s the “most correct” book then surely we can be confident of avoiding any internal contradictions.

Sorry I wasn’t shorter. I’m sure someone could rephrase it more concisely.

Thanks for your response. I’m fully familiar with this reading of Amulek (as in Jacob Morgan’s beautiful piece from a few years ago), and I’m very intrigued by it… but I just can’t convince myself it really makes sense of the text. I don’t think it’s I who bring Anselm to the text so much as Amulek who introduces it… at least to some extent. (There may be a non-Anselmian reading of Amulek, but it’s not the anti-substitutionary reading because that needs Anselm as much as the Anselmian reading—though as a punching bag. Keith Lane has suggested to me an outline of a non-Anselmian substitutionary reading, and I want to think about that further….)

That said, I emphatically do not mean to make Amulek the dumb purveyor of blasphemy! Nor do I, as some reading this post have suggested, want to throw Amulek under the bus. Amulek is, I think, a perfect mirror of most of us in the text of the Book of Mormon. If I’m throwing Amulek under the bus or making him the purveyor of blasphemy, I’m doing the same for most or all of us. In pointing out that he’s not a prophet in any strong sense, I mean only to say that he’s like the rest of us—inspired on occasion, but not necessarily a figure whose every word is to be taken as unimpeachable truth.

For what it’s worth. All this by way of clarification, only. I very much appreciate your kind words!

Hold the phone! Holy cow.
You are usually so right about so many things that when you get one wrong it is a surprise.

However, I think that you have this one quite wrong. I would not be telling you so unless the stakes were pretty high, but in this case they are.

Okay, so it is clear that the Book of Mormon does not support any penal substitution theory of the Atonement. Got it. Penal substitution stinks.

However, you seem to be finding the doctrine of penal substitution in Amulek of all places. I will argue that you are unwittingly importing Anselemian thought forms into the text that are simply not there, thereby problemetizing what is, in actuality, the crown jewel of Nephite “anti-substitution” theology. Further, you then seem to be, optioning on this incautious reading of Amulek, creating theological tension between Amulek and Alma which I think the text does not support. Now, I am all for smashing the appearance of univocality in the BOM when that is justified. But it is not here.

Then, as a final, ungrateful blow to my friend Amulek resorting to de-legitimizing him as a source of doctrine by questioning his prophetic street cred? Yikes!

I would beseech you to read again.

What I have found there is different from what you seem to find. You seem to see Amulek as intending that “if a human sacrifice won’t do it, we just need a bigger sacrifice, like: an infinite and eternal one! Where a bird or a human won’t do, then a God will!”

It seems to me that Amulek has already dis-allowed that reading; he is unequivocal not about the identity of the payee, but of the moral possibility of payment. He has undermined the possibility of payment as an option. He is not holding that blood will pay for sins. Rather, he emphatically repeats, only an END to the shedding of blood will do it. It is not the death of the murderer that will fix it, it is the LIFE of the murderer that can fix it. Amulek is not, in my view, foreseeing the elaboration of the subject of sacrifice to God level. Instead, the debt concept must be repudiated completely. Death will not do it. This is the whole meaning of the Law: Justice must be overpowered by Mercy. There must needs be an end to the shedding of blood.

Now, humans never see things this way (that is the core of the problem). We want to posit immoral payments that no one can make as ways to shield ourselves from grace. Self existing as we are, wildly welded to the notion of getting what is coming to us, we become the gods to whom Jesus (the real God, remember, that is the wind up in this chapter, Jesus is the real God) must offer himself. Jesus does not sacrifice himself to his Father (that concept is not really current in Nephite discourse at the time Amulek speaks) or to himself, or to laws. He offers himself to us. We put him to death. He refuses to stay dead, though. In freely submitting himself to us, dying the death that we crafted for him, he turns suffering and punishment and death on their heads: by living. Only his life will save us.

When Jesus announces his Atonement to the Nephites he echoes Amulek:

“And ye shall offer up no more unto me the shedding of blood; yea, your sacrifices and your burnt offerings shall be done away.” (3 Nephi 9:19)

Other bright folks have gotten over reading Anselem into Amulek (Blake Ostler Exploring Mormon Thought II: The problems of theism and the love of god pg 232 footnote 14 where he repents in footnote form; Dennis Potter in Did Christ Pay for our Sins? Dialogue 32:4 Winter 1999 for instance). Doubtless you are aware of these readings, and find them unpersuasive.

So again I beseech you to reconsider making Amulek the dumb purveyor of blasphemy. Maybe that was not what he was saying.

By the way, I love An Other Testament to death.

It would be fun to be a part of a HP group again. Maybe someday. Thanks again, people like you are always appreciated.

I did want to say a few things about the discussion on this post. I appreciate the civility of those who have discussed their views. For those who have not yet been introduced into the idea of atonement theory it can be difficult to understand the goals and objectives. But I also don’t think this is inherently a religious problem. Like any other community, this blog has certain goals and there are a number of participants more or less in orbit who regularly or semi-regularly comment and who are familiar with the kinds of personalities or positions of others on the blog. In other words, social capital has been built up, which lowers transactional costs of communication. Discussions can build upon each other. Now, it can be difficult for someone who decides to enter into dialogue who is unaware of the make-up of the community, and who may not even accept some of the premises upon which the discussion is built. There is a kind of barrier to entry. One must then back-up and go over some of the premises and even argue and defend them to newcomers to the community (and this post alone has several premises that would take several separate posts to explain). This, however, is not a failing of theology or even theology’s problem and I really want to stress that point. This is just part and parcel of community dynamics.

Thanks to CEF for an idea I used to introduce the column and to the rest of you for helping me think about this issue one more time.

I owe Robert C a column some time on the possibility of theology serving a critical function. I agree that is hypothetically possible, but I’m not so sure how it works in real life. So I’ve got to think about that a bit more.

Part of my understanding of the usefulness of well-done theology is perhaps best understood in a negative sense in that it can help guard against abuses of the Spirit. For example, what I like about some of the Girardian stuff I’ve linked to is the way that it helps shed light on the connection between bad theology (in this case, an overzealous or overliteral understanding of penal substitutionary atonement theory) and a tendency for violence.* Jim’s grandmother might not need the crutch of improved theology, but I think most communities can benefit from improved theology.

That said, there’s a very fine line between the kind of importance of theology to the project of building Zion that I am suggesting, and taking theology too seriously. And this latter concern is serious enough that I enthusiastically endorse the main thrust of Jim’s comment.

* I think Joe’s series here is addressing an issue very similar to Girard’s critique of violence, though Joe is dealing with a more figurative “economic” kind of violence at work in legalistic understandings of justice and atonement.

In such an instance, before we call people blasphemers, we should first try to actually understand what it is they are trying to say. President Marion G Romney warned about misunderstanding what it is being taught. I think this is one of those instances.

The first question I ask when contemplating the atonement and the resurrection is: “Who says?” Why does Jesus resurrecting his own body because the grave could not hold him mean that we all are assured resurrection? Who says that the magnificence of Jesus Christ’s atonement means that He has the power to forgive our sins?

It seems to me that the eternal existence operates on certain conditions or laws and that the Savior’s atonement had to be magnificent enough to satisfy them with His ability to judge who should be forgiven and who should not, and what level of glory their commitment merits. So the question, it seems to me is, “Why did his atonement so impress them (whoever “them” is) sufficiently that they are willing to accept His word when he says, “Let him (or her) come. They are with me.” I think that puts the question of grace in a whole different light. I also think it explains why there are so many places in the Book of Mormon where we are counseled to “come unto Christ.”

I think Jim F. has really nicely outlined here how we ought to think about the theological implications of statements by general authorities. I can’t take a handful of general authority statements as a source for theology for at least three reasons: (1) general authorities’ statements aren’t canonical; (2) general authorities often disagree with one another if we take them to be spelling out theological positions; (3) general authorities don’t claim to be doing theology, and if we take them to be doing so we may well be misusing their words in a way that might bother them. For these reasons at least, when doing theology, I stick with scripture as the source that binds me.

At any rate, no need to spell out the OT background. I don’t at all deny that there’s a strong sense of the vicarious there. I’m just trying to be very careful about how we translate that into the Christian context, as well as into the Book of Mormon. And what I’m most worried about is the usual motivation for outlining a theory of vicarious atonement—namely, a certain way of thinking about sin (as incurred debt that has to be balanced due to a distinctly modern and unmistakably abstract notion of justice).

So, I’m happy to say that there’s talk of the substitutionary in scripture (indeed, I don’t want to be rid of that at all!), and I’m happy to say that there’s even talk of vicarious suffering (though I want to be very careful about it), but I want to divorce anything along either of those lines quite radically from a certain way of thinking about sin….

Are you guys all part of FAIR-lds?

But I wouldn’t go so far as to say that philosophy / theology is useless. Some of us have already swallowed the red pill and can’t help but ask the questions. Perhaps some of us swallowed it before we were born. If you’re a person who really hankers to think about philosophical and theological questions as they relate to the gospel, then this blog and others are a good place to find people with whom you can talk. As CEF says, you’re not likely to find them in your ward–and I don’t think you should be looking for them there.

Sacrament meeting, Sunday School, and priesthood and RS classes aren’t the place for these discussions. I guess I could add “unless you’re a high priest.” As I meeting I was attending at BYU was about to begin, in response to a theological question from one of the attendees, Elder Eyring once said “The average high priest group knows more about the answers to those kinds of questions than the First Presidency does.”

I’m pretty sure he didn’t intend to denigrate the First Presidency with his remark. I think his point was that they don’t concern themselves with those kinds of issues be cause from their point of view those issues are not important. They are concerned with preaching salvation, spiritual and temporal, which doesn’t require preaching theological explanations of salvation. Similarly, church is for preaching salvation. Sometimes we don’t do that well, but introducing philosophy and theology would make it worse rather than better.

So, if you’ve been bitten by the philosophy / theology bug (or swallowed the pill, if you prefer that metaphor), you should feel all right about it. It’s a disease with no cure, but is usually chronic. It needn’t be debilitating–though it can be if you let it. So don’t let it. Paying attention to such questions can also be strengthening to those who have the disease.

I like–very much–the metaphor that Adam Miller uses for theological speculation, Rube Goldberg machines (http://www.gregkofford.com/products/rube-goldberg-machines-essays-in-mormon-theology). A good Rube Goldberg machine does the same work that can be done simply otherwise, such as opening a door or turning off the light. But it does it in a complicated way. The measure of a good Rube Goldberg machine is that it gets the same thing done that gets done without it and that it does it in an interesting, perhaps even beautiful, way. It seems to me that we could measure good theology in the same way.

Some of us need those machines, but most don’t. So we ought not to muddle things in church by insisting on showing off our theological Rube Goldberg machines.

If you are not careful, you are about to take the red pill, and there is no going back if you do. I am saying this trying to be a little bit funny, but at the same time, I am serious.

I attended a FAIR conference a few years ago, and Jim, Blake and some other guy was there talking about a few things. What they said that I still remember, is that they (all three) had a disease, (I think something along the lines of wanting to know/understand everything) and that there is no cure for it. I have that same disease, it is not fun to have it. So if it is not too late, just walk away from this discussion and leave things alone. Other wise, you will forever change the way you see things. And in my case, I no longer fit in with the people in my ward or stake. Meaning, you will not be able to share the things you are learning, I am sure Joe would not try and teach much of anything he is saying here in a SS or Priesthood class. So I am not sure what good it does to learn these things.

I understand that there are different ways at looking at the scriptures, I still have to see how scriptures can be interpreted in a way that the Atonement doesn’t equal vicarious sufferings for sin. From what context shows it is a requirement in my mind. This is what I have been taught in church, seminary, my undergrad in religion and also in the M. Div program.

When I first joined LDS-Phil, a long time ago, Dennis Potter was still there and the first discussion I remember was something along these lines. It was way over my head at the time and I made some comment that I am sure he thought, where did this nut come from? It was not long after that, Dennis left the LDS-Phil list. I have always blamed myself for his leaving. I never did understand a thing he said, but I really enjoyed reading what he said. I wish he was till there.

The point to this, is, and I learned this somewhere on the blogs, that *every* metaphor, if pushed too far, breaks down at some point. So what really smart people have figured out is, when pushed too far, the atonement theories that we have, breakdown at some point. None of them really work. I think Blake has one that makes about as much sense to me as any.

So I think what Joe, Jim and Ramey are saying, is that even tho we have lots of statements by GAs talking about the atonement in the light you understand, those ideas just do not hold-up under criticism. So to try and make more sense out of the scriptures, they have come up with a different way of seeing things. They are not necessarily saying they are correct, just different, another way of understanding the scriptures. Nothing really wrong with that.

I have a lot more to say, but no more time now. I hope this helps in some small way. I really should stay out of this.

I am truly sorry if you cannot see the requirement of Christ vicariously suffering for the sins of the world. You cant just pull out a verse out of the Bible the way that you do and have it mean something… Lets look up the context of your verse Hebrews 2:18. It goes from Hebrews 2:14-18.

“Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who hold the power of death – that is, the devil – and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death. For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham’s descendants. FOR THIS REASON HE HAS TO BE MADE LIKE HIS BROTHERS IN EVERY WAY, IN ORDER THAT HE MIGHT BE A MERCIFUL AND FAITHFUL HIGH PRIEST IN THE SERVICE OF GOD, AND THAT HE MIGHT MAKE ATONEMENT (reconciliation) FOR THE SINS OF THE PEOPLE. Because he himself suffered when he was tempted he is able to HELP (replaces succor) those who are being tempted.” (NIV)

He was ordained to take upon himself the sins of all men to make atonement for their sins. David A Bednar has explained clearly that, “in mortality we all are tempted by the natural man… In mortality we all are tempted by the flesh. The every element out of which our bodies were created is by nature fallen and ever subject to the pull of sin, corruption, and death.” He later states that, “Jesus Christ came to earth to die FOR US – THAT IS FUNDAMENTAL AND FOUNDATIONAL TO THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST.”

Mosiah 3:19 “For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been form the fall of Adam forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord.”
We have to put off the natural man in us but as Paul states there are two laws that exist in us, one being the law of God the other being the law of sin (Romans 7: 21-25). Please understand, because of our condition to the law of sin – and we sin on a daily basis – without Christ’s atonement IN BEHALF of us we can’t ever be cleansed of our sins. If it wasn’t for the atonement IN BEHALF of us we would be consigned to hell forever because we would have to suffer for our own sins. (2 Nephi 9)

“Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful men to be a SIN OFFERING. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, in order that the righteous REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW MIGHT BE FULLY MET in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit” (Romans 8: 1-4).

What I don’t understand is with all of these scriptures in their full context how one can say “His atonement may not substitute for sins, but it does cleanse us from sin and makes us one with God.” Yes, it does make us one with God, only by accepting his offering which he took on behalf of us can we EVER be reconciled to God. He was the eternal SIN OFFERING (as explained in Leviticus)! He took upon himself the sins, sorrows, infirmities, and frailties of man! He became the Lamb who took away the sins of the world (John 1:29)! He gave us the gift of having mercy and grace given to us by buying us with a price (1 Cor. 7:23)! All of this is fundamental and foundational to the Atonement, one cannot say that it doesn’t substitute for sin! Christ did because our works are never good enough and none of us is righteous enough to atone fully for our own sins to answer the law of justice upon us.

“For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted” (Hebrews 2:18).

“And he will take upon him death, that he may loose the bands of death which bind his people; 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” (Alma 7:12)

There is no requirement in these verses for Christ to have suffered exactly for every sin ever committed on every world God has created. There is a requirement for Christ to suffer “for us”, as explained in D&C 88:6:

“He that ascended up on high, as also he descended below all things, in that he comprehended all things, that he might be in all and through all things, the light of truth;”

He suffered so that he could go below all things. In doing this, he can raise all others up to the Father as the “light of truth.” He comprehends our pains, and in so doing can heal and save us.

This does not require a direct substitution of virtue for sin, though it may. It does require that Christ has placed himself in the position where he can restore us to God’s presence. He does this with the resurrection and the atonement, which literally means “at one ment” or of one mind. His atonement may not substitute for sins, but it does cleanse us from sin and makes us one with God.

Is your view of grace and being saved meant that is must be freely given to man without a cost? Whas is the better gift one that is freely given or one that is bought with a price?

I don’t deny substitution; I deny vicarious suffering for an incurred debt. And I don’t deny it vehemently; I deny only that it’s scriptural. As I said before, it may be true, but I can’t make any real sense of it—particularly because I can’t see how it doesn’t reenthrone works as the source of salvation.

In a word, I don’t deny that Christ died for us. Indeed, I testify that He did so! I deny only that that “for us” means “in our place within a juridical system that takes sin to be an incurred debt against an abstract and distinctly modern notion of (eternal) justice.”

“Then one day an inexperienced young teacher applied. He was told that every teacher had received an awful beating, but the teacher accepted the risk. The first day of school the teacher asked the boys to establish their own rules and the penalty for breaking the rules. The class came up with 10 rules, which were written on the blackboard. Then the teacher asked, ‘What shall we do with one who breaks the rules?’

“‘Beat him across the back ten times without his coat on,’ came the response.

“A day or so later, … the lunch of a big student, named Tom, was stolen. ‘The thief was located—a little hungry fellow, about ten years old.’

“As Little Jim came up to take his licking, he pleaded to keep his coat on. ‘Take your coat off,’ the teacher said. ‘You helped make the rules!’

“The boy took off the coat. He had no shirt and revealed a bony little crippled body. As the teacher hesitated with the rod, Big Tom jumped to his feet and volunteered to take the boy’s licking.

“‘Very well, there is a certain law that one can become a substitute for another. Are you all agreed?’ the teacher asked.

“After five strokes across Tom’s back, the rod broke. The class was sobbing. ‘Little Jim had reached up and caught Tom with both arms around his neck. “Tom, I’m sorry that I stole your lunch, but I was awful hungry. Tom, I will love you till I die for taking my licking for me! Yes, I will love you forever!”’” 8

President Hinckley then quoted Isaiah:

“Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows. …

“… He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.” 9

No man knows the full weight of what our Savior bore, but by the power of the Holy Ghost we can know something of the supernal gift He gave us. 10 In the words of our sacrament hymn:

We may not know, we cannot tell,
What pains he had to bear,
But we believe it was for us
He hung and suffered there. 11
He suffered so much pain, “indescribable anguish,” and “overpowering torture” 12 for our sake. His profound suffering in the Garden of Gethsemane, where He took upon Himself all the sins of all other mortals, caused Him “to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit.” 13 “And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly,” 14 saying, “O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.” 15 He was betrayed by Judas Iscariot and denied by Peter. He was mocked by the chief priests and officers; He was stripped, smitten, spat upon, and scourged in the judgment hall. 16

He was led to Golgotha, where nails were driven into His hands and feet. He hung in agony for hours on a wooden cross bearing the title written by Pilate: “JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.” 17 Darkness came, and “about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” 18 No one could help Him; He was treading the winepress alone. 19 Then “Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.” 20 And “one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.” 21 “The earth did quake” and “when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God.” 22 In the words of the hymn, “Let me not forget, O Savior, / Thou didst bleed and die for me.” 23 I wonder how many drops were shed for me.

James E Faust – http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2001/10/the-atonement-our-greatest-hope?lang=eng

Let me try to clarify my point here of how Christ’s atonement was vicarious for us. My argument is that it is a substitutionary atonement. This refers back to Christ dying as a substitute for sinners. The penalty for sin is death (Romans 6:23). This verse teaches several things to us. Without Christ dying in behalf of us, we are going to die, physically and spiritually and live forever under this condemnation.

2 Corinthians 5:21 “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” This states clearly Jesus died in our place on the cross. He did not deserve death because he knew no sin, yet the demands of justice was upon all mankind and the only way to take away the sins of the world was through a infinite and eternal sacrifice by one who knew no sin. He took the punishment of death upon himself in our place and substituted himself on our behalf to what we rightly deserve.

1 Peter 2:24 “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.” Here again we see Christ’s substitutional sacrifice for us by taking upon us our sins. He paid the price for us. And then also in 1 Peter 3:18 it states, “For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit.” Not only does this teach the vicarious atonement but it satisfies the payment due for the sinfulness of man.

Now for Isaiah 53:5, But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.” This verse talks about the coming of Christ who was to die on the cross for our sins. Notice the substitutional and vicarious definitions of these words “for our,” and “was upon him.” Christ paid the price for us!

We can only pay the price of sin on our own behalf by being punished and placed in hell (Romans 6:23). Because Christ did this we can be succored because we have a hope in Christ’s Atonement.

My apologies that I’m out of town and more or less unavailable for serious response—and will continue to be that way until early next week. Let me insert only this for the moment:

(1) Mike H. – It seems Robert has already done the hard work for me. I’m more than happy to say more about what I’m thinking here, but, as you’ll guess, can’t get to it for a few days.

(2) Chrislambe – You’ve misunderstood what I’m arguing in this post (and its predecessors). The whole point of this series is to try to argue that it is precisely (and only!) by grace that we’re saved. But part of that argument—and this, I take it, is where you actually disagree with me—is that the idea of vicarious suffering may, inadvertently, make it difficult actually to assert (with theological consistency) that we are saved by grace and not by our works. Jim, Rameumptum, and others have already helped to clarify that vicarious suffering for incurred debt is more read into than simply found in scripture. It may be the best reading, but that remains to be shown. If an assertion that grace can or even should be thought in other terms than vicarious suffering amounts to blasphemy, and if I (or we) can’t see why that’s so, you’re task is to instruct us charitably and patiently—if you care to, but, certainly, uncritical calls to repentance aren’t in order.

That said, it seems to me that the most deeply rooted difference between what I’m spelling out in these posts and what you’re assuming concerns the definition of sin. I emphatically reject the idea that we can save ourselves from our sins, as do you, but I wonder what you understand by “sin.”

The question has been whether the best explanation for the atonement is penitentiary substitution. Those you’ve been arguing with don’t think it is. You appear to think that it is. But you not only think it is, you think that the belief is doctrinal and have accused those of us who don’t believe it of being blasphemers–in spite of the fact that penitentiary substitution has never been declared to be doctrinal nor is it explicitly stated in the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, or the Pearl of Great Price.

So we are arguing about our understanding of how to explain the atonement. We are not arguing about the atonement or about the necessity of grace rather than works.

This is exactly what is wrong with theology: at its heart, it sets one of us against the other, creating divisions in the church. ("Division" is the original meaning of "heresy.")

Paul was more concerned with the divisions in the church at Corinth than he was with the particular disagreements about doctrine that were creating those divisions. He is as bothered by those who follow him as he is by those who followed Apollos, Cephas, and (to their understanding) Christ. His commandment was "that there be no divisions among you," not that everyone agree with each other about theology. He urges them to come together in the same purpose (KJV: judgment).

The same thing applies here. We may disagree about which explanations of things that we find most convincing, but we ought not to let that create divisions in the Church. Our purpose–carrying out the work of Christ on the earth through the vehicle he has provided, the Church–must remain the same for all of us, and it must remain paramount.

(And here is a link to the published version of the incarnational theory paper, which I guess came out in Violence Renounced: René Girard, Biblical Studies, and Peacemaking. And here is a link to several Giraradian papers looking specifically at Isaiah 53.)

Mike H., regarding Isaiah 53, I don’t have a great answer, but I’ll say two things: (1) I like N. T. Wright’s discussion of Isaiah 53 in the article I linked to above, though the discussion is prior to what I recommended reading. (2) I have been looking at this link to an Eastern Orthodox “Incarnational Theory of Atonement” that I really like so far, and that seems very consonant with Mormon scripture (esp. Alma 7). I’m anxious to think about this view more (and to study related participatory theories of atonement, esp. as articulated in this paper). Of course just giving these links is a lazy response on my part, but hopefully it’s helpful in some way, to someone….

Regarding Elder Faust, I love his teachings and I whole-heartedly sustain him. But I don’t think his teachings excuse me of my responsibility to search the scriptures myself, to ponder, study, pray, etc. And, in line with KenR’s comment #16, I think Elder Faust is giving one parable-like interpretation of the atonement, not the only (or a wholly satisfying theoretical) understanding of atonement, scripture, etc.

Adam’s transgression is not the same as original sin. His transgression does have a universal action which affects all humanity: we are (or will be) dead both physically and spiritually. There is nothing we alone can do about either situation. The resurrection saves us from physical death. The atonement saves us from spiritual death upon believing, repenting and entering into a covenant relationship with Christ.

We are separated from God because of sin. But Christ does not pay for our sins in the way you think. There is no payment for each individual sin we commit. Instead, he restores us to a sinless/guiltless point called justification. Then, we can seek to be sanctified through the purifying power of the Holy Ghost, which makes us holy and help determine our level of salvation.

I personally struggle with extending the concept of the Parable of the Creditor to completely explain the atonement. I struggle with the concepts of “The Law of Justice” and “The Law of Mercy” as they are commonly explained. I struggle for various reasons. First, neither are scriptural. If you read the scriptures closely they address the “demands of justice” and the “plan of mercy,” never are they “laws.” (The closest you will find is in Alma 34:16 which uses the phrase the “law of the demands of justice.”) I think the demands of justice are much different than our present explanation of the law of justice. Also, I feel the law of justice as it is commonly explained is not just. If there is an eternal law requiring suffering for every broken law, then why can we suffer if no law is broken? To me that would not be just. I don’t think we can separate the question of suffering with that of the atonement; they have to be part of the same unified theory.

I also struggle with the concept of “one or two drops of Christ’s blood paid for MY sins.” Again if we extend this concept, then He had a drop of His blood for everyone. However, the amount of blood He shed at Gethsemane was finite and it did end. You can’t have an infinite atonement with a finite amount of blood if it is applied in that manner. We really struggle with separating things literal and figurative.

The concept of the law of justice leads to a quid pro quo approach where an amount of suffering “pays” for a sin. As the amount of sin increases, so does the suffering. Interestingly the amount of sin that will occur in this world (and even all other worlds tied back to Christ) will be finite. We explain that by having an amount of suffering larger than this amount then the atonement is in effect “infinite.” I struggle with using a quantitative measure and labeling that as infinite. Clearly whatever number you can think of I can think of one that is larger. To become infinite cannot occur. If a quantitative atonement is not possible then we should change our thinking. Instead of being infinite in a quantitative way, I believe the atonement is infinite in a qualitative sense. Hence it is not the amount of suffering but the depth (descended below all things…).

I personally believe that while in the Garden of Gethsemane, Christ experienced a necessary and sufficient event that he can now offer us salvation. The extent of His sufferings is difficult for us to understand. I believe that somehow he was exposed to forces from beyond the veil that I can only understand as similar to a different sphere. We would describe that as a different dimension. For example, see Burton, Robert P. and Bruce F. Webster, Some Thoughts on Higher-Dimensional Realms, BYU Studies Vol. 20, No. 3 or Abbott, Edwin A., Flatland, a Romance of Many Dimensions. If any of us were to be put in that situation we would just vaporize. By being exposed to this “He comprehendeth all things, and all things are before him, and all things are round about him; and he is above all things, and in all things, and is through all things, and is round about all things; and all things are by him, and of him, even God, forever and ever.” (D&C 88:41) In this way he now becomes our Savior and can offer us exaltation. Hence the atonement is not just a saving atonement but an exalting atonement (difficult concept if we stay focused on the atonement simply satisfying the law of justice).

These references you provided were very helpful in understanding the view that doesn’t entail vicarious suffering–thank you for contributing them to the conversation.

I’m still curious about how to square this view with, for instance, Pres. Faust’s conference talk on the atonement. Also, I see that some have said there is an alternative reading of Isaiah 53 that is aligned with this view, but I’m not quite sure what that is. Any clarifying comments on those points would be appreciated.