Orontes
Master of the Horse
Are Christians bound by the Mosaic Law? You realize that the typical divide in the Bible is an Old and New Testament? Testament means covenant.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
God in mormonism
- Thread starter Kristoffer
- Start date
Are Christians bound by the Mosaic Law? You realize that the typical divide in the Bible is an Old and New Testament? Testament means covenant.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
"...Saved by grace through faith, the gift of God, not of works." - Ephesians 2
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
I think those verses meant what you said they meant. I think you are correct.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
I agree that we need to be careful about formulating doctrines off only a few verses.
I agree that we need cultural and historical context to grasp the scriptures accurately.
I agree that no one can be forced to Heaven. I'm currently, for example, speaking with some atheists and actually had one admit recently he has free will--they tend to be fatalists and predestinarian re: salvation as in "God will force me to be saved if He wishes". Anyone who wants to can reject the prompting(s) of God to be saved. Anyone can conversely respond to God and be saved.
I take it you do not believe in predestination regarding salvation based on your statements?
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
Christians aren't bound by the Mosaic Law. This covenant was established via blood, death and sacrifice, the same as the NT covenant(s). I was going to mention how testament means covenant but there are multiple covenants in each testament so I didn't want to confuse the issue.
Jesus died to establish a covenant or testament or "will with inheritance" for Christians. I find that substitutionary atonement presents some problems of logic for us, I see what you mean. Of course, since all sinners worthy of death - Romans chapters 1 through 3 - everyone who ever lived is going to Hell without Christ's intervention. Jesus was crucified of necessity.
I was asking how it is I can accept via an executor (the Holy Spirit) the benefits of a testament (salvation) and then return it after I find my inheritance unworthy? In human laws (proceeding logically) we can only inherit from the dead and then if we don't like our inheritance, bequeath it to another, but not the dead, original bequestor.
Thanda
Well-Known Member
So obviously then it is clear that without faith no one can be saved. Now let us analyse the word faith.
Faith means confidence or trust.
Therefore the scripture you quoted could be rewritten as "...Saved by grace through trust in God, the gift of God, not of works.", Now you would agree that trust comes by degrees wouldn't you? That is, one doesn't either trust someone or doesn't trust them - I might trust a stranger to give me directions to the local police station but I wouldn't trust them with the keys to my car. So then a tricky question comes up: how much trust in God is necessary in order to gain the grace necessary to be saved?
The answer to this question is answered by the Lord Jesus Christ in a few passages.
When Jesus was asked what the first and greatest commandment was, he had the following to say:Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. (Matt 22:37)
Then he also shared a couple of interesting parables in Matt 13:
44 ¶Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field.
45 ¶Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchant man, seeking goodly pearls:
46 Who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had, and bought it.
45 ¶Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchant man, seeking goodly pearls:
46 Who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had, and bought it.
You will notice that in each of these scriptures, one word keeps popping up - the word all. From this we can get the answer to our original question: how much trust must we have in God to be saved? The answer is we must have complete and unlimited trust in God in order to be saved. It is not enough to trust God with some things. Nor is sufficient to trust God with most things. It is not even sufficient to trust God with almost everything. We must trust God absolutely and completely in order to inherit the kingdom of heaven.
So then, even though may be saved by faith and not by works we are not saved by just any kind of faith. We are saved only by a firm, unshakable and all consuming faith. The kind of faith or trust where if God says "go shoot the president" and you know it is God speaking you will do it. Just as Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son in obedience to God. This kind of faith in God holds nothing back from him. We surrender our wills and all we are to him because we trust him or have faith in him. We become willing to keep all God's commandments and to stand as witnesses of him at all times, in all things and in all places we may be in. So the question of works becomes easy: we will do good works if we have this faith.
But then another question comes: how do we obtain this faith? The scripture you quoted indicates correctly that faith is a gift of God. But what do we know about gifts from God? I will refer to another parable of the Lord. It is the parables of the talents.
In the parable a man gives different amounts of talents to each of his servants. When the master comes back after a while he asks each servant to give an account of what they did with the talents. The two that had 5 and 2 talents had gone to work and done business in order gain more, over and above what they were given. The master was very pleased with these servants. Therefore what ever gift God gives us, he expects us to improve on it. Therefore what ever faith God grants us, he expects us to use it in order to gain more faith.
And this makes sense. If my brother, who has recently become a pilot, asks me to go on a plane trip with him, I will be hesitant. But if I exercise faith and fly with him and we have a smooth flight and a safe return: my faith in him will grow. The next time he asks me to fly with him I will be much less hesitant.
So clearly faith in God, though initially a gift, is a gift that we can expand and improve upon. But to do so it requires work - good works. In the parable of the talents, the servant who did not do any work to grow the talent he had received received this reply from his lord as recorded in Matt 25:
28 Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.
29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall betaken away even that which he hath.
30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall betaken away even that which he hath.
30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
So if we do not work to improve our faith,it will not be well with us at the day of Judgement.
So while it is true that we are saved by grace and that grace comes by faith - it is equally true that the kind of faith required to receive that grace comes by works as we improve upon the gift of faith we have initially received from God.
And this must be true since if the faith required came completely as a gift from God without any works, then we would have to question God as to why he gives the gift to some people and not to others.
Last edited:
Orontes
Master of the Horse
You are correct. Mormonism utterly rejects predestination. It is antithetical to morality.
Orontes
Master of the Horse
Per covenants: I think we agree. There are examples of covenants being made and coming to an end.
I don't conflate life with sin. Sin is a willful rejection of the good. It requires moral awareness. I don't think a baby is capable of such. Mormonism rejects Original Sin. It is an invention of St. Augustine One cannot inherit sin.
Per inheritance: technically, one can inherit before the benefactor has died. A benefactor can bequeath an inheritance in whole or a part at any time they wish. This was also the case in the Classical World. The parable of the prodigal son is a simple example. To your idea of not being able to give back an inheritance should the benefactor have died: yes. that is not possible. If one applies that notion to a salvation model where the inheritance is salvation: one is forced to admit that while one is mortal, they haven't yet received salvation (the inheritance). The world is not heaven. The most one could claim is a promise of such. Therefore, my earlier point still applies: one could have a promise for salvation, but still potentially lose it. Or, going back to the bus analogy: one could get on the bus, and also get off. The bus in not the final destination.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
Sorry, but it seems to me that if you take the ALL as prescriptive and not descriptive regarding salvation, that you must also take the "Be perfect" as prescriptive. You are now arguing my side of the issue for me, that our imperfection (we don't give ALL) is the emphasis, and the necessity is for substitutionary perfection via substitutionary atonement.
You and I would mess Heaven up by making mistakes. We must, therefore, be transformed.
I do agree. God will judge you and I based on how much we trust ourselves for salvation (reliance on works) and how much we trust Jesus for salvation. I became saved when I made a decision of the mind and will to trust Jesus only for salvation and not me--that is, grace--that is a gift with no works to earn the gift.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
That makes complete sense to me and is highly logical. I appreciate your wisdom and perspicuity (and Clear's) very much. You both are brilliant and I wish I had your tolls in my often poor toolbelt.
The bus was possibly a lousy analogy, so I'd ask this. If I said, "Sure, it's not justice the way I've laid it out, which is why it's a gift of grace... a gift made via propitiation, that is, that God's sacrifice has totally satisfied His righteous justice..." what might you think?
Thanda
Well-Known Member
It is both prescriptive and descriptive. We must be willing for God to change EVERY part of us. If there is any part of ourselves that we hold back - if we can have any favourite sins we don't wish to let go of - then we cannot be transformed to the necessary extent that will allow us to enter heaven. And to be willing we must trust God. And trust takes time to develop isn't it? Well at least for most people it does. And whoever is still working on developing that trust cannot say they have been saved: they can only say God is busy saving them. The process is ongoing, and whoever stops in the middle of the process will not become a finished product.
God transforms us according our faith / trust / willingness. The greater the faith the greater the transformation
Last edited:
Orontes
Master of the Horse
Clear is not only perspicuous, but he is also a champion clogger:
I agree the bus analogy didn't do your stance any favors.
Note the way you've explained the alternate: below are the operative elements:
God's sacrifice is not about justice.
It's an act of grace, a gift made via propitiation,
that satisfies His justice
Do you see the problem? You have the Divine sacrifice not tied to justice, but then ultimately assert that same sacrifice satisfies the very thing it's not about? This doesn't follow.
Even if you try and clean this positioning up, you have some serious issues to contend with. The atonement is central to Christian Thought. If you opt to remove it from justice, that has massive ramifications on one's base conceptions of Deity as the atonement is not a mortal act, but directly tied to Divine action. If God is not just or concerned with justice His core being comes into question. If justice applies, per the penal substitution model, you have to deal with the suffering of an innocent and the guilty going free.
The penal substitution model is very sticky. I don't think it is a salvageable stance. I think, rather than marrying yourself to it and running afoul of so many logical problems, it would be better to divorce. There are better atonement models out there.
Last edited:
I have not been disregarding this thread, but work got very busy and I got busy with important catch-up on my home chores. So, I only have a minute or two right now before returning to the grind.
Billiardsball said “I think those verses meant what you said they meant. I think you are correct. “ (post 223)
I am glad that we can agree on these very specific points. I apologize if it felt frustrating to arrive at this point of agreement. I might remind you that my own models of what is going on are tentative and evolve as I get more data and better historical understanding. That is, I assume that my own religious models have errors in them and am simply happy to find the errors and then re-adjust my models as to the details regarding what God is doing with mankind and how he is accomplishing this purpose.
Orontes said : “ Clear is not only perspicuous, but he is also a champion clogger “
Yes, clogging was my love when I was young and dreamed of clogging trophies and the many clogging groupies that came with world-wide fame. Unfortunately, I got into a fight with one of the beginning cloggers and she beat me up and I lost my confidence for several years and fell into a slump. (Don’t laugh, many second grade girls can be really tough…. I’ll never make fun of a girl in taps ever again.... Ever….).
Then, Puberty put a stop to my aspirations for professional yodeling and life had no meaning for a time. So, one day, I woke up, drunk, in a ditch, in south American and a couple of guys walked by and asked if I wanted to come “jam” and sing with them. So I did. Here’s our first try : https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=youtube+abrasame+camila&ei=UTF-8&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-003
The song is called "Abrazame" because, at the time, I needed a hug. I also wish I had combed my hair better when they taped us.
Regarding Ephesians 1.
I took a good look at this chapter in various greek manuscripts and am impressed that the writer inserts so many early theological base doctrines and themes in such a short space. I also felt sorry for the early translators, trying to render an English text for words that are so historically imbedded in and charged with early c.e. meaning and have no real English word-for-word equivalents.
Paul, in speaking to these converts in Ephesus skips over a lot of basic explanation as he touches upon multiple early doctrines. For example, he writes mainly, of God the Father and his plan, and then describes Jesus place in the Fathers plan. In doing so, refers to much of pre-creation theology that is common to restorational theology, but which the post exile Jewish Sages came to forbid, exclude, and abandon further study of, as the Talmud tells us. The difficulty this created is that descriptions of Gods’ plan and Jesus’ role as redeemer was determined and described in this very time period and in texts dealing with this time period. Excluding all texts and discussions of these themes left them without important context.
Theme examples : vs 3 introduced the subject, God : “Blessed be the God of our Lord Jesus Christ” (in B). This context reference to God the Father as the main character and Jesus’ role IN the Fathers plan remains the underlying context, (harkening back to the “pre-trinity” Christian model of the God-head). All the greek versions of the epistle consistently refers to “heaven” in the plural, i.e. “heavens” (actually, “high heavens” / celestial, etc 'επουρανιος' ) that was the common description in early Judeo-Christian texts rather than the single “heaven” of later Christian worldviews.
The text speaks of the Christ as a redeemer, which related to the central controversy in God’s original plan (i.e. sin and evil would be a part of creation), which required a redeemer as the central role in the accomplishment of Gods plan to morally educate the spirits of mankind, as the pre-creation texts tell us.
Vs 5 tells us “He (God) planned (outlined) our adoption through Jesus Christ. (υιοθεσιαν in vs 5 is not “his sons”, but is instead, it is the word for "adoption" (whether son OR daughter…) “according to the consent of his will.”
Vs 5 : I am not sure where to “put” the phrase “in love” (usually found in vs 5 depending on the N.T. version) since it may be inserted in vs 4 “even as he himself [F &G] chose us “in love” before the creation of the world.". Or it could be “he himself [F&G] “in love” chose us…., or it could be where the T.R. translators placed it... Since God’s plan itself was created because of his love for the pre-earth spirits of mankind which he had before he created the world, this word may refer to the earlier phrase. (Grammatically, there are multiple options.)
The concept of the Father having a pre-creation plan (vs 5) (described in early pre-creation texts) and “planning” to have spirits “adopted” through the redeemer, again, touches on pre-existence themes which post-exilic orthodox Jews eschewed and thus had lost knowledge of.
Since, the text speaks mainly of the Father, and anchors descriptions of Jesus’ role to the Father, I’ve wondered if the author did this because New Ephesian converts might have had a tendency to contaminate Jesus’ relationship to God the Father with prior religious beliefs and models or if there was another reason for this repeated contextual differentiation in this chapter.
For example : In vs 10, Paul refers to Gods plan and re-inserts Jesus into Gods cosmic plan in vs 10 as a “a manager (of an estate, a treasurer, etc) of the riches of the season, the chief manager of things in the heavens (plural) and things on earth.” All of these references have deep symbolic parallels to both early Christian texts and to restorational theology that are foreign to other theological models. I episodically wish that modern readers would think "favour" when reading "grace" since the modern word "grace" has come to have a different theological meaning attached to it that it did not have in early c.e. speech.
Perhaps Paul was trying to clarify the base tenets for the New Christian converts of Ephesus, or simply give them an overview (review..?) of base doctrines.
Oops, I hear the guard coming, gotta go. I'm putting in some tile and have to start grouting.... again....
Clear
δρτωακσεω
Billiardsball said “I think those verses meant what you said they meant. I think you are correct. “ (post 223)
I am glad that we can agree on these very specific points. I apologize if it felt frustrating to arrive at this point of agreement. I might remind you that my own models of what is going on are tentative and evolve as I get more data and better historical understanding. That is, I assume that my own religious models have errors in them and am simply happy to find the errors and then re-adjust my models as to the details regarding what God is doing with mankind and how he is accomplishing this purpose.
Orontes said : “ Clear is not only perspicuous, but he is also a champion clogger “
Yes, clogging was my love when I was young and dreamed of clogging trophies and the many clogging groupies that came with world-wide fame. Unfortunately, I got into a fight with one of the beginning cloggers and she beat me up and I lost my confidence for several years and fell into a slump. (Don’t laugh, many second grade girls can be really tough…. I’ll never make fun of a girl in taps ever again.... Ever….).
Then, Puberty put a stop to my aspirations for professional yodeling and life had no meaning for a time. So, one day, I woke up, drunk, in a ditch, in south American and a couple of guys walked by and asked if I wanted to come “jam” and sing with them. So I did. Here’s our first try : https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=youtube+abrasame+camila&ei=UTF-8&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-003
The song is called "Abrazame" because, at the time, I needed a hug. I also wish I had combed my hair better when they taped us.
Regarding Ephesians 1.
I took a good look at this chapter in various greek manuscripts and am impressed that the writer inserts so many early theological base doctrines and themes in such a short space. I also felt sorry for the early translators, trying to render an English text for words that are so historically imbedded in and charged with early c.e. meaning and have no real English word-for-word equivalents.
Paul, in speaking to these converts in Ephesus skips over a lot of basic explanation as he touches upon multiple early doctrines. For example, he writes mainly, of God the Father and his plan, and then describes Jesus place in the Fathers plan. In doing so, refers to much of pre-creation theology that is common to restorational theology, but which the post exile Jewish Sages came to forbid, exclude, and abandon further study of, as the Talmud tells us. The difficulty this created is that descriptions of Gods’ plan and Jesus’ role as redeemer was determined and described in this very time period and in texts dealing with this time period. Excluding all texts and discussions of these themes left them without important context.
Theme examples : vs 3 introduced the subject, God : “Blessed be the God of our Lord Jesus Christ” (in B). This context reference to God the Father as the main character and Jesus’ role IN the Fathers plan remains the underlying context, (harkening back to the “pre-trinity” Christian model of the God-head). All the greek versions of the epistle consistently refers to “heaven” in the plural, i.e. “heavens” (actually, “high heavens” / celestial, etc 'επουρανιος' ) that was the common description in early Judeo-Christian texts rather than the single “heaven” of later Christian worldviews.
The text speaks of the Christ as a redeemer, which related to the central controversy in God’s original plan (i.e. sin and evil would be a part of creation), which required a redeemer as the central role in the accomplishment of Gods plan to morally educate the spirits of mankind, as the pre-creation texts tell us.
Vs 5 tells us “He (God) planned (outlined) our adoption through Jesus Christ. (υιοθεσιαν in vs 5 is not “his sons”, but is instead, it is the word for "adoption" (whether son OR daughter…) “according to the consent of his will.”
Vs 5 : I am not sure where to “put” the phrase “in love” (usually found in vs 5 depending on the N.T. version) since it may be inserted in vs 4 “even as he himself [F &G] chose us “in love” before the creation of the world.". Or it could be “he himself [F&G] “in love” chose us…., or it could be where the T.R. translators placed it... Since God’s plan itself was created because of his love for the pre-earth spirits of mankind which he had before he created the world, this word may refer to the earlier phrase. (Grammatically, there are multiple options.)
The concept of the Father having a pre-creation plan (vs 5) (described in early pre-creation texts) and “planning” to have spirits “adopted” through the redeemer, again, touches on pre-existence themes which post-exilic orthodox Jews eschewed and thus had lost knowledge of.
Since, the text speaks mainly of the Father, and anchors descriptions of Jesus’ role to the Father, I’ve wondered if the author did this because New Ephesian converts might have had a tendency to contaminate Jesus’ relationship to God the Father with prior religious beliefs and models or if there was another reason for this repeated contextual differentiation in this chapter.
For example : In vs 10, Paul refers to Gods plan and re-inserts Jesus into Gods cosmic plan in vs 10 as a “a manager (of an estate, a treasurer, etc) of the riches of the season, the chief manager of things in the heavens (plural) and things on earth.” All of these references have deep symbolic parallels to both early Christian texts and to restorational theology that are foreign to other theological models. I episodically wish that modern readers would think "favour" when reading "grace" since the modern word "grace" has come to have a different theological meaning attached to it that it did not have in early c.e. speech.
Perhaps Paul was trying to clarify the base tenets for the New Christian converts of Ephesus, or simply give them an overview (review..?) of base doctrines.
Oops, I hear the guard coming, gotta go. I'm putting in some tile and have to start grouting.... again....
Clear
δρτωακσεω
Last edited:
Orontes
Master of the Horse
I knew you were a clogger. I could tell.
Orontes
You mentioned that you were aware of several theoretical models that described mechanisms underlying the atonement of Jesus for mankind. I am fairly ignorant of many later theories and how they compare to early theology. Can you describe the various models and their theoretical mechanisms? You do not need to go into great depth, but I am quite curious regarding what models exist and the basic logic and rationale underlying them.
Thanks in advance.
Clear
דרתזתזתז
You mentioned that you were aware of several theoretical models that described mechanisms underlying the atonement of Jesus for mankind. I am fairly ignorant of many later theories and how they compare to early theology. Can you describe the various models and their theoretical mechanisms? You do not need to go into great depth, but I am quite curious regarding what models exist and the basic logic and rationale underlying them.
Thanks in advance.
Clear
דרתזתזתז
Orontes
Master of the Horse
Happy to. Below are some of the more common atonement models. I'll put them in a general historical pattern.
The Ransom Theory: This is actually the oldest standard atonement model It held sway in early Christian circles up to the late 11th Century. There are various nuances to it, but the base thrust is that Christ paid (through His atonement) a ransom to the Devil for mankind's souls. Origen and Gregory of Nyssa are two examples of Patristic Fathers who held this view. There are a variety of scriptures that were used to support this position. Two examples:
For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's. 1 Cor 6:20
For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. - Mark 10:45
For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. - Mark 10:45
The idea turns on mankind being slaves to sin and captives of the Devil. Christ offers Himself in our place. The Devil accepted thinking he'd won a more valuable prize, but he was deceived. He hadn't considered, or fully understood, that Christ as the Son of God was not bound by death and could rise again, resurrected and Master. C.S Lewis used this model in his first Narnia book.
The view fell out of favor because many found it distasteful that Christ had to resort to a type of trickery to best the Devil, and/or is suggested God couldn't simply overpower Satan anytime He wanted to.
The Satisfaction Theory: This was developed by Anselm of Canterbury (11th Century). It became a popular model as a replacement for the Ransom Theory in Western Christendom. It presupposes a feudal structure on the Divine order. God is seen as a feudal lord at the top of the structure. All beneath Him are duty bound to Him, just as a knight, peasant or serf would be to those above them in the social order. Under this model God's honor has been wronged by man's sins. One's acts are not theirs alone, but reflect back on those one is beholden to. In a Modern context, think of a child doing something wrong, and the whole family being maligned because of the act of one of its members. Thus, the sinner's acts reflect back on God and injures His reputation and integrity. Therefore, God as an injured party can demand redress to restore His honor. This can be done by either punishing those who impugned His honor, or by a third party. However, because Deity's honor and integrity is infinite, no man cold properly satisfy the proper demand (satisfaction must be proportionate to the impugned honor). Only God therefore could satisfy this demand, but the breach came through man, so a man must do it. So, God offered Himself in the flesh (becoming God-man) who through His sinless and infinite sacrifice could satisfy the demands of justice.
The difficulty with this model is the honor seems self-centered. Deity act's for His own interests, and not those of others, which is contrary to God loving His children.
The Moral Influence Theory: This was developed by Peter Abelard (12th Century) as a response to the Satisfaction Theory. Abelard saw the primary failure of the Satisfaction Theory in that it does nothing to address or change man's nature, it only satisfies a Divine wounded honor. Deity does not need to be affected by the atonement, rather man must be changed so they can commune with the Divine. Sin is seen as an alienation because men know in their soul the wrong they have done and therefore separate themselves from the holy (fleeing from His presence, like Adam and Eve in the Garden).
Through Christ's willing death as God, it demonstrates man has nothing to fear, because He loves us. Christ's entire life and its culmination in His death is meant to be a testament of His love for us. Christ's death is taken as the ultimate consequence of man's refusal to let go of fear and shame: through it man can fully accept His love.
The difficulty is it doesn't explain how Christ bears our sins or why Christ's suffering makes forgiveness possible.
The Moral Example Theory: Developed by Faustus (1539-1604) and Laelius Socinius (1525-1562). The focus is on Christ's humanity. The atonement is seen as the most beautiful of expressions, not of God's love for man, but a man's love of God. Thus, this ultimate act is a model to inspire all men to the full capacity of love that is within them. One of the scriptures used to explain the view:
For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: 1 peter 2:21
The Governmental Theory: Put forward by Hugo Grotius (1683-1645). Grotius was a jurist and the Modern founder of international law. This penchant informs his atonement theory. God is the source of law. Law was given to men for the benefit of all. The violation of law through sin requires punishment. It cannot simply be dismissed as that would undercut the lawful order of the universe and society. Therefore a just being must punish sin in order to maintain the integrity of His word found in and through the law. Even so, God wants to forgive his subjects because He is also merciful. Thus Christ was sent to die to show the seriousness of violating the law. Christ's atonement acts as an example by showing the punishment for sin and what happens in the absence of repentance. It has a deterrent function. It also objectively satisfies Divine justice, because He maintains the lawful order while showing mercy.
Penal Substitution Theory: primarily the product of John Calvin (1509-1564). This is what I've engaged in the thread with Master Billiards. The key element is God's holiness that cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance. God is unable to forgive violations of His law as it would contradict His own holy nature and justice. There must be punishment, or there is no justice. Because God is also merciful, He accepts a substitute sacrifice on the sinner's behalf. This is the role of Christ. When one is justified by grace, it is not the person, but Christ's righteousness: His merit and sinlessness in and through which judgment is passed. In the words of Millard J. Erickson "Christ died to satisfy the justice of God's nature. He rendered satisfaction to the Father so that we might be spared for the just deserts of our sins".
My critique of this stance has been it violates justice in that the innocent ought not to suffer and the guilty ought not to go free. It also assumes guilt can be transferred.
There are others, what I laid out are some of the more traditional options. I don't hold to any of the above. You will find Mormons who adhere, if not by name, then by content views that are mirrored in the traditional stances I noted above. For example Stephen Robinson who's popular book Believing Christ basically lays out a penal substitution model of the atonement. He has an example of a bicycle that is often referred to in explaining the atonement. I think it is fundamentally confused.
Is that helpful?
If you want me to lay out the atonement model I hold to, I can do that.
Orontes
Thank you, your summary was quite helpful and insightful. I think the realization that there can be so many different models of even the most basic, yet central point of the Christian atonement should be a humbling reminder of what few things we truly know about the details of the atonement. It was helpful and yes, I would like to read about the model of the atonement you feel is most correct and rational. Thank you in advance.
Clear
δρδρσεσιω
Thank you, your summary was quite helpful and insightful. I think the realization that there can be so many different models of even the most basic, yet central point of the Christian atonement should be a humbling reminder of what few things we truly know about the details of the atonement. It was helpful and yes, I would like to read about the model of the atonement you feel is most correct and rational. Thank you in advance.
Clear
δρδρσεσιω
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
What is the difference between being "willing for God to change every part of us" and being "willing for Jesus Christ to save every part of us"? Are we really arguing over semantics here? That it's not what we actually do but what we're willing or wanting to do? Because I don't know any person who is already totally perfected--apart from Jesus Christ.
Last edited:
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
It follows well--Paul says in Romans 3, "This was to demonstrate His righteousness... that He might be just AND the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus."
I'm not trying to break your chops, but if you would please provide an alternative model you think is sensical...early in this thread you said something like, "LDS has at least nine alternative views on atonement..."?
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
The annual scapegoat, where the priest placed his hands on it to transmit/transmute the sins of Israel as a type of Christ...? That isn't a foreshadowing of a transfer of guilt?
Jesus was cursed for our guilt though innocent, for it was written, "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree..."