Christs Sacrifice

[LT04]

Hey all,

I was sitting in sacrament meeting today trying to grasp Christs sacrifice like I was taught in Sunday school. Then a question came to mind I'm hoping some one could fill me in.

The sacrament part of sacrament meeting is a symbolistic reinactment of Christs last supper. He made it a point to let his apostles know he would sacrifice his body and blood.

I was wondering if he gave his body / life for my salvation what did he give his blood for? Am I reading to deep into this? Or is there a valid need for having both his body and his blood represented in sacrament meeting?

I stumped many an Elder today with this question on and off missions. I was interested in what this forum had to say I always value your opinions and helping hands.

-LT04

[MaidservantX]

The Sacrament is for the purpose of continuing to receive the merits and power of the atonement in our daily (weekly) lives so that we can remain sinless. I submit to you, that one cannot remain sinless (from their baptism) without the Sacrament covenant and WITH the Sacrament covenant, it is the means to renew our condition of sinlessness (through the atonement's power), if we allow it to (requires sincere repentence and a striving for obedience, etc).

There is so much I could say about this, but let me point your mind to only one thing, and that is the need to be born again. To be born again requires flesh, blood, water and spirit, just as a real birth does. These elements (symbolically at least) are present in the baptism/ Sacrament ordinance(s).

by the way, the Sacrament and its purpose has endless and depthless meanings. There will never just be one answer to this sort of thing. A lifetime of study and pondering and revelation will continue to uncover priceless truths and power.

[Palerider]

always remember each time you partake of the sacrament....you are renewing the covenants you made at Baptism.

[a-train]

The ancient Israelites were commanded to 'offer a male without blemish: he shall offer it of his own voluntary will at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD. And he shall put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him. And he shall kill the bullock before the LORD: and the priests, Aaron’s sons, shall bring the blood, and sprinkle the blood round about upon the altar that is by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.' (Levi. 1:3-5)

In all cases the blood was spilled and the flesh was seperately burned upon the altar. However, in the instance of the sin offering an additional unique facet is presented in the sacrifice. For 'the priest that offereth it for sin shall eat it: in the holy place shall it be eaten, in the court of the tabernacle of the congregation' (Levi. 6:26) and 'All the males among the priests shall eat thereof: it is most holy' (Levi 6:29)

Through the death of the sacrificial animal, life was given to the priests who in turn bore the iniquity of Israel in the temple. The blood (which was the life of the sacrifice) was spilled outside the temple by the sinner (not the priest), away from God's throne in the outer court which refers to the telestial or that which is farthest from God's presence. And although it was not partaken of, it was necessarily spilled in order to obtain the flesh.

On the Day of Atonement, the priests performed the great sacrifices that atoned for all Israel, which also took off from the priests the burden of the sins which they bore all year. In Leviticus 16 we learn of this sacrifice wherein 'two goats' are presented 'before the LORD at the door of the tabernacle'. Lots were cast by the priest, the goat upon which fell the lot of the LORD was then sacrificed and it's blood carried by the high priest to the throne of God to be sprinkled upon the mercy seat.

The Saviour, our Great High Priest shed His own blood from every pore and took upon Himself the sins of all the world in the garden at Gethsemane. It is here that He was farthest from the throne of God in suffering spiritual separation from God in a manner unfathomable to our finite perceptability here in this telestial world. He suffered there in spirit the ends of the law of God and on the following day he suffered in the flesh the ends of the laws of man.

As the people chose Barabbas (which means 'Son of the Father') as the benefactor of their clemency, Christ remained to be crucified by sinners, His flesh being broken, but as was forbidden in the ancient sacrifices and marked by John 'a bone of him [was] not broken' (John 19:36)

We, today, take the broken bread in rememberance of the sacrifice of His body and then the water by which we remember His blood. Through this we are reminded of both His physical and spiritual sacrifice; and we take into us the saving power of the new covenant which is both spiritual and physical being cleansed from within rather than taking into us transgression under the old carnal law that it may be hidden from without.

As it is written: 'the first shall be last, and the last shall be first', even so the ancient sacrifices pointed forward to Christ in rich symbolism and our ordinances today point back at Him in the same manner.

I hope this will give you a little start, for it is only a tiny semblance of what is contained in the ordinances we so often perform.

GOD BLESS

-a-train

[CrimsonKairos]

Good question LT04. The reason he gave his blood in addition to his life is that his blood is his life.

Leviticus 17:11 "For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul."

I personally don't view the atonement the way most members do. Most members believe Christ's atonement is a penal-substitution. In other words, Christ receives all of our whippings in our place and therefore justice can be done while granting us mercy. I think this view is flawed.

Christ's atonement overpowers justice; it doesn't fulfill it (Alma 34:15).

I believe the purest mercy is shown because we feel pity or sorrow for the suffering of another being. Furthermore, I believe the deepest, sharpest suffering is suffering which is not deserved...an injustice. Thus, the only way to arouse a fulness of mercy is by arousing a fulness of pity or sorrow, and the only way to do that is with the ultimate injustice.

What would the ultimate injustice be? How about a perfectly righteous being (God no less) being killed for their righteousness and kindness? Christ was killed because of his righteousness...his power threatened the Jewish spiritual leaders, his doctrine confused the hard-hearted, and his cleansing of the temple infuriated the aristocratic Sadduccees.

This is reflected perfectly in the Law of Moses, speaking of the sacrificial animals. What criteria did the priests and people use in selecting their sacrifices? Almost universally, it was required that the sacrifice be (physically) spotless. In other words, the animal was killed for being "perfect."

So Christ suffered the ultimate injustice by being convicted of wickedness worthy of death when in fact he was the most perfectly righteous being ever to live on this earth, worthy of praise and gratitude, not the cross.

For Christ to be able to invoke his suffering effectively, and thus arouse pity in the Father's heart on our behalf, Christ had to have done it by himself. To have sole claim on God's pity and mercy, Jesus had to be able to say, "I suffered this by myself. No one helped me, I bore the injustice alone." Christ was not alone in Gethsemane...an angel was sent to comfort him. However, on the cross Jesus uttered that heart-wrenching query: "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" On the cross, Jesus was alone spiritually, cut off from God's presence as well as the Spirit's in a way he never had been.

I believe the cross is far more significant than most LDS members do. For one, most members think that in Gethsemane Christ received the "spiritual whippings" for all our sins and that's what made him bleed. I don't believe that, though I used to. Why? Because in Gethsemane Christ had comfort and help from an angel...that removed Jesus's ability to say, "I have trodden the winepress alone," (D&C 76:107). The need for the High Priest to offer the sacrifice alone is emphasized by the fact that the High Priest--on the Day of Atonement--was the only one allowed into the Holy of Holies to sprinkle the sacrificial blood on the Mercy Seat (i.e. God's Throne).

So what went on in Gethsemane? I believe it was there that Jesus "suffered our pains, afflictions, temptations, etc..." (Isaiah 53:4; Mosiah 3:7; Alma 7:11) in order to be able to say to us, "I know where it hurts, and I know how it hurts, I've been there and beyond what you can endure...blood came from every pore so great was my suffering." As Paul said, Christ is the perfect High Priest because he was touched with the feeling of our infirmities. I'm referring to any and every physical, spiritual, emotional and mental pain, disease or discomfort we experience in this life that is NOT the result of sin.

In other words, Jesus can say to the schizophrenic, "I know what it's like," because I believe in Gethsemane Jesus willingly subjected himself to what the schizophrenic goes through, or what someone with crippling mulitple-sclerosis experiences, or what it's like to sprain your ankle, etc... I believe it was this overload of pain and sensation on Christ's body that caused his capillaries to burst and push blood out through the pores of his skin. I do not believe this was necessarily the "paying for our sins" that is talked about so much in the Church. Surely someone will point to D&C 19 which links Christ's suffering for our sins and his bleeding from every pore, but I think the verses following that are often ignored and instructive.

So I believe Gethsemane was necessary for Christ to fully understand us and be able to perfectly minister to us; it was there that Christ "descended below all things, in that he comprehended all things, that he might be in all and through all things..." (D&C 88:6). However, I believe the injustice which arouses mercy in God's heart for Christ's sake took place on the cross.

Most members think Christ's atonement allows him to take our whipping in our place.

I believe Christ's atonement removes the need for anyone to be whipped, whether Christ or us (if we're repentant).

We aren't forgiven because Christ "did our time" for us in "spirit prison." Paul says that, "...God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you." (Eph. 4:32). Also, listen to what Christ himself says to the Father when interceding for us:

"Listen to him who is the advocate with the Father, who is pleading your cause before him—

"Saying: Father, behold the sufferings and death of him who did no sin, in whom thou wast well pleased; behold the blood of thy Son which was shed, the blood of him whom thou gavest that thyself might be glorified;

"Wherefore, Father, spare these my brethren that believe on my name, that they may come unto me and have everlasting life." (D&C 45:3-5)

That sounds like Christ saying, "Consider the injustice I endured, the suffering and death of one who did no sin but was convicted for sinning and executed as a criminal and blasphemer...forgive so-and-so for my sake..."

That does NOT sound like Christ saying, "Consider how I've taken all of so-and-so's whippings for him and served his sentence in spirit prison, and how justice has been fulfilled; now that there's no penalty to be paid, forgive so-and-so and everything will be equal..."

So anyway, the point of this whole post is this: The life of every being is symbolized by and contained in their blood (Lev. 17:11), so Christ had to suffer unjustly and have his blood shed by wicked men in order to work out an atonement capable of arousing pity so powerful in God's heart that if we repent and Christ asks on our behalf, God will forgive any sin we may have committed (except the one for which there can be no forgiveness).

One last note: If Christ's atonement really is a penal-substitution (look the term up on wiki for more info), it would have made more sense on the Day of Atonement for the High Priest to lay his hands on the sacrificial goat's head, confess Israel's sins on it, and then kill it and sprinkle it's blood on the Mercy Seat in the Holy of Holies. That would symbolize our sins and their punishments being heaped upon Christ, who then died to "pay for them."

But that's not what happens. The blood of the sacrificial goat is sprinkled on the Mercy Seat in the Holy of Holies, and only then, once the High Priest has made intercession in God's presence for the covenant people, only then are the sins confessed on the head of another, living goat who is then released alive and well into the wilderness, specifically a place not inhabited. Here's the actual instructions:

"And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat, and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the wilderness:

"And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness." (Lev. 16:21-22).

To me, that symbolizes that once Christ has interceded on our behalf, our sins are forgotten, the charges against us are dismissed, and our transgressions are sent away to a land without people and without memory...neither Christ nor us must suffer the specific punishment for those sins which we repent of...they are forgotten.

To God alone the glory!

It is [in Gethsemane] that He was farthest from the throne of God...

As outlined above, I slightly disagree with this summary, but I don't discount the importance or gravity of Christ's suffering in Gethsemane, even taking into account the source of comfort and support the angel must have been in that dark place.

[LT04]

Thank you all for your insights,

OK so in a nut shell Christs sacrifice of blood / water is a symbol of his suffering in Gethsemane. Christs sacrifice of body / bread is a symbol of his physical sacrifice upon the cross.

====

Xhenli,

"by the way, the Sacrament and its purpose has endless and depthless meanings. There will never just be one answer to this sort of thing. A lifetime of study and pondering and revelation will continue to uncover priceless truths and power."

I agree whole hartedly. I always enjoy sacrament when I leave with a question like this one, that can inspire conversations like this one. Although there have only been 5 posts in response to this question the wealth of knowledge posted here is a bit over overwhelming.

I thank you for your timely response, I greatly appreciate your insights. They inspire me to look at things in ways I wouldn't have before.

-LT04

[CrimsonKairos]

I actually don't think the water in the sacrament is symbolic of Gethsemane at all.

The wording of the blessing on the water uses the phrase, "...the blood of Thy Son, which was shed for them..."

To me, shedding blood refers to murder or killing or attacking someone. Bloodshed, similarly, refers to killing or death.

So I think Christ's "blood was shed," when he was nailed to the cross on Calvary and ultimately when he died there. I'm not talking about the blood that would have come from the nail wounds in his hands, wrists and feet.

I believe the phrase, "blood, which was shed for them," is symbolic of Christ's murder and as I detailed in an earlier post, it was this undeserved and infinitely unjust murder that gives Christ's sacrifice power to arouse mercy on our behalf.

It is the ultimate injustice that was done to Christ, which can overpower what justice would do to us.

Similarly: Christ's atonement brings mercy to the repentant and justice to the unrepentant.

[a-train]

It is here in the telestial world that Christ is farthest from the throne of God. 'Tele' is a prefix denoting distant, remote, or far away. In otherwords, Christ came here to the telestial world to be sacrificed as was indicated by the killing of beasts having been done in the outer court anciently. Sorry for any ambiguity.

-a-train

[MaidservantX]

LT, my friend . . . there's no nutshell, here, lol.

a-train and CK, this is amazing stuff. I do want to say that the one point I would change a little, in my mind, from what you have to say, CK, (although everything else you said takes me to a new level) is that the Father does not need anything to arouse pity in his heart (I refer you to the book of Enoch, or rather the book of Moses). To me, this makes it sound that God is going to change the rules to allow something unclean into his presence simply because his pity is of such a magnitude based upon what his Son did. I'm sure you would not mean to say that. So . . . how I would put it is that -- the atonement is not just so the Father would FEEL emotionally merciful . . . rather, the atonement literally affected the conditions of space and time, at whatever basic nature or particle known and unknown, so that the ends of the law had their satisfaction. This law is not a law of policing and statute as we think of it. It is a law of matter, like gravity. There is a material consequence to our acts (spirit is matter in this context). Those consequences cause us to deteriorate and disorganize as beings, unless we have a way to receive more energy and intelligence, which comes from Christ and his atonement. As well, all the 'conservation of energy' stuff that we have screwed up by our LIFE -LESS acts was diverted from the universe at large and our personal lives (which not really penal substitution in my mind), and placed upon the Savior -- that's why and how he experienced what he did; and also btw, why the necessity for the infinity of it (infinite matter and material consequences, infinite atonement). And how we become clean, or have the possibility of becoming so, through ordinances.

Other than the marvelous scriptures you two have brought forth, here are a couple of other good ones, related to what I am saying.

3 Ne 27:10 - 20

1 John 1:7

2 Ne 9:5 - 27

2 Ne 11: 4 - 7

D & C 29: 30 - 47

[LT04]

Thanks for all the info. I'll get back to you in... oh, lets say a week after I go over all the information you kind folks gave if I have any questions, thanks

-LT04

[CrimsonKairos]

a-train: Sorry I misunderstood your post. I get the outer court/telestial sphere connection. Thanks.

...the Father does not need anything to arouse pity in his heart (I refer you to the book of Enoch, or rather the book of Moses).

True, but I think you missed my point as to why a fulness of pity must be aroused in God's heart. It's one thing to pity someone's situation, it's another matter entirely for that pity to transform into mercy for the undeserving (i.e. us).

The point of arousing pity in God's heart is so that He'll not only forgive our sins (dismiss the punishments, forget our errors, et al), but in addition, so that God will not object to Jesus sanctifying us to the point that we are no longer unclean, sin-stained souls, but clean and innocent and worthy of returning to the Father's presence...to be "at one" with Him in the highest sense possible.

So often the atonement is only discussed in terms of ridding ourselves of the punishments of our sins. But that alone simply makes us "guilty but forgiven." No one who's guilty of sinning can dwell in the Father's presence (D&C 1:31). To dwell with God we must have our innocence renewed, to literally be made as perfect as Jesus was and is in terms of obedience. We must have a perfect, flawless record. The only one with such a record who can share it with us is Jesus.

So for me, the atonement does two main things in terms of preparing us to dwell with God:

1.) It dismisses justice's demands that we be punished for the sins we repent of; and,

2.) It removes objections to our being sanctified and made worthy of dwelling with God, even though we don't deserve to.

To me, this makes it sound that God is going to change the rules to allow something unclean into his presence simply because his pity is of such a magnitude based upon what his Son did.

Precisely, except that we become clean through Christ's blood. I believe the process goes like this:

1.) We sin.

2.) We repent.

3.) Christ sanctifies us and renews our innocence and worthiness.

4.) Christ intercedes on our behalf with God, and asks Him to accept our sanctification despite our being unworthy of it (i.e. we're imperfect).

5.) For Christ's sake, God allows Christ to make unworthy beings, worthy to dwell with Him--provided their repentance is real and their behavior has changed accordingly.

...the atonement literally affected the conditions of space and time, at whatever basic nature or particle known and unknown, so that the ends of the law had their satisfaction.

I disagree that the ends of the law have satisfaction, if by that you mean justice's demands are fulfilled. I don't think the punishment for sin is meted out if Christ's atonement is operative in our lives. I believe justice's demands are withdrawn, for Christ's sake and upon our sincere repentance and change of heart.

It is a law of matter, like gravity. There is a material consequence to our acts (spirit is matter in this context). Those consequences cause us to deteriorate and disorganize as beings, unless we have a way to receive more energy and intelligence, which comes from Christ and his atonement.

Interesting beliefs, though I'm not sure they're accurate. What do you base these beliefs on (i.e. which scriptures/teachings)? I've never heard that our sins cause us to deteriorate.

As well, all the 'conservation of energy' stuff that we have screwed up by our LIFE -LESS acts was diverted from the universe at large and our personal lives (which not really penal substitution in my mind), and placed upon the Savior -- that's why and how he experienced what he did; and also btw, why the necessity for the infinity of it (infinite matter and material consequences, infinite atonement).

Again, not sure I buy into this line of thinking, mostly because I've never read anything that would support it. Have I missed something? What leads you to believe this way?

[a-train]

Crimson,

The concept of the deterioration of beings in consequence of sin sounds a little like something I remember out of Temple and Cosmos.

Now you served a mission and you are in your twenties right? Maybe you are just barely to young, but do you remember Boyd K. Packer's Conference talk on the Atonement from which a seminary video was made? I think it was called The Mediator.

I saw it in seminary around 1993 or so. The video showed a young man in ancient times who went into a large debt and couldn't pay it. The Saviour ends up paying the debt for him at the end. Do you know of this video? More importantly, do you know of the talk I upon which it was based? Anyone else?

-a-train

[CrimsonKairos]

I absolutely know that of which you speak. :)

I think it does a great job demonstrating that Jesus is the only one who can get us out of the trouble we get ourselves into by sinning.

However, I don't think the parable of the mediator is an accurate portrayal of all of the aspects of the atonement. In other words, it's symbolic, not literal. When we sin, we don't actually swipe a spiritual credit card at the Pleasure-Mart and incur a spiritual debt which only Christ can pay off with his unlimited funds.

The consequences of sin are usually a loss of the Spirit and becoming unclean to some degree. That has nothing to do with dollars and cents. Christ can't become "unclean for us" to "pay the price of our sins," so that can't be what his atonement is about.

Either Christ has to become unclean in our place, or Christ has to make us clean and remove the need for us to be punished.

I believe his atonement does the latter for the repentant.

[LukeAir2006]

The talk by Boyd K. Packer to which you refer is from the April 1977 General Conference. It is called 'The Mediator'. It is a simple parable that illustrates succinctly the laws of justice and mercy. Christ as Mediator of the Covenant satisfied both laws through the Atonement. Justice, which demands payment for all broken laws, was satisfied through the shedding of the blood of one who was perfect and also the literal Son of God. Mercy could then be extended to all who are repentant and willing to enter into a covenant with the Mediator.

Let me tell you a story—a parable.

There once was a man who wanted something very much. It seemed more important than anything else in his life. In order for him to have his desire, he incurred a great debt.

He had been warned about going into that much debt, and particularly about his creditor. But it seemed so important for him to do what he wanted to do and to have what he wanted right now. He was sure he could pay for it later.

So he signed a contract. He would pay it off some time along the way. He didn’t worry too much about it, for the due date seemed such a long time away. He had what he wanted now, and that was what seemed important.

The creditor was always somewhere in the back of his mind, and he made token payments now and again, thinking somehow that the day of reckoning really would never come.

But as it always does, the day came, and the contract fell due. The debt had not been fully paid. His creditor appeared and demanded payment in full.

Only then did he realize that his creditor not only had the power to repossess all that he owned, but the power to cast him into prison as well.

“I cannot pay you, for I have not the power to do so,” he confessed.

“Then,” said the creditor, “we will exercise the contract, take your possessions, and you shall go to prison. You agreed to that. It was your choice. You signed the contract, and now it must be enforced.”

“Can you not extend the time or forgive the debt?” the debtor begged. “Arrange some way for me to keep what I have and not go to prison. Surely you believe in mercy? Will you not show mercy?”

The creditor replied, “Mercy is always so one-sided. It would serve only you. If I show mercy to you, it will leave me unpaid. It is justice I demand. Do you believe in justice?”

“I believed in justice when I signed the contract,” the debtor said. “It was on my side then, for I thought it would protect me. I did not need mercy then, nor think I should need it ever. Justice, I thought, would serve both of us equally as well.”

“It is justice that demands that you pay the contract or suffer the penalty,” the creditor replied. “That is the law. You have agreed to it and that is the way it must be. Mercy cannot rob justice.”

There they were: One meting out justice, the other pleading for mercy. Neither could prevail except at the expense of the other.

“If you do not forgive the debt there will be no mercy,” the debtor pleaded.

“If I do, there will be no justice,” was the reply.

Both laws, it seemed, could not be served. They are two eternal ideals that appear to contradict one another. Is there no way for justice to be fully served, and mercy also?

There is a way! The law of justice can be fully satisfied and mercy can be fully extended—but it takes someone else. And so it happened this time.

The debtor had a friend. He came to help. He knew the debtor well. He knew him to be shortsighted. He thought him foolish to have gotten himself into such a predicament. Nevertheless, he wanted to help because he loved him. He stepped between them, faced the creditor, and made this offer.

“I will pay the debt if you will free the debtor from his contract so that he may keep his possessions and not go to prison.”

As the creditor was pondering the offer, the mediator added, “You demanded justice. Though he cannot pay you, I will do so. You will have been justly dealt with and can ask no more. It would not be just.”

And so the creditor agreed.

The mediator turned then to the debtor. “If I pay your debt, will you accept me as your creditor?”

“Oh yes, yes,” cried the debtor. “You save me from prison and show mercy to me.”

“Then,” said the benefactor, “you will pay the debt to me and I will set the terms. It will not be easy, but it will be possible. I will provide a way. You need not go to prison.”

And so it was that the creditor was paid in full. He had been justly dealt with. No contract had been broken. The debtor, in turn, had been extended mercy. Both laws stood fulfilled. Because there was a mediator, justice had claimed its full share, and mercy was fully satisfied

[MaidservantX]

Crimson,

The scriptures that I offered above were (part of) what I read to get where I am at (thus far). As well, I have read scriptures such as D& C 6:2 (and similar in the Topical Guide) and D&C 27:18 and passages such as 2 Ne ch 2 and also places in D& C where it says that spirit is matter. Also I am looking right now at a lovely place (which also speaks to the power of the Sacrament) in Moses ch 6:59-62 (and other surrounding verses) -- to where, as I read the scriptures, I constantly have a basic assumption that I feel has been more than warranted by my study that ALL things that are spoken of in the scriptures are descriptions of tangible processes -- in other words, there are lawful, mechanical, scientific realities (celestial) taking place -- which, perhaps you'd agree that much, but then still ask what are the mechanics.

As for entropy in the scriptures, particularly as it applies to the human soul -- Moses 6:49; Matthew 13:12; D&C 1:33; D&C 93:39 (28-38); John 3:15; Mosiah 27:24-29; Alma 34:35; 1 Tim 6:9; Alma 12:16-18 (and surrounding). You may not read these as I do, but it is my understanding at this time. I do not mean to say that resurrection will not be permanent for all of earth's inhabitants (good or evil), because I believe that it will. But a person who is full of uncleanness or the chains of sin, or whatever other term we want to give -- they are missing light, intelligence, and are incapable (until redemption) of being who they really are. They have no power over their own energy and matter, they have turned it over to Satan, and is Satan doing any creating? No, he is not. He is taking things apart as fast as he can.

[CrimsonKairos]

Thanks for explaining your beliefs a bit better xhenli. I'm still unsure I'd agree with all aspects of them, but I think I get the gist of what you're saying.

As for Elder Packer's parable. The reason I don't think it accurately portrays the "mechanics" or process by which the atonement works is because the parable is based on the concept of a contract. Justice is not contract-law, or business law, or anything else.

We don't contract with Satan that, "If you give me pleasure or power now, I'll sit in your spirit prison with you for one year," or anything similarly ridiculous.

In the parable, the creditor gave the debtor the means to buy what he wanted.

Satan doesn't give us the means to get the pleasure we want. He merely tempts us to take it.

We don't "owe" Satan anything as a consequence of sinning. If that were the case, the scriptures would talk about Christ overpowering Satan's demands, not justice's. Satan has no claim on us. Only God does.

I dislike comparing Christ's atonement to money, payment, debts, creditors, etc... if understanding how the atonement works is the goal. What the atonement does and how it does it are different things.

Elder Packer's parable teaches simply and wonderfully what the atonement does. It frees us from the trouble we get ourselves into by sinning, if we repent.

I don't believe Elder Packer's parable teaches how the atonement does this (nor do I think that was Elder Packer's goal in sharing it). After all, we never signed any contract with Satan, we don't owe him anything, and nowhere in the scriptures do we read that Christ came to satisfy the demands for payment that Satan has against us.

That's why I don't think the atonement is anything like a penal-substitution, debtor/creditor affair. I don't believe the scriptures support this. Sure there are the occasional references to Christ "paying for our sins," and our having been "ransomed" by Christ. However, I think those verses speak of the atonement in the same way that Elder Packer's parable does...as a means of conveying the result of the atonement (our salvation from death and hell), not how that result is brought about.

[a-train]

Crimson,

Tell me about this quote from Elder Spencer J. Condie Of the Seventy:

By atoning for our sins as our Father planned, the Savior stands “betwixt” all of us sinners and the demands of justice, “having … taken upon himself [our] iniquity and [our] transgressions” (Mosiah 15:8–9). An atonement which could satisfy justice required the sacrifice of an innocent person who would vicariously suffer the punishment for the sins of others (see Alma 34:8–16). Justice demanded death, and the Redeemer died that he might become the firstfruits of the Resurrection and overcome the bonds of death. (The Fall and Infinite Atonement, Ensign, Jan 1996, 22, emphasis added)

Perhaps I don't understand your position, but I am wondering if you believe that part in bold.

-a-train

[CrimsonKairos]

I don't believe Jesus suffered the specific penalty for our specific sins. In other words, I don't view the atonement as something where God added up all the sins that needed to be paid for, and then Christ took x number of whippings for us.

Christ certainly suffered while atoning, and he certainly suffered for our sakes, but I don't believe it was a matter of Christ serving our spiritual sentence for us, so we wouldn't have to sit in jail. I believe it was a matter of Christ enduring the ultimate injustice which alone could persuade God not just to pity us miserable sinners, but agree to let Christ clean us up and make us worthy of dwelling in His presence.

Elder Condie said: An atonement which could satisfy justice required the sacrifice of an innocent person who would vicariously suffer the punishment for the sins of others (see Alma 34:8–16).

I disagree. In fact, Alma 34:11-12 (which Elder Condie cites) says the opposite, namely that Justice will not be satisfied by punishing an innocent in the place of the guilty:

11 Now there is not any man that can sacrifice his own blood which will atone for the sins of another. Now, if a man murdereth, behold will our law, which is just, take the life of his brother? I say unto you, Nay.

12 But the law requireth the life of him who hath murdered;

If what these verses say is true (that it is unjust for the innocent to be punished in place of the guilty), then the view that Christ took our whipping for us would in fact be robbing justice, not fulfilling it. Why? Because an innocent person would have been punished instead of the guilty, and that is simply unjust. Anyone can feel that deep down inside them.

People have told me: "Then you're saying that if we repent, neither we nor Christ has to receive the penalty for our sins? That's robbing justice!"

Actually, the opposite is true. I believe that when Christ intercedes on our behalf, invokes his unjust suffering and claims mercy for his sake alone, God withdraws the requirement that anyone be punished, whether Christ or us. That's not robbing justice. That's satisfying justice's demands by persuading the prosecutor to drop all charges.

Now notice, satisfying justice's demands isn't the same as fulfilling justice's demands. My online dictionary defines "satisfy" in several ways, one of which is this:

"provide (someone) with adequate information or proof so that they are convinced about something: [trans.] people need to be satisfied that the environmental assessments are accurate | The chief engineer satisfied himself that it was not a weapon."

In this case, the ultimate injustice that was Christ's "trial," condemnation, and crucifixion overwhelms the desire to administer punishment to us if we've repented and if Christ pleads for us.

In other words, if we've repented and if we've changed our ways and if Christ takes up our cause, then God is satisfied and removes the demand that we be punished for our sins. He also allows Christ to sanctify us so that we can dwell in His presence.

[a-train]

You surprize me Crimson. I thought you would be making every effort to confirm the words of our priesthood leaders, not arguing against them. I would warn anyone who challenges the interpretation of scripture by those in authority to promote their personal interpretation is entering hazardous domain.

Regardless, you must know that most LDS believe the concept you are here arguing against because it is taught by the Brethren. I won't argue with you, but I'll just give you this one post and let it be.

Now, out of context your reading makes sense. But it omitted key points in Elder Condie's citing, (perhaps overlooked).

For as Amulek said: 'But the law requireth the life of him who hath murdered;' but, he did not stop there. He continued: 'therefore there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world.'

So what is an 'infinite atonement'? Look at verse 10. Christ's sacrifice was 'not a sacrifice of man'. You mean, a man wasn't punished in another man's stead? No! For Amulek also said: 'it shall not be a human sacrifice'. So what kind of sacrifice are we talking about? Amulek says: 'an infinite and eternal sacrifice.' He also said: 'that great and last sacrifice will be the Son of God, yea, infinite and eternal.' (verse 14)

So you are correct if you believe it unjust for the innocent man to be punished for the transgressions of the guilty. However the infinite and eternal Son of God through a process unknown and unfathomable to us, took 'upon him the transgressions of his people'. (verse 8)

'The sacrifice of an innocent person who would vicariously suffer the punishment for the sins of others' could not be performed by any man (especially because no man is innocent), only by an infinite and eternal God who has such power.

Now you've made excellent points. I like the credit card statement. I fully agree that Jesus didn't receive only the sum of the wages of the sins of all mankind, nor was His anguish limited to the sum of the sins repented of; but His sacrifice was infinite and eternal.

So, let the matter rest and the saints believe Alma who asked and answered: 'What, do ye suppose that mercy can rob justice? I say unto you, Nay; not one whit. If so, God would cease to be God.' (Alma 42:25) And let them cherish the LORD's saying 'For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance'. (D&C 1:31)

GOD BLESS

Sincerely,

-a-train

[CrimsonKairos]

The phrase "take upon him the transgressions of his people" can mean so many things. Of course Christ metaphorically took my personal sins upon him during his suffering...it was because of my sins and others that Christ had to bleed and die. That doesn't mean he became spiritually unclean in my place, or anything absurd like that. Seriously, what is the punishment for sin? We lose the Spirit's influence, we forfeit blessings, and we become spiritually unclean. How does God apply those to Christ "in our place?"

I don't buy penal-substitution. I have no problem interpreting scripture differently from a seventy or apostle. Both they and I agree that the atonement works, but as for how it works, I don't believe their calling includes an automatic master's degree in theology. They are entitled to be both right and wrong when it comes to interpreting scriptures. In other words, they are not infallible. Nor am I. :)

Penal-substitution was actually promoted largely by Thomas Aquinas and other 16th century Reformers as an extension of Anselm's "satisfaction theory of the atonement." I'm surprised that such an old theory of atonement has such weight in our Church, especially in light of our latter-day scriptures. I'm totally open to the fact that I'm 100% wrong. The fact that I read certain verses differently from one of the Brethren doesn't mean I don't sustain their priesthood authority to direct the saints within their stewardship. I sustain the General Authorities of the Church, acknowledge they are called by God to serve Him in His Son's Church, but don't believe every one of them is to be granted the title of "theologian extraordinaire" just because of their mantle.

I just don't buy the belief that Jesus was nothing more than our whipping boy on Calvary. Why? If Christ took our punishments to fulflll justice's demands, that goes against what Amulek taught in Alma 34.

Amulek said that Christ's sacrifice brings about the bowels of mercy which overpower justice. Overpower. Not fulfill. I just don't buy it when someone says, "Oh no man can be punished in another person's place, but if you're a God, suddenly new standards of justice apply!"

I mean, D&C 19 says that we will suffer for our sins if we don't repent. So in that sense, Jesus wasn't doing anything we couldn't do for ourselves (although I for one plan to repent as often as needed!). What Jesus DID do that we can't do for ourselves is make it possible to erase our mistakes...not just forgive them, but blot them out as Isaiah says. Christ has the power to literally change our hearts and sanctify us so that we become worthy of dwelling with God.

I believe God would be duty-bound to object to Christ bringing souls into His presence if those souls had sinned even once and been forgiven. Their spiritual record would bear the mark of their disobedience. However, Christ intercedes for us and presents us to the Father, sanctified and changed beings made worthy through his blood, and the Father--for Christ's sake--is willing to accept us in our newly-sanctified state even though we had at one time been disobedient.

These are my beliefs. I make no apology for them. I don't expect anyone else to believe them. I don't expect anyone else to read the scriptures the way I do. But I certainly won't read one statement from a seventy and say to myself and God, "Ah, the issue is settled, there need be no more thinking about this matter."

I feel strongly in my spirit that God opened my understanding in a new way as I read Alma 34 one night. I'm not saying I have all the answers, or that my understanding of the atonement is complete. But I no longer feel I can accept the penal-substitution theory of atonement in light of the Law of Moses, latter-day scripture and the Spirit's impressions on my heart and mind.

After all, if Christ was nothing more than our whipping boy, then I'd have expected that fact to be represented in the Law of Moses. For example, the adulterer who had repented would have taken the punishment for adultery (stoning) and applied it to his sacrifice. The High Priest would have stoned the sin offering in the adulterer's place.

Ah, but that's not how it worked. It was the blood of a spotless creature alone which could atone, not applying the punishment of the sinner to the animal. And it is Christ's sacred blood and life alone which can persuade God to accept once-imperfect beings who've washed their garments in the blood of the Lamb and become sanctified partakers of the divine nature.

a-train, I've expressed my beliefs in this regard a bit clearer (I believe) in another thread which I now point you to:

http://www.ldstalk.com/forums/index.php?sh...pic=7779&hl

I don't expect you to change your mind about me being incorrect doctrinally, but I do want to make sure you understand what I'm saying and why. The responses to my post in that thread provoked discussion which allowed me to clarify and revise my beliefs even further.

I fully admit that my understanding of the atonement is in a fluid state right now. It's not solidified and I haven't dug in to any position, other than that I reject the position that the atonement was penal-substitution. I reserve to myself the right to contradict myself in the case that I learn something which changes the course of my understanding. :)

Oh, one example of my beliefs in action. This comes from the book "The Infinite Atonement" by Tad R. Callister (he's served as a bishop, stake president, area authority seventy, and is currently President of the Canada Toronto East Mission ). Anyway, the anecdote is supposedly historically accurate. I'll condense it considerably.

During the Civil War, a Northern sentry falls asleep at his post and his entire unit is killed by Confederates. President Lincoln declares the penalty will be death by hanging. The sentry's mother appeals to President Lincoln. An old, fraile woman, she explains that her son is all she has, her husband and other children are dead, and that without her son, she'll surely suffer and die from starvation. She asks Pres. Lincoln to spare her son for her sake, even though he's guilty as charged. According to the account, Pres. Lincoln pardoned the sentry because of the pity that old widow aroused in him. No one had to be hanged in the sentry's place. The charges were dropped.

I humbly submit that something similar to this occurs when we repent. I do not believe Christ becomes spiritually unclean in my place (spiritual uncleanliness is the main result of sin, along with losing spiritual sensitivity to a degree). I believe God "drops the charges against me" for Christ's sake and in light of the injustice Christ willingly suffered for my sake.

Ultimately, all that matters is that Christ's atonement allows us to dwell with God if we repent and endure in keeping our covenants to the end. No matter how it works, it works, and I acknowledge that it's not necessary to understand all aspects of the atonement to draw upon its saving power. To God alone the glory, in Christ's spotless name!