| Rating: | ★★★★ |
| Category: | Books |
| Genre: | Religion & Spirituality |
| Author: | Blake Ostler |
I wish I could have the patience to write all my feelings and thoughts about the book. Aside from the fact that much of this book went over my head, I think the series contains some of the most important essays and studies of mormon ideologies I have ever encountered. That isn’t to say that I necessarily agree with the author in all respects either.
The first book in the series took on the nature of God and showed how logically, the theology of “orthodox Christianity” is not supportable by scripture nor logic. This book takes on such things as the nature of sin, soteriology and grace. This book has some pretty strong chapter headings: “The Implausibility of Original Sin”, “Self-Deception and Justification by Faith” and “The Problem of Grace”. While I don’t pretend to understand all his arguments, it certainly has made me look at things differently.
My favorite chapters deal with original sin (“Guilt cannot be imputed.”) and the atonement (“Guilt cannot be imputed.”). I will only focus on a few of his arguments on the atonement and the simple refutation of traditional explanations.
Ransom Theory
This is based on being slaves to sin and in captivity to the Devil. Jesus paid the price to get us out of this situation. (1Cor 6:20 and Mark 10:45). “..it fell out of favor because it assumed that God had to resort to trickery to free sinners. Worse, it assumed that God could not simply overpower Satan any time he wanted to.” Pg 261
Satisfaction Theory
This is along the lines that God’s honor has been wronged and needs to be repaired.
“The demand to repair God’s honor seems to be a snobbish self-centeredness that reflects God’s concern for himself and total disregard for our interests and well-being…It assumes that one can amass superogatory moral merit so that one has more moral ‘cash’ than one needs for one’s self. However, moral virtue is not like a bank account that can be saved up and spent. And finally, the notion that God makes a demand to satisfy his honor by punishing the only person who fully honored him is contrary even to the feudal code of honor because it is dishonorable to punish an innocent person to obtain satisfaction.” Pg 263.
Moral Influence Theory
This is based on an error in satisfaction theory, that God can’t commune because of his wounded honor, when it is really our sin that is causing the problem. It is correct in as far as it goes but does not explain how Christ bears our sins nor why Christ’s suffering makes forgiveness possible. Pg 264.
Governmental Theory
LDS might know this as the laws of Justice and Mercy. This is more like a precursor to that theory. Laws are violated and Jesus satisfied the Law while showing mercy.
Penal Substitution Theory.
Developed primarily by John Calvin. God set up laws and he can’t forgive us because his laws must be obeyed. Ostler set up 5 main arguments against this position
1) The penal theory posits a conflict between Father and Son. A loving forgiving Son must persuade the Father to turn away his wrath.
2) The penal theory erroneously assumes that guilt, or righteousness, can be transferred. Innocents being punished for the guilty is not acceptable in any legal system.
3) The penal theory is unjust. This view assumes that the humans who deserve to be punished escape it while the only person in the history of the world who does not deserve punishment is punished in our place.
4) The penal theory limits God’s power to forgive. It fails to explain why we can forgive each other but somehow God is incapable of doing it himself.
5) The penal theory entails a legal fiction as the basis for our reconciliation. It entails that God in fact overlooks our sinfulness and instead regards us as righteous because Christ is—even though it is not true that we are in fact righteous.
He calls his theory of atonement as the Compassion Theory of Atonement. That sin is real in that it separates us from God, from developing a loving relationship with him. Christ’s atonement is His pain in forgiving us. His need or desire to reestablish that relationship and the pain he feels in doing that.
I’m not necessarily sold on this yet, but it is intriguing. I can’t even say that I even have the ability to defend it. I still think it is dangerous that he uses philosophy to defend his views, in that most LDS view that as the prime reason for the departure of early Christianity from the Gospel.
http://www.christiansonline.cc/forum/comparing-notes/3675-atonement.html
No comments:
Post a Comment