Justice, mercy, forgiveness, the atonement, and Alma 42

I'm going to start by first quoting some verses from Alma 42

15 And now, the plan of mercy could not be brought about except an atonement should be made; therefore God himself atoneth for the sins of the world, to bring about the plan of mercy, to appease the demands of justice, that God might be a perfect, just God, and a merciful God also.

24 For behold, justice exerciseth all his demands, and also mercy claimeth all which is her own; and thus, none but the truly penitent are saved.

In Alma 42, as well as in other scripture and literature, justice is personified, meaning it is given attributes or characteristics of a human. For example in verse 24, "justice exerciseth all HIS demands". In verse 15, "the demands of justice". While this makes for interesting writing, I don't think it helps in understanding the concept. Justice is not a person, justice can't demand anything. People demand justice. So in the context of Alma 42, WHO is demanding justice?

Another question is that of the relationship between justice and forgiveness. If God forgives us, then why does he still demand justice (payment of the debt = atonement). If someone owes me money, but I forgive the debt, I can't expect payment. Forgiving the debt means that the payment doesn't need to be paid anymore. This has been discussed a bit here.

As I've discussed this with several different people, I've run across several different theories about God, justice and forgiveness. I'm going to try to summarize them here.

Theory 1 God freely forgives. It is not God that demands justice (payment) but an outside "organization" (council of gods, society of gods, etc.). This may be viewed much like our earthly system of law and society. Perhaps you steal my wallet. When the police finally catch up with you, they find that you have spent all my money, as well as used my credit card. If I demanded justice, you would need to pay me back, but let's say that I forgive you and don't require that the debt be paid. That's not the end of it. There is an outside organization (police, courts, society) that may require a punishment anyway, perhaps paying a fine or jail time. In this theory Christ’s atonement would be paying the debt to the "organization"

Theory 2 God freely forgives. It is not God that demand justice but the people who are wronged and don't forgive. For example, you punch me in the nose. You have obviously offended (sinned against) me because you punched me in the nose, but you have also offended (sinned against) God because he asked you not to punch people in the nose. With this theory, God forgives you for sinning against him and does not require any payment. I now have the choice to forgive or demand justice. If I forgive you then it is over. No justice or payment is required. I don't get to hit you back, the debt is forgiven. Because all is forgiven, there is not a debt to be paid and Christ’s atonement is not involved in this situation. If I don't forgive you and demand justice, then a payment is required. This is where the atonement comes in. In this theory Christ’s atonement would be paying the debt to all those who don't forgive, but demand justice.

Theory 3 God freely forgives. At this point justice is no longer demanded. But although God forgives the debt, it is still there, unpaid. He just isn't demanding payment. It would be analogous to the following situation. You rack up a huge debt on your credit card. Then the credit card company says, hey, you know what, don't worry about paying it. They aren't going to wipe the debt away, it will still show up on credit reports and things like that. You just don't every have to pay it. In this theory Christ's atonement pays the debt to God so you can have a clean "record"

Theory 4 God doesn't forgive. It is he that demands justice. Christ pays the debt and then it is Christ that has the right to demand justice. Christ freely forgives, meaning he forgives and doesn't require that the debt still be paid. In this theory Christ’s atonement would be paying the debt to God.

Theory 5 God doesn't forgive the debt, but forgives the debtor. This is kind of like a status thing. Justice is demanded. God doesn't forgive the debt, meaning it still needs to be paid, but when he forgives the debtor, the debtor is brought back up to the same relationship status they were in prior to incurring the debt. In this theory Christ’s atonement would be paying the debt to God.

Each of them seem to have their own problems. What do you think? What do you see as problems with each theory? What is good about them? Do you have any modifications or other theories that will help explain justice, forgiveness, and the atonement?

Suffering for Sin

Let me preface this post with saying that I believe the atonement was necessary. The why and how is what I don’t yet understand. What punishment did Christ suffer for me? I don’t mean to belittle the atonement or what Christ did for me. Nor am I trying to say that there isn’t a punishment for sin. I believe what Christ did was magnificent and essential. That is what Heavenly Father has told me. I just want to understand what he did. So what is the punishment for sin that Christ suffered for me? In the “What is the punishment for sin” post, here are some of the punishments that were put forward.

1. The punishment for sin is the natural consequence of the sin. For example, if you steal, you get put in jail; have to pay a fine, etc. This doesn’t seem to be the punishment that caused Christ to suffer for me. If it were, then I wouldn’t have to go to jail, pay the fine, etc. He would do that for me and suffer in my place as long as I repent. This just isn’t how it works. This must not be the punishment for sin that Christ suffered for me. I will still suffer the natural consequences.

2. The punishment for sin is not being exalted (not making it to heaven, celestial kingdom, however you want to say it). This doesn’t seem to be the punishment that caused Christ to suffer for me. If it were, then he would be the one that is not exalted and suffering not being with the Father instead of me. But he is exalted, and is with the Father, so he can’t suffer that punishment for me. This must not be the punishment for sin that Christ suffered for me. I will still be the one to suffer this punishment.

3. The punishment for sin is sorrow for committing the sin (guilt, bad feelings, whatever you want to call it). This doesn’t seem to be the punishment that caused Christ to suffer for me. If it were, then I wouldn’t have to experience those feelings. But since sorrow for sin is a part of repentance, that is something that I must experience. It would seem like an awful waste for Christ to have to suffer all that sorrow for sin for no reason because I also need to feel (and have felt) that too. This seems to be the one most open to discussion. I can see the argument that says, “yeah, you feel sorrow through the repentance process, but then after the repentance process you can be free from the sorrow, and it is that continued sorrow after repenting that Christ suffered. That way you don’t have to suffer that sorrow the rest of your life.” That sounds great but logically doesn’t make a lot of sense (Why would you still feel sorrow after Heavenly Father forgives you regardless of whether Christ suffered your sorrows or not). But the big reason I don’t buy that argument is that it makes the atonement a nice thing, but not necessary for exaltation. It saves me from a lot of sorrowing for sin, which is a nice thing, but the absence of sorrow is not a necessity for exaltation. Most of us suffer sorrow from many other things besides sin (trials, tribulations, etc). This must not be the punishment for sin that Christ suffered for me. I will still suffer from sorrow.

So what say you? What is the punishment that caused Christ to suffer? And how was that punishment going to keep us from progressing toward exaltation, thereby making the suffering Christ did for us essential?

Atonement Part 2: The Theories

In my studying of the Atonement, I've run across several theories of Atonement. Many of them are not applicable to an LDS discussion of atonement, but I think that several are. Here is a list:

The Ransom Theory: The earliest of all, originating with the Early Church Fathers, this theory claims that Christ offered himself as a ransom (Mark 10:45). Where it was not clear was in its understanding of exactly to whom the ransom was paid. Many early church fathers viewed the ransom as paid to Satan. Essentially, this theory claimed that Adam and Eve sold humanity over to the Devil at the time of the Fall; hence, justice required that God pay the Devil a ransom to free us from the Devil's clutches. An extension of this is the "Christus Victor" view which focuses less on paying Satan off as a Ransom and more on defeating Satan through the atonement.

The Satisfaction Theory: The formulator of this theory was the medieval theologian Anselm of Canterbury (1034-1109), in his book, Cur Deus Homo (lit. Why the God Man). In his view, God's offended honor and dignity could only be satisfied by the sacrifice of the God-man, Jesus Christ. Anselm offered compelling biblical evidence that the atonement was not a ransom paid by God to the devil but rather a debt paid to God on behalf of sinners. Anselm's work established a foundation for the Protestant Reformation, specifically the understanding of justification by faith. Anslem believed that humans could not render to God more than what was due to him. The satisfaction due to God was greater than what all created beings are capable of doing, since they can only do what is already required of them. Therefore, God had to make satisfaction for himself. Yet if this satisfaction was going to avail for humans, it had to be made by a human. Therefore only a being that was both God and man could satisfy God and give him the honor that is due him. The classic Anselmian formulation of the Satisfaction View needs to be distinguished from Penal Substitution. Penal Substitution states that Christ bore the penalty for sin, in place of those sinners united to him by faith. Anselm, by contrast, regarded human sin as defrauding God of the honour he is due. Christ's death, the ultimate act of obedience, gives God great honour. As it was beyond the call of duty for Christ, it is more honour than he was obliged to give. Christ's surplus can therefore repay our deficit. Hence Christ's death is substitutionary in this sense: he pays the honour instead of us. But that substitution is not penal; his death pays our honour not our penalty.

The Penal-Substitution Theory: This view was formulated by the 16th century Reformers as an extension of Anselm's Satisfaction theory. Anselm's theory was correct in introducing the satisfaction aspect of Christ's work and its necessity, however the Reformers saw it as insufficient because it was referenced to God's honor rather than his justice and holiness and was couched more in terms of a commercial transaction than a penal substitution. This Reformed view says simply that Christ died for man, in man's place, taking his sins and bearing them for him. The bearing of man's sins takes the punishment for them and sets the believer free from the penal demands of the law: The righteousness of the law and the holiness of God are satisfied by this substitution.

The Moral-Example Theory (or Moral-Influence Theory): Christ died to influence mankind toward moral improvement. This theory denies that Christ died to satisfy any principle of divine justice, but teaches instead that His death was designed to greatly impress mankind with a sense of God's love, resulting in softening their hearts and leading them to repentance. Thus, the Atonement is not directed towards God with the purpose of maintaining His justice, but towards man with the purpose of persuading him to right action. Formulated by Peter Abelard (1079-1142) partially in reaction against Anselm's Satisfaction theory, this view was held by the 16th century Socinians. Versions of it can be found later in F. D. E. Schleiermacher (1768-1834) and Horace Bushnell (1802-1876).

The Governmental Theory: God made Christ an example of suffering to exhibit to erring man that sin is displeasing to him. God's moral government of the world made it necessary for him to evince his wrath against sin in Christ. Christ died as a token of God's displeasure toward sin and it was accepted by God as sufficient; but actually God does not exact strict justice. This view was formulated by Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) and is subsequently found in Arminianism, Charles Finney, the New England Theology of Jonathan Edwards (the younger), and Methodism.

The Declaratory Theory: A version of the Moral Influence theory, wherein Christ died to show men how greatly God loves them. This view held by Albrecht Ritschl (1822-89).

The Guaranty Theory: Reconciliation is based not on Christ's expiation of sin, but on His guaranty to win followers and thus conquer human sinfulness. This view held by J. C. K. von Hofmann (1810-77).

The Vicarious Repentance Theory: by John McLeod Campbell (d. 1872). It assumes that a perfect repentance is sufficient to atone for sin. In his death, Christ entered into the Father's condemnation of sin, condemned sin, and by this, confessed it.

The Accident Theory: Christ's death was an accident, as unforeseen and unexpected as that of any other victim of man's hatred. This view is usually found outside of mainstream Christianity.

The Martyr Theory: Christ gave up His life for a principle of truth that was opposed to the spirit of His day. This view is usually found outside of mainstream Christianity.

So do you have a favorite here? A variation? A new theory?

Atonement Part 1: The Parables

I've been sudying the atonement lately. It seems that quite often parables are used to help explain the atonement. What I'd like to do is get a collection of parables together so that we can discuss them and how they help in our understanding of the atonement. If you know of a parable that aids in understanding the atonement, please add it in this post.
We will reserve discussion of these parables to a different post that will be coming soon. Be sure to title your atonement parable so that we can refer to it easily when we discuss them.