|
|
| (93 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | {{draft}} | + | {{Main Page}} |
| − | =The LDS view of the atonement of Jesus Christ= | + | <onlyinclude> |
| − | ==Criticism== | + | {{H1 |
| − | Critics seriously understate the position of the Church of Jesus Christ with respect to the atonement. | + | |L=Jesus Christ/Atonement |
| | + | |H=The Atonement of Jesus Christ |
| | + | |S=Critics seriously understate the position of the Church of Jesus Christ with respect to the atonement. Many of the quotations used by critics regarding the LDS view of the atonement have been taken out of context, or the further comments of the speaker have been ignored. This is an implied a form of "bearing false witness," which is completely against the Gospel that the Savior taught during His earthly ministry. Critics, such as the authors of ''[[Mormonism 101]]'', show very little evidence of having "studied the [Latter-day Saint] movement for the greater part of their lives" as they claim. In fact, if one takes up the authors' challenge to check their sources, one finds that in every case they are found wanting, often seriously so. In their "witnessing tip" regarding the Book of Mormon the authors conclude their imaginary dialogue by asking: "If Smith was misleading in this statement, how can I trust his other statements?" |
| | + | |L1=The Latter-day Saint view of the atonement of Jesus Christ |
| | + | }} |
| | + | {{:Jesus Christ/Atonement/Mormon perspective}} |
| | + | </onlyinclude> |
| | | | |
| − | {{CriticalSources}}
| |
| | | | |
| − | ==Subtopics==
| + | {{Critical sources box:Jesus Christ/Atonement/CriticalSources}} |
| − | *[[/Not carried out on the cross|Not carried out on the cross]]
| + | {{endnotes sources}} |
| − | *[[/Portrayed in Latter-day Saint hymns|The atonement as portrayed in Latter-day Saint hymns]]
| + | <!-- PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE --> |
| | | | |
| − | ==Response==
| + | [[de:Jesus Christus/Sühnopfer]] |
| − | | + | [[es:Jesucristo/La Expiación]] |
| − | {{SeeAlso|/Quotes|l1=Statements regarding the LDS view of the atonement}}
| + | [[pt:Jesus Cristo/Expiação]] |
| − | | |
| − | ===Centrality of the Atonement in LDS Thought===
| |
| − | Joseph Smith, the founding prophet, stated that "the fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it." Those appendages include the gift of the Holy Ghost, power of faith, enjoyment of the spiritual gifts, restoration of the house of Israel, and the final triumph of truth. {{ref|hoc.3.30}} The atonement of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is the central fact of all LDS theological teaching.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Almost one hundred years ago LDS historian and theologian Brigham H. Roberts wrote that the atonement
| |
| − | <blockquote>
| |
| − | is the very heart of the Gospel from whose pulsations the streams of both spiritual and eternal physical life proceed. It is the fact which gives vitality to all things else in the Gospel. If the Atonement be not a reality then our preaching is vain; our baptisms and confirmations meaningless; the eucharist a mere mummery of words; our hope of eternal life without foundation; we are still in our sins, and we Christian men, of all men, are the most miserable. A theme that affects all this cannot fail of being important. {{ref|roberts.iv}}
| |
| − | </blockquote>
| |
| − | In 1917 President Joseph F. Smith delivered an official statement on principles of government in the Church, which included the following statement: "A man who says he does not believe in the atoning blood of Jesus Christ who professes to be a member of the Church…but who ignores and repudiates the doctrine of the atonement… [I say that] the man who denies that truth and who persists in his unbelief is not worthy of membership in the Church." {{ref|smith.83}} In 1924 General Conference Heber J. Grant, then President of the Church, stated that "any individual who does not acknowledge Jesus Christ as the Son of God, the Redeemer of the world, has no business to be associated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." {{ref|grant.24}} Fourteen years later President Grant was just as emphatic: "We want it distinctly understood that we believe absolutely in Jesus Christ, that He was the Son of God, and that He did come to the earth with a divinely appointed mission to die on the cross as the Redeemer of mankind. We do not believe that He was just a 'great moral teacher,' but that He is our Redeemer." {{ref|grant.6}} Elder Bruce R. McConkie has stated that the "atonement of Christ is the most basic and fundamental doctrine of the gospel." {{ref|mcconkie.11}} Speaking with reference to all who call themselves Christian, which obviously included the Latter-day Saints, Brigham Young stated that "the moment the atonement of the Savior is done away, that moment, at one sweep, the hopes of salvation entertained by the Christian world are destroyed, the foundation of their faith is taken away, and there is nothing left for them to stand upon." {{ref|young.41}} Howard W. Hunter, of the Quorum of the Twelve, taught that "nothing is more important in the entire divine plan of salvation than the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. We believe that salvation comes because of the Atonement. In its absence the whole plan of creation would come to naught." {{ref|hunter.385}} Twenty-five years ago Elder Gordon B. Hinckley reminded the Saints that:
| |
| − | <blockquote>
| |
| − | No member of this Church must ever forget the terrible price paid by our Redeemer who gave his life that all men might live—the agony of Gethsemane …[or] the cross, the instrument of his torture… This was the cross on which he hung and died on Golgotha's lonely summit. We cannot forget that. We must never forget it, for here our Savior, our Redeemer, the Son of God, gave himself a vicarious sacrifice for each of us. {{ref|hinckley.93}}
| |
| − | </blockquote>
| |
| − | Elder John K. Carmack, in April 2001 General Conference, took it to a more personal level: "Christ's Atonement is the central doctrine, but of even more comfort and benefit has been how wonderfully accessible and individual His mercy and help have been to me personally." {{ref|ensign.77}} The significance of the atonement was also brought out by the first prophet of the restoration, Joseph Smith, who wrote regarding:
| |
| − | <blockquote>
| |
| − | The condescension of the Father of our spirits, in providing a sacrifice for His creatures, a plan of redemption, a power of atonement, a scheme of salvation, having as its great objects, the bringing of men back into the presence of the King of heaven… The great plan of salvation is a theme which ought to occupy our strict attention, and be regarded as one of heaven's best gifts to mankind. {{ref|smith.23}}
| |
| − | </blockquote>
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===The garden and the cross===
| |
| − | | |
| − | {{SeeAlso|Jesus Christ/Atonement/Not carried out on the cross|l1=Do Latter-day Saints ''not'' believe that the atonement was carried out on the cross?}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | There is also material indicating that other mainstream Christians considered the atonement to have at least begun in the Garden, being consummated on the cross, which is what the Latter-day Saints have taught for more than 170 years. Evangelical critics say almost nothing about the universalism of the LDS position, simply mentioning it as one of the two major areas of disagreement. This suggests that for critics the atonement does not provide for all mortals to be resurrected, or saved.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Critics do correctly indicate, nevertheless, that the LDS do place a good deal of emphasis on the Lord's experience in the Garden of Gethsemane. Gethsemane does present some interesting problems. Critics reject it in part because it is only mentioned twice in the New Testament ({{s||Matthew|26|36}} and {{s||Mark|14|32}}). While this may be so, the events that transpired there are mentioned also in the other two gospels. In other words, all four gospel writers felt it important enough to include it in their 'memoirs.' In {{s||John|18|1}} it is reported that Christ and His disciples "often resorted thither." {{s||Luke|22|39}} tells us that He went there, "as he was wont" (compare {{s||Luke|19|29}} and {{s||Luke|21|37}}, the latter of which says He spent the 'nights' on Mount Olive). This was apparently a special place for them to seek solitude, a private place to seek their Father in prayer. It is evident from the commentaries written on the various gospels that the exact purpose of the experience is not well understood. We don't need to go into the events verse by verse, but there are some things that need to be noted. Despite the importance the Lord places on prayer in general, there are only a few places where He is actually depicted as doing so; this prayer in Gethsemane is one of them147. Furthermore, there are few places in the New Testament where He is depicted as being 'strengthened' by an angel ({{s||Matthew|4|11}}). The experience in the Garden is one of them ({{s||Luke|22|43}}, an angel to strengthen him during His prayer). There are others who have also commented on the singularity of this experience, and attributed it, at least in part, to the atonement.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Christian theologian Leon Morris is quoted frequently by the authors of ''[[Mormonism 101]]''. It is not without significance, therefore, that Morris quotes Lesslie Newbigin as follows:
| |
| − | | |
| − | The Son of God, the Word of God made flesh, kneels in the garden of Gethsemane. He wrestles in prayer. His sweat falls like great drops of blood. He cries out in an agony: "not my will, but thine be done." That is what it costs God to deal with man's sin. To create the heavens and the earth costs Him no labor, no anguish; to take away the sin of the world costs Him His own life-blood.148
| |
| − | | |
| − | Elsewhere, Leon Morris himself admits that, at least for Matthew, "what took place in the Garden was very important."149
| |
| − | | |
| − | In a recent commentary, Donald A. Hagner of Fuller Theological Seminary writes:
| |
| − | | |
| − | The thought of what he will have to undergo in the near future fills Jesus with dread and anguish. A real struggle within the soul of Jesus takes place in Gethsemane, and he craves the support of those who have been closest to him during his ministry. The mystery of the agony of God's unique Son cannot be fully penetrated. That it has to do with bearing the penalty of sin for the world to make salvation possible seems clear.150
| |
| − | | |
| − | In a commentary on Matthew 26, first published in 1864, German scholar John Peter Lange refers to several interpretations offered by earlier commentators. He quotes a scholar named Ebrard: "His trembling in Gethsemane was not dread of His sufferings, but was part of His passion itself; it was not a transcendental and external assumption of a foreign guilt, but a concrete experience of the full and concentrated power of the world's sin."151 At the same place Lange refers to the reformer Melanchthon as teaching that in the Garden Christ "suffered the wrath of God in our stead and our behalf."
| |
| − | | |
| − | Another recent commentary quotes favorably a statement to the effect that Matthew 26:37 ("And he took with Him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be sorrowful and very heavy") indicates that "at this point the Passion, in its full sense, began."152
| |
| − | | |
| − | J.M. Ford writes, "the theological importance, however, is that for Luke the blood that redeems humankind begins to flow in the garden."153 Popular evangelical scholar Thomas C. Oden paraphrases Catherine of Siena this way:
| |
| − | | |
| − | [Christ] was not externally compelled to be baptized with the baptism of sinners, to set his face steadfastly toward Jerusalem or go to Gethsemane, or drink the cup of suffering. Rather he received and drank that cup not because he liked to suffer—the very thought cause him to sweat profusely—but rather because it was an intrinsic part of the purpose of his mission to humanity.154 | |
| − | | |
| − | B.H. Roberts quotes the following from the International Commentary on Matthew:
| |
| − | | |
| − | This conflict presents our Lord in the reality of His manhood, in weakness and humiliation, but it is impossible to account for it unless we admit His Divine nature. Had He been a mere man, His knowledge of the sufferings before Him could not have been sufficient to cause such sorrow. The human fear of death will not explain it. As a real man, He was capable of such a conflict. But it took place after the serenity of the Last Supper and sacerdotal prayers, and before the sublime submission in the palace and judgment hall. The conflict, therefore, was a specific agony of itself. He felt the whole burden and mystery of the world's sin, and encountered the fiercest assaults of Satan. Otherwise, in this hour this Person, so powerful, so holy, seems to fall below the heroism of martyrs in His own cause. His sorrow did not spring from His own life, His memory of His fears, but from the vicarious nature of the conflict. The agony was a bearing of the weight and sorrow of our sins, in loneliness, in anguish of soul threatening to crush His body, yet borne triumphantly, because in submission to His Father's will. Three times our Lord appeals to that will, as purposing His anguish; that purpose of God in regard to the loveliest, best of men, can be reconciled with justice and goodness in God in but one way; that it was necessary for our redemption. Mercy forced its way through justice to the sinner. Our Lord suffered anguish of soul for sin, that it might never rest on us. To deny this is in effect not only to charge our Lord with undue weakness, but to charge God with needless cruelty. "Surely He hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows…. He was wounded for our transgressions. He was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon Him; and with His stripes we are healed" [Isaiah 53.4-5]"155
| |
| − | | |
| − | David B. Haight, of the Quorum of the Twelve, quotes the following from the Reverend Frederic Farrar:
| |
| − | | |
| − | They then rose from the table, united their voices in a hymn, and left the room together to walk to the Garden of Gethsemane and all that awaited them there "The awful hour of His deepest [suffering] had arrived…. Nothing remained…but the torture of physical pain and the poignancy of mental anguish…. He…[calmed] His spirit by prayer and solitude to meet that hour in which all that is evil in the Power of [Satan] should wreak its worst upon the Innocent and Holy [One]. And He must face that hour alone…. 'My soul,' He said, 'is full of anguish, even unto death.'" It was not the anguish and fear of pain and death but 'the burden…of the world's sin which lay heavy on His heart.156
| |
| − | | |
| − | Evangelical scholar Klaas Runia has recently drawn our attention to a prayer which was formerly read at the beginning of the Lord's Supper service in the Reformed Churches in Holland. The prayer said in part: "We remember that all the time he lived on earth he was burdened by our sin and God's judgment upon it; that in his agony in the garden he sweated drops of blood under the weight of our sins."157
| |
| − | | |
| − | Alfred Edersheim referred to the Garden as "the other Eden, in which the Second Adam, the Lord from heaven, bore the penalty of the first, and in obeying gained life.'"158 Adam Clarke is quoted as having once said that "Jesus paid more in the Garden than on the Cross."159 S. Lewis Johnson, from whose article these previous two quotations derive, concluded, "Gethsemane sets forth for us the passion of our Lord for the souls of men. The voice of Gethsemane sounds forth, 'I am willing,' while the voice from Calvary cries, 'It is finished.' Both illustrate how much He cared."160
| |
| − | | |
| − | This is the one thing which seemingly all commentators, LDS or otherwise, agree: He loved us and He manifested that love by His life and by His death. As the above quotations indicate, there is a fair amount of non-LDS support for the idea that the experience of our Savior in the Garden of Gethsemane is also related to the atoning sacrifice which He made for us. There is also enough material by non-LDS scholars to indicate that the exact mechanics of the Atonement are not known; and therefore to state that "this position" (i.e., my position) is the only correct interpretation, and that "that position" (i.e., your position) is false, is rushing to judgment.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Historical Christianity and the Atonement==
| |
| − | | |
| − | They never state it explicitly, but critics seem to assume that the LDS position is a "ransom" theory of atonement, and that the mainstream Christian interpretation is one of sacrificial death on the cross. They quote some statements from Latter-day Saint leaders emphasizing the Garden of Gethsemane as being the place of the atonement (which has been dealt with above). They write, "Christians have long maintained that this glorious act of sacrifice took place on Golgotha Hill… It was here that God Himself was subject to the humiliating death of a common criminal."161 They conclude this chapter by writing that "Christians realize that salvation is a result of what Jesus did for them on the cross… To even insinuate that this took place in the Garden of Gethsemane is a foreign concept to the Christian."162
| |
| − | | |
| − | The Church of Jesus Christ has often been maligned for rejecting "historical Christianity" and therefore it is important that we determine exactly what the historical position of the Christian church has been regarding the atonement of Jesus Christ. This would not be an easy task for critics, for until the twelfth century there was no explicit study of the theory of the atonement; there was no single predominating theory of redemption. Michael Winter has recently written that "there is a consensus among [modern writers], which is something of a paradox in the context of this study, as they all agree that the New Testament does not tell us how the atonement was effected."163 Leon Morris, so frequently quoted by critics, writes that "the New Testament does not put forward a theory of atonement." Morris goes on to write that "there are several indications of the principle on which atonement is effected" and refers to sacrifice, redemption, new covenant, victory, propitiation, reconciliation. "But however [salvation] is viewed, Christ has taken our place, doing for us what we could not do for ourselves. Our part is simply to respond in repentance, faith, and selfless living."164 J.N.D. Kelly wrote:
| |
| − | <blockquote>
| |
| − | The development of the Church's ideas about the saving effects of the incarnation was a slow, long drawn-out process. Indeed, while the conviction of redemption through Christ has always been the motive force of Christian faith, no final and universally accepted definition of the manner of its achievement has been formulated to this day.165
| |
| − | </blockquote>
| |
| − | Lutheran scholar Robert Jenson recently wrote, "it is one of the more remarkable and remarked-upon aspects of theological history that no theory of atonement has ever been universally accepted."166 Later, Kelly writes that
| |
| − | <blockquote>
| |
| − | The student who seeks to understand the soteriology of the fourth and early fifth centuries will be sharply disappointed if he expects to find anything…elaborately worked out…[because] the redemption did not become a battle-ground for rival schools until the twelfth century.167
| |
| − | </blockquote>
| |
| − | This should not be too much of a surprise to our friends McKeever and Johnson. Leon Morris has written that there is a "problem confronting anyone who would write a theology of the New Testament…namely, a widespread recognition that there are considerable differences among the writers of the various New Testament books." Although such recognition does not mean that there are "irreconcilable contradictions" between the various authors, it should help to understand why no strict theory regarding the atonement developed during the first twelve hundred years of Christian history.168
| |
| − | | |
| − | Things don't get better after the closing of the canon, either. In his study of the Atonement Morris writes that "through more than nineteen centuries the church has been working at that problem and it still has not come up with an agreed solution."169 The point of all this of course is to indicate that, rather than a single theory acceptable to all Christians, there were presented over the centuries several theories regarding the atonement. Reformed scholar Shirlie Guthrie indicates there were four basic images used by the New Testament writers, all of which contain weaknesses; therefore they must be used in conjunction with each other to provide a consistent theory. "The biblical doctrine of the atonement teaches that it is God who initiates and fulfills the reconciliation between sinful humanity and God."170 Beyond that statement we cannot be dogmatic. Further, we are told that William Tyndale "does not appear to have had a clear doctrine of the atonement."171 The same is true for John Wesley. W.R. Cannon has written that "there is in all of Wesley's writings no single work on the atonement, and there is no reason whatever for us to believe that he had any clear, well-thought-out theory of the meaning of Christ's death."172 Crawford Knox has recently contrasted the early Christian view with that of the modern West, on various theological themes. With reference to the atonement, he points out that it was Anselm, who died in 1109, "who is seen as the theologian who first crystallised the main Western view of the Atonement, the sacrifice of Jesus as a man on the cross had to be made on behalf of all morally sinful and guilty men to God." By contrast, "in the earlier tradition, Christ is seen as overcoming sin and death in a series of sequential steps which lead through his life on earth, his death and resurrection to his ascension. His death is one crucial step in this process but it is not all-important."173
| |
| − | | |
| − | Perhaps the indecisiveness of both the New Testament specifically and Christian history in general will provide a better backdrop for the discussion of the atonement as taught in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It will certainly be a more correct version of what that church teaches, than the image critics have provided. Certainly the suggestions made by Knox would seem to coincide more closely with the position taken in this paper: that the Latter-day Saints are more closely aligned with the early Church, than with the modern West.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===Comparing the LDS and evangelical Christian view of the atonement===
| |
| − | Critics compare what they state are the four positions of the LDS church, which by definition must be false, as follows:
| |
| − | | |
| − | #The atonement "provides everyone with a general resurrection and cancellation of the consequences of Adam's transgression;"
| |
| − | #It "took place primarily in the Garden of Gethsemane;"
| |
| − | #It "was possible before Christ had died and was raised;"
| |
| − | #The atonement "is not complete unless the individual demonstrates total obedience."
| |
| − | | |
| − | The four positions of the Christian theory, which by definition must be correct, are:
| |
| − | | |
| − | #The atonement "provides for the salvation of only those who have faith in Christ;"
| |
| − | #It "took place on the cross alone;"
| |
| − | #It "was possible only after Christ's death;"
| |
| − | #It "is complete for the believer by the grace of God." {{ref|m101.148}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | As is so frequently done, the critics here are attempting to compare apples and oranges. They are contrasting "resurrection" on the LDS side with "salvation" on the other side. They are contrasting "cross only" with "garden and cross." They are rejecting the possibility of the Israelites having any knowledge whatever of the works of the future Messiah, and therefore being saved by their faith in the future Messiah. And do they really want to contrast "obedience" to the Gospel with the "grace of God?" Does God require nothing at all of us after that grace has entered our life? The Lord had something to say about those who cry Lord, Lord, but do not what He says. The restoration of the Gospel through the Prophet Joseph Smith actually makes the two positions most compatible, at least from the perspective of the members of the Church of Jesus Christ. It is really only the critics who have a problem reconciling the two positions. The LDS position is a broader concept, based on further light and knowledge, i.e., revelation from God.
| |
| − | | |
| − | The Latter-day Saints teach a principle of exaltation, beyond the ordinary salvation mentioned by evangelical critics, which makes both systems compatible on the first point. Salvation is a free gift of grace provided for by the atoning death and resurrection of the Savior; however, the specific type of resurrection is based on one's own life activity: we will be judged according to our works; ({{s||John|5|29}}) Jesus Christ is the "author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him." ({{s||Hebrews|5|9}}) The "Great Commission" of Jesus to the Apostles at the end of Matthew says that they are "to teach them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you." ({{s||Matthew|28|20}}) The word 'primarily' in the second point of differences opens up the door for reconciling the two positions on the issue of Gethsemane vs. Calvary. As has been seen, there is no such issue for the Latter-day Saints: the atonement begins in the Garden (or before creation, 'before the foundations of the world were laid'), and ends on the Cross (or perhaps is still continuing, with Christ continuing to intercede for us with the Father).
| |
| − | | |
| − | The Latter-day Saints basically agree with the third critical position point, in the sense that until, or unless, the atonement and resurrection had actually taken place, there was no opportunity for anyone, before or after that event, to receive the benefits of it. All this really means however is that there was no resurrection prior to the resurrection of the Savior Himself, and, therefore, no possibility of anyone being brought back into the presence of God the Father. Heaven was only a dream until the atonement and resurrection made its attainment a real possibility. As for the forgiveness of sins: since it is based on the atonement by Jesus Christ, that could be accomplished, because of the foreknowledge of the Father: He knew that His Son would follow through with the Atonement, thereby redeeming all from the individual effects of the Fall. The belief in the possibility of receiving a forgiveness of one's sins prior to the birth and death of the Savior is also contingent upon the belief in Prophets being 'truly' called of God. One must believe that God can really and truly call to His service an individual and proclaim to them what will be in the future. If we believe with Paul that the "gospel was preached beforetime to Abraham," or that the "Israelites were baptized to God in a cloud," we must do so completely. If the gospel was preached to them, then we have to admit that they were, at least to some degree, taught about the future Savior and His atoning sacrifice. We must believe that, not only would He not leave their souls in hell, but that He would make a way possible for them to confess their sins and repent of them. If this is true, then a certain amount of salvation was possible before the birth of the Savior. However, it still required His atonement and resurrection to make the fullness of that salvation possible.
| |
| − | | |
| − | The fourth position point deals with the principle of grace, which Latter-day Saints accept, if understood properly. The atoning sacrifice of the Savior was an act of grace; no one forced Him to go through with it; nor did we, on the basis of anything we had done, merit its occurrence. Christ atoned for the sin of Adam, and for our individual sins, because He loved us. But we have to accept it if it is going to be meaningful in our lives. All will receive that aspect of the atonement that applies to the resurrection of the body; only those who accept Jesus Christ and follow His commandments are going to receive the fullest benefits of that sacrifice.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ===The extent of the atonmenment===
| |
| − | Some time needs to be spent however on the extent to which the atonement is applicable in the world. Critics seem to object that the atonement is applicable to all who have ever lived. They want to restrict it to only those who lived after the Savior ("only after Christ's death" and "for the believer"). This doesn't only limit its accessibility to those who lived before the Savior, it quite literally slams the door on the possibility of their ever receiving salvation. The Gospel of Jesus Christ does not restrict itself in that manner. All will be raised from the dead; all will stand before God to be judged; all will be expected to give an accounting of their behavior on Earth. And they will all be held to basically the same standard. No one slides into heaven, or gets there by hanging onto the tailcoats of another. No one is saved on borrowed light.
| |
| − | | |
| − | The Council of Quiersy, convened in 853, in a passage quoted by evangelical scholar Thomas Oden, declared that "as there never was, is or will be any man whose nature was not assumed by our Lord Jesus Christ, so there never was, is or will be any man for whom He has not suffered; though not all are redeemed by the mystery of His passion." {{ref|oden}} How is it that Christ suffered for all, but did not redeem all? Either Christ's passion was not universal, or "redemption" has a specialized meaning. Clearly all those whose nature has been assumed, which is to say, all who have ever been born, will receive the benefits of His death and resurrection; but also clearly, not all are going to be redeemed because not all have chosen to follow. The paragraph, in the part not quoted by Thomas Oden, refers to those who are "unfaithful," and "those not believing in faith those things 'which He has worked through love' [Galatians 5:6]," that is, those who do not believe in what Christ did for them, which "has indeed in itself that it may be beneficial to all; but if it is not drunk, it does not heal." If we do not drink the cup the Savior offers us, the atonement will not heal us.
| |
| − | | |
| − | The extent to which the atonement is applicable has been a hotly debated topic in Christian history, in all traditions, but none more so than in evangelical circles. A recently published book presents several dissenting voices to the position taken by critics, that is, that only those who believe are affected by the atoning sacrifice of the Savior. I. Howard Marshall says that:
| |
| − | | |
| − | The question at issue is not whether all will be saved but whether God has made provision in Christ for the salvation of all, provided that they believe, and without limiting the potential scope of the death of Christ merely to those whom God knows will believe. {{ref|marshall.56}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | Marshall, Professor of New Testament exegesis at University of Aberdeen, in Scotland, is one of the leading evangelical scholars today. He concludes his study of the Pastoral epistles by writing that "we have found nothing in the Pastorals that requires that we assume the existence of a 'hidden agenda,' a secret plan of God to save only the elect." {{ref|marshall.69}} He refers to some passages in Romans 8–11 and in Ephesians 1 that are frequently taken to refer to the elect having been pre-destined to that status. While not discussing these verses in detail, he does state, "I do not find grounds in these passages for the view that God has purposed to save only a limited number of the elect." {{ref|marshall.68-69}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | Terry L. Miethe is a Baptist; he is the Dean of the Oxford Study Center at Oxford, England. He is also the Managing Editor of Moody Press. The purpose of a paper he wrote is to defend the thesis that "the redemptive events in the life of Jesus provided a salvation so extensive and so broad as to potentially include the whole of humanity past, present, and future!" {{ref|miethe.72}} The position Miethe is defending is called unlimited atonement.
| |
| − | | |
| − | "The idea that the death of Christ was designed to include all humankind but is applied only to those who accept it, believe in Jesus as Lord and Savior, is referred to as the "unlimited" or "general" atonement. There are many passages in the Bible that clearly teach this idea. {{ref|miethe.78-79}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | Miethe refers to Isaiah 53:6; Matthew 11:28; John 3:16–17; 1 Timothy 2:6, 4:10; Titus 2:11, Hebrews 2:9; 2 Peter 3:9; 1 John 2:2; and Revelation 22:17. He also states that the following have been professors of the unlimited atonement view: Clement of Alexandria (d. 220), Eusebius (d. 340); Athanasius (373), Cyril of Jerusalem (386), Gregory Nazianzen (d. 389); Basil (379), Ambrose (407), Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444), Richard Hooker (d. 1600), James Ussher (d. 1656), Richard Baxter (d. 1691), John Bunyan (d. 1688), John Newton (d. 1807), Alfred Edersheim (b. 1825), B.F. Westcott (d. 1901), J.B. Lightfoot (b. 1828), Augustus H. Strong (d. 1921), A.T. Robertson (b. 1863), and "many others." {{ref|miethe.79}} There are some important scriptures and some important scholars in those two lists. All of them would apparently take exception to the position critics uphold.
| |
| − | | |
| − | On 1 Timothy 2:1 Miethe quotes F.F. Bruce: "To say that He died for His people is certainly Scriptural…but it is equally Scriptural to say that He died for all… And when Scripture says 'all' in a context like this, it means 'all.'" Bruce also quotes John Calvin on the universality of the blood that was "shed for many;" Calvin wrote that "by the word many he means not a part of the world only but the whole human race." {{ref|miethe.80}} In discussing 1 Timothy 4:10 ("who is the Savior of all men, and especially those who believe"), Miethe quotes evangelical scholar Millard Erickson who wrote: "This is a particularly interesting and significant verse, since it brackets as being saved by God both believers and others, but indicates that a greater degree of salvation attaches to the former group.'" {{ref|miethe.80-2}} This corresponds precisely to the LDS position; if critics want to state that it also agrees with their position, by virtue of having been written by a prominent evangelical scholar, then they will have to admit that their position is the same as the LDS! Miethe quotes from another evangelical, Robert H. Culpepper:
| |
| − | <blockquote>
| |
| − | The Bible teaches that Christ died for 'sinners' (Rom 5.6-8; I Tim 1.15). The word 'sinner' nowhere means 'church' or 'the elect,' but simply all of lost mankind… Are we to suppose that the elect are the only ones who labor and are heavy laden and that they are thus the only ones to whom the invitation of Jesus is issued (Matt 11.28) or that the elect are the only ones who are invited to take the water of life without price (Rev 22.17)? Do not these invitations [made to all sinners] presuppose that the free response of man, though not meriting salvation, is nevertheless the condition upon which the benefits of the atonement are dispensed? Moreover, there are clear assertions in Scripture that Christ died for all (II Cor 5.14), that he gave himself a ransom for all (I Tim 2.6), that he is the expiation of the sins of the whole world (I John 2.2; cf. also I Tim 4.10; Titus 2.11), and that he tasted death for every man (Heb 2.9)." {{ref|miethe.82}}
| |
| − | </blockquote>
| |
| − | Notice again the reference to the "free response of man;" we must cooperate in our salvation, at least to the extent of accepting the atonement into our own lives.
| |
| − | | |
| − | It is Terry Miethe's contention that John Calvin was also a believer in 'unlimited atonement.' Miethe quotes the following from Calvin's works
| |
| − | | |
| − | * On Romans 5:18: "Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world."
| |
| − | * On John 1:29 Calvin wrote: "And when he says the sin of the world, he extends this favor indiscriminately to the whole human race."
| |
| − | * On Galatians 5:12 he writes: "it is the will of God that we should seek the salvation of all men without exception, as Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world."
| |
| − | | |
| − | In his Institutes of the Christian Religion Calvin wrote: "the way of salvation was not shut against any order of men; that, on the contrary, he had manifested his mercy in such a way, that he would have none debarred from it." {{ref|miethe.88-90}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | Miethe's conclusion is clearly applicable to the position taken by critics:
| |
| − | <blockquote>
| |
| − | The doctrine of limited atonement is logically contradictory to the clear teaching of passage after passage of Scripture… Second, it is theologically repugnant, for it misunderstands the nature of God and of man. The divine sovereignty of God and human freedom are analogical aspects of the relationship of God to man—of the Creator to that which was created in his image. Third, it is philosophically deficient, for the very existence of reason, or the ability to know, shows that man is capable of choice. Some doctrine of human freedom is essential to any meaningful theory of human responsibility.189
| |
| − | </blockquote>
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Latter-day Saint hymns and the atonement==
| |
| − | Perhaps in conclusion it would be best to provide one more hymn sung frequently by the members of the Church of Jesus Christ during their worship services. It has been in the LDS hymnals since 1896, and includes the following thoughts:
| |
| − | <blockquote>
| |
| − | Reverently and meekly now, let thy head most humbly bow, think of me, thou ransomed one; think what I for thee have done, with my blood that dripped like rain, sweat in agony of pain, with my body on the tree I have ransomed even thee. In this bread now blest for thee, emblem of my body see; in this water or this wine, emblem of my blood divine. Oh, remember what was done that the sinner might be won. On the cross of Calvary I have suffered death for thee. Bid thine heart all strife to cease; with thy brethren be at peace. Oh, forgive as thou wouldst be even forgiven now by me. In the solemn faith of prayer cast upon me all thy care, and my Spirit's grace shall be like a fountain unto thee. At the throne I intercede; for thee ever do I plead. I have loved thee as thy friend, with a love that cannot end. Be obedient, I implore, prayerful, watchful evermore, and be constant unto me, that thy Savior I may be.
| |
| − | </blockquote>
| |
| − | This hymn, penned by a Latter-day Saint, is even more significant, given that when the new edition of the LDS hymnal was reviewed by a Professor of Music at the University of Toronto, the reviewer indicated that it "would enhance a communion service in any church." {{ref|townsend}} It does so precisely because it emphasizes the atoning sacrifice of Christ for all people. He is the Savior, who shed His blood for us. This has been the position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from the beginning, and continues to be so.
| |
| − | | |
| − | {{Detail|/Portrayed in Latter-day Saint hymns|l1=The atonement as portrayed in Latter-day Saint hymns}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Conclusion==
| |
| − | Many of the quotations used by critics regarding the LDS view of the atonement have been taken out of context, or the further comments of the speaker have been ignored. This is an implied a form of "bearing false witness," which is completely against the Gospel that the Savior taught during His earthly ministry. Critics, such as the authors of ''[[Mormonism 101]]'', show very little evidence of having "studied the [Latter-day Saint] movement for the greater part of their lives" as they claim. In fact, if one takes up the authors' challenge to check their sources, one finds that in every case they are found wanting, often seriously so. In their "witnessing tip" regarding the Book of Mormon the authors conclude their imaginary dialogue by asking: "If Smith was misleading in this statement, how can I trust his other statements?" One can conclude: If the authors of ''[[Mormonism 101]]'' are so misleading in virtually every statement, why should we, or any other reader, trust them in any of their other statements, or their other books for that matter?
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Endnotes==
| |
| − | #{{note|hoc.3.30}}Joseph Smith, History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Vol. 3 (Salt Lake City, Utah; Deseret Book Company, 1980) : .30 The passage is quoted frequently: Richard R. Hopkins, Biblical Mormonism. Responding to Evangelical Criticism of LDS Theology (Bountiful, Utah: Horizon Publishers, 1994), 123; Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, edited by Joseph Fielding Smith (Salt Lake City; Deseret Book Company, 1976), 121.; The Teachings of Joseph Smith, edited by Larry E. Dahl and Donald Q. Cannon (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1997), 55; Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, Second Edition (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966), 60.; also in M. Gerald Bradford and Larry E. Dahl, "Doctrine: Meaning, Source, and History of Doctrine," Encyclopedia of Mormonism, edited by Daniel H. Ludlow (New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1992), 1:393–397; Tad Callister, The Infinite Atonement (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 2000), 3–4; Keith W. Perkins, "Insights into the Atonement from Latter-day Scriptures," Principles of the Gospel in Practice. Sperry Symposium 1985 (Salt Lake City, Utah;: Randall Book Company, 1985), 91; Bruce R. McConkie, Conference Report (April 1950), 130; quoted in Richard G. Grant, Understanding these Other Christians. An LDS Introduction to Evangelical Christianity (self-published, 1998): 42; My Errand from the Lord. A personal study guide for Melchizedek Priesthood Quorums 1976-1977 (Salt Lake City: Corporation of the President, 1976), 92. The statement was first published in an early LDS publication, the Elders' Journal I (1832): 28–9. The frequency of appearance of this quotation in LDS literature makes one wonder why it is not to be found in Mormonism 101; indeed, the authors claim to have read the first six references cited here.
| |
| − | #{{note|roberts.iv}}B.H. Roberts, The Seventy's Course in Theology, Fourth Year (1911): The Atonement (Orem, Utah: Grandin Book Company, 1994), iv–v. This is a reprint edition of this book, first published by Deseret News Press, 1907–1912.
| |
| − | #{{note|smith.83}}Joseph F. Smith, "Principles of Government in the Church" (September 13, 1917), Messages of the First Presidency, Vol. 5, edited by James R. Clark (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1971), 83; first published Improvement Era 21 (November 1917), 3–11.
| |
| − | #{{note|grant.24}}Heber J. Grant, Gospel Standards (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1969, 1941), 24. McKeever and Johnson claim to have read this volume. The statement cited is also quoted in a student manual: Doctrines of the Gospel (Salt Lake City: Corporation of the President of the Church, 1986), 9.
| |
| − | #{{note|grant.6}}Grant, Gospel Standards, 6, citing Deseret News Church Section, September 3, 1938, 7.
| |
| − | #{{note|mcconkie.11}}Bruce R. McConkie, Conference Report (April 1985), 11, quoted in Callister, The Infinite Atonement, 17; also, Robert Millet, "Foreword" to Callister, The Infinite Atonement, x.
| |
| − | #{{note|young.41}}Brigham Young, "Character and Condition of the Latter-day Saints, Etc.," Journal of Discourses, reported by David W. Evans 8 May 1870, Vol. 14 (London: Latter-Day Saint's Book Depot, 1872), 41, quoted in Callister, The Infinite Atonement, 9.
| |
| − | #{{note|hunter.385}}Howard W. Hunter, The Teachings of Howard W. Hunter, edited by Clyde J. Williams (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1997), 7; in Latter-day Commentary on the Old Testament, edited by Ed J. Pinegar and Richard J. Allen (American Fork, Utah: Covenant Communications, Inc., 2001), 385.
| |
| − | #{{note|hinckley.93}}Ensign (May 1975), 93; cited in Gordon B. Hinckley, Teachings of Gordon B. Hinckley (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1997), 26–27.
| |
| − | #{{note|ensign.77}}Ensign (May 2001), 77.
| |
| − | #{{note|smith.23}}Joseph Smith, History of the Church 2:5–6, 23; cited in The Teachings of Joseph Smith, 481–482. McKeever and Johnson claim to have read both of these volumes.
| |
| − | #{{note|m101.148}}McKeever and Johnson, Mormonism 101, 148–149.
| |
| − | #{{note|oden}}Partially quoted in Oden, The Word of Life, Vol. 2, 383. Entire paragraph is given at Henry Denzinger, Sources of Catholic Dogma, translated by Roy J. Deferrari from the 30th edition of Denzinger's Enchiridion Symbolorum (Fitzwilliam, New Hampshire: Loreto Publications, 2002), paragraph 319.
| |
| − | #{{note|marshall.56}}I. Howard Marshall, "Universal Grace and Atonement in the Pastoral Epistles," The Grace of God and the Will of Man, edited by Clark Pinnock (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers, 1989), 56.
| |
| − | #{{note|marshall.69}}Marshall, "Universal Grace and Atonement in the Pastoral Epistles," 69.
| |
| − | #{{note|marshall.68-69}}Marshall, "Universal Grace and Atonement in the Pastoral Epistles,"68–69.
| |
| − | #{{note|miethe.72}}Miethe, "The Universal Power of the Atonement," 72. Miethe's thesis is actually a quotation from Donald M. Lake, "He died for all: the Universal Dimensions of the Atonement," in Grace Unlimited, edited by Clark H. Pinnock (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers, 1975), 31.
| |
| − | #{{note|miethe.78-79}}Miethe, "The Universal Power of the Atonement," 78–79, emphasis in the original.
| |
| − | #{{note|miethe.79}}Ibid., 79. In the footnote Miethe refers to Norman F. Douty, The Death of Christ: Did Christ Die Only for the Elect? (Irving, Texas: William and Watrous, 1978), 136–163, who lists "over 70 of the Church's leading teachers—from the early centuries to the present one." Miethe also states that John Calvin himself must have been a believer in unlimited atonement, page 85–86. Alan Clifford concurs, Atonement and Justification, 72–73: "there is considerable evidence to suggest that, judged by seventeenth-century criteria, he did not subscribe to, nor believe in, the doctrine of limited atonement." On page 73 Clifford quotes Calvin: "God commends to us the salvation of all men without exception, even as Christ suffered for the sins of the whole world" (Comm Galatians 5:12). See in general the entire treatment by Clifford, in Part Two: The Theology. Atonement and Grace: Chapter Five: Authentic Calvinism, pages 69–94.
| |
| − | #{{note|miethe.80}}Miethe, "The Universal Power of the Atonement," 80, quoting Frederick F. Bruce, Answers to Questions (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1972), 197. No source is given for the Calvin comment, but it is probably from Calvin's Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, three volumes, translated by William Pringle (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1979), in volume 3, on Matthew 26:28 and Mark 14:24.
| |
| − | #{{note|miethe.80-2}}Miethe, "The Universal Power of the Atonement," 80, quoting Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, Vol. 2 (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1984), 830.
| |
| − | #{{note|miethe.82}}Ibid., 82, quoting Culpepper, Interpreting the Atonement (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1966), 125.
| |
| − | #{{note|miethe.88-90}}Ibid., 88–90. The quotation is from the Institutes 3.24.6. Miethe also refers us to the following passages: Institutes of the Christian Religion 3.1.1; 3.24.17; Eternal Predestination of God 9.5, and commentaries on Isaiah 53.12; Romans 5.15; Colossians 1.15.
| |
| − | #{{note|townsend}}Joseph L. Townsend, "Reverently and Meekly Now," hymn 185; first in 1896; also in 1906 edition, hymn 331. The reviewer was Hugh McKeller, in the journal, The Hymn (April 1996), quoted in Karen Lynn Davidson, Our Latter-day Hymns, 200.
| |
