DiscussMormonism.com

Seeking help.

Seems to me that the LDS view of Atonement is heavily influenced by Ransom and Penal Substitution models of atonement -- that God requires either payment for or an exact punishment for all sins committed. While Brad Wilcox' Continuous Atonement seeks to find a more loving, applicable model, it seems to me that LDS more often latch onto the necessity of a literal fall and an infinite atonement, as Tad Callister proposes, in response. Tad Callister's "Infinite Atonement" is finding its way into the hearts of many LDS as the definitive statement of what the Atonement is.

Most of the reviews I have found are glowingly positive, yet as I read the material, I find it infused with an ontological presumption about God (the creedal "omni) that may not be truly shared in Mormonism, as well as presuming the requirement that justice must be satisfied as in the Penal Substitution model expounded in the Book of Mormon.

So my question. Is there any serious critique of Tad Callister's "Infinite Atonement" book?

Being completely unfamiliar with these two authors and their books I checked google for some information. I found some summarizing descriptions. They both sound very standard. Whats to question other than perhaps style and density of oft repeated exhortations?.

Or perhaps you can supply a question?

I am no longer of LDS persuasion but the atonement is central to my view of the value of Christianity. I do not think my Protestant Catholic views are hugely different than LDS but I tend to not think in terms of substitutionary punishment.

I doubt Callister is significant enough to merit much of any critique let alone a "serious" critique. He's not high enough ranking to represent the Church. He's not an academic. He's nobody. His work merits little more critique than any random TBM blog.

Funny you mention penal substitution (I had no idea such a dumb idea could be called a "model"). I remember a sacrament meeting talk when I was a teen where a story was told of some guy who crossed paths with an executioner's entourage and the guy stops them and gets a description of the crimes and sentence of the condemned, and then offers to take the place of the criminal. And so on the spot, they set a dangerous criminal free and take this innocent guy to execute. What great love the guy had. It may have been the stupidest talk I ever heard which is why I remember it. Sometimes you should avoid allegory because it can show how stupid the religious idea really is.

Gadianton wrote:I doubt Callister is significant enough to merit much of any critique let alone a "serious" critique. He's not high enough ranking to represent the Church. He's not an academic. He's nobody. His work merits little more critique than any random TBM blog.

Funny you mention penal substitution (I had no idea such a dumb idea could be called a "model"). I remember a sacrament meeting talk when I was a teen where a story was told of some guy who crossed paths with an executioner's entourage and the guy stops them and gets a description of the crimes and sentence of the condemned, and then offers to take the place of the criminal. And so on the spot, they set a dangerous criminal free and take this innocent guy to execute. What great love the guy had. It may have been the stupidest talk I ever heard which is why I remember it. Sometimes you should avoid allegory because it can show how stupid the religious idea really is.

Gadianton, I agree that the story is bad. I do not see any allegory however. I see instead a picture of penal substitution with all of its core religious meaning removed leaving only a useless husk.

Doesn't the Book of Mormon point out that human beings can't substitute themselves for criminals, only God?

Maxine Waters wrote:Doesn't the Book of Mormon point out that human beings can't substitute themselves for criminals, only God?

Alma 34:10-12

10 For it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice; yea, not a sacrifice of man, neither of beast, neither of any manner of fowl; for it shall not be a human sacrifice; but it must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice.

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; therefore there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world.

Regards,
MG