Comments on: How We Taught the New Testament in the Past: Lesson 25: “Not My Will, But Thine, Be Done”

By: Matt W.

Matt W. — Mon, 27 Jun 2011 14:33:58 +0000

This is great Ardis. Thanks.

By: Amy

Amy — Sun, 26 Jun 2011 23:16:03 +0000

Agreed. I actually read this lesson (from Tanner’s book directly–you got me hooked!) in preparation for teaching the Gethsemane lesson today, and I thought his perspective rather odd in view of our current theology. I remember seeing that chart about different atonement theories, but ultimately decided I couldn’t teach it in my class and I’d better just stick to the doctrine currently in vogue.
Someday, though, it would be interesting to engage a (fairly open-minded) class in a discussion on the salvific nature of suffering and the various ways we can look at the Atonement.

By: Ardis E. Parshall

Ardis E. Parshall — Sun, 26 Jun 2011 21:38:32 +0000

Amy, your understanding (i.e., pretty much the opposite of the bit you extracted) is generally what I’ve heard taught, too. This lesson goes against that parable that Pres. Packer likes to teach about mercy-cannot-rob-justice, about a man who steps in to pay the debt of another.

But there are several ideas of how the Atonement works — I can’t keep them straight, and need somebody to make a brief chart with the key concepts mapped out. The philosophers at New Cool Thang have discussed the different theories of the Atonement on several occasions, including identifying which general authorities of the past tended to teach which idea.

In other words, although I can’t outline the reasoning to demonstrate it, I think this old lesson is not out in left field, that it teaches one of the other theories supported by at least some apostles, but one which is currently not in vogue, perhaps because Pres. Packer is so fond of the version he now teaches.

For all we like to claim we have the answers, that’s a boast that isn’t completely borne out in practice when it comes to incompletely understood concepts like the Atonement.

By: Amy

Amy — Sun, 26 Jun 2011 20:50:13 +0000

“We cannot read in to the text that Jesus took upon himself other men’s punishments. Neither sin, nor guilt, nor moral obligation can be transferred to the innocent. The suffering of Jesus did not right other people’s wrongs. But just as the intensity of a mother’s love causes her deep sorrow for the sins of her children, so the intensity of Jesus’ love for all men caused him an overwhelming anguish because of their sins, and in that sense he took upon him “the sins of the world.” Truly, he was to die for the sinner, not to accept punishment for him, but to draw the sinner unto him.”

Seems to be the opposite of what we teach nowadays.