Elder Packer's Parable Of The Mediator

[Jason]

So you are saying that God the Father had a choice?

God's love for us would not be praiseworthy if He had no choice in whether to exercise it. God chose to create us and chose to present the Plan of Salvation to us. We chose to follow it. God chose to carry out His portion of it, and Jesus chose the same. Despite the fact that the Plan operates within the constraints of eternal laws that God cannot violate, such as the requirement for opposition in all things and an atoning sacrifice, it was an act of choice motivated out of love to carry it out in the first place.

[Brade]

So you are saying that God the Father had a choice?

Sure. And why is that so hard to believe. If I am found to be standing on a bomb that is set to go off in mere seconds I can choose to stay and blow up or I can take a few steps to the side and not blow up. The fact that taking a few steps to the side is the obvious best choice doesn't make it any less the case that I made a real choice to take steps. In essence, just because there is only one obvious good choice doesn't mean there is only one choice.

[Billy]

God's love for us would not be praiseworthy if He had no choice in whether to exercise it.

So you are saying that God the Father choose to have his son crucified, it was not mandated by some pre-existing law?

[cksalmon]

Please. This is getting ridiculous. I have spent the better portion of several posts in a good faith effort to clarify my position. I have stated that my original wording was probably not the best, and have felt bad for it. Thus I have spent more effort than I ought to have to clarify in the apparently vain hope that you would just accept that I didn't elucidate clearly, accept those clarifications and move on from there. You now have more than enough material to understand my position.

Now, I have provided statements from the easily located works of two of the founders of systematic Christian thought underpinning the theology upon which most major Christian denominations operate which appear to support the notion that 1) God has limits and 2) those limits exist due to a descriptive framework and logical conditions which enable us to apply the concept of God. So far you have given me little evidence that further effort on my part would be useful or productive. First you wanted "just one" systematic theological example of my case, now you want "numerous examples." If you feel these samples from the roots of Christian Orthodoxy do not support my now amply fleshed out position or their that their provenance somehow does not permeate systematized Christian thought, then you need to explain why and support your refutation. I have been more than charitable in accomodating you here.

Now it is time for you to either deal with it or move on to greener pastures. I have satisfied your CFR by 1) spending considerable time clarifying my position, and 2) offering what I see as documentary support for that position. Until I see something from you which is going to move the discussion forward, I am done with this exchange.

Hi groove--

My problem with your sources are that they do not support the claim that there are external limits to which God is subject, which was my main point of contention.

I do appreciate that you've taken the time to flesh out your position. My overreaction stems from having tired of reading unsupportable LDS claims to the effect "All Protestant/EV x is y."

I truly don't think you were making a rash claim; we just disagree.

Best.

cks

[Jason]

So you are saying that God the Father choose to have his son crucified, it was not mandated by some pre-existing law?

Read my post again please.

The Plan of Salvation operates within the constraints of eternal laws which even God must obey. But though it operates within pre-existing laws the choice to enact the Plan itself was not "mandated" - the choice to carry it out was one made out of love.

[cinepro]

Simple. Christ's sacrifice was only absolutely required if God the Father wished to obtain the end of redeeming mankind. The Father's wish to redeem mankind was motivated by love. Therefore the Son's sacrifice was made out of love.

But God could presumably have chosen not to redeem mankind, and not to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. He choses to do so out of love.

But what about the option for people to pay the price for their own sins? Why couldn't people pay for their own sins after being resurrected, and then receive their eternal reward?

If Christ's atonement took 24 hours, and he paid the price for the sins of 25 billion people (estimate of total Earth population for all time), then each person's sins took an average of .0000035 Earth seconds to atone for. After we are resurrected, could we not suffer the .0000035 Earth seconds of pain for our own sins?

Perhaps the flaw in the Parable is that we don't need money or some other resource to pay for our sins. The Universal Scales of Justice are satisfied with intense, pore-bleeding physical pain as payment for stolen candy bars and coffee drinking. And once we are capable of sustaining such pain as immortal beings...?

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

NO. The agony of the Atonement caused even God to bleed from every pour.

[Jason]

But what about the option for people to pay the price for their own sins? Why couldn't people pay for their own sins after being resurrected, and then receive their eternal reward?

Because the price of paying for your own sins would be that you don't receive an eternal reward.

It is only because of Jesus' intervention on our behalf that we are allowed any resurrection or eternal reward at all.

If Christ's atonement took 24 hours, and he paid the price for the sins of 25 billion people (estimate of total Earth population for all time), then each person's sins took an average of .0000035 Earth seconds to atone for. After we are resurrected, could we not suffer the .0000035 Earth seconds of pain for our own sins?

You assume that Christ's atonement was completely accomplished in 24 hours, that it only covered 25 billion people, that the pain caused by sins could be divided into an "average" amount for each person and that the pain suffered is something we could withstand .0000035 seconds of.

None of those assumptions may be accurate.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Well, say what you will about Calvin, but I simply don't think this is the right way to disagree. Do you think Calvin did the best he could with what he understood? I disagree with much of Calvin's conclusions, but I wouldn't (when I am trying to be my best self) call him a fool.

Maybe a bit much, but I wanted Billy to understand just how much I think of the whole idea of people being born damned. Especially since he does not believe anymore in "pre-mortal" existence. This would mean they are damned for nothing at all. This 'god' does not exist. For someone who is considered such a great thinker (as many think Calvin was) at age 11 with my own Bible I knew this to be false. He studied the same Bible for a lifetime and came up with this "damnable doctrine of devils".

Rom. 10: 1

1 Brethren, my heartâ??s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.

John 3: 17

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

2 Ne. 26: 33

33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.

[cinepro]

Because the price of paying for your own sins would be that you don't receive an eternal reward.

It is only because of Jesus' intervention on our behalf that we are allowed any resurrection or eternal reward at all.

That makes no sense. So Joe sins, but if he pays the price for his own sins (through pain), his reward is limited. But if someone else who had nothing to do with Joe's sins offers to pay the price for them (through pain), then Joe's reward is not limited? That's justice?

I understand the Jesus makes it possible for us to be resurrected. But that gift isn't tied to sin in the first place, so it has nothing to do with justice (or the parable). But it does make it possible for everyone pay the price for their sins as immortal beings.

You assume that Christ's atonement was completely accomplished in 24 hours,

I'm just going by what the scriptures say. If you have any other information, please share. But assuming the physical part of the atonement started no sooner than the "Let this cup pass from me", and ended around "It is finished" (at the latest), that's a pretty good timeframe to work from.

that it only covered 25 billion people,

That's just a rough guess. You can insert any estimate you like and arrive at your own average time for each individual's pain and suffering.

that the pain caused by sins could be divided into an "average" amount for each person and that the pain suffered is something we could withstand .0000035 seconds of.

The average was for discussion purposes only. Obviously, the Universal Scales of Justice would demand that a very sinful old man have much more suffering than a newborn baby. The point is that it's definitely a finite (and very short by Earthly time) period of suffering for each individual.

Once physical death is removed from the equation, how could we not withstand it? Once we're resurrected, what can happen to us? Are you theorizing a degree of pain that could kill a resurrected being, but couldn't kill the pre-resurrected Jesus?

None of those assumptions may be accurate.

That's why they're called "assumptions". But I think they all have a pretty solid basis in LDS teaching, except for the fact that LDS could never admit it as a possibility.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

The text does not say that God hated Esau because he sold his birthright. And hate is not better translated "disfavor", ask Joseph Smith in his JST. Also notice that it states that God elects not based on works.JST11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth 12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

Well, Billy, would it not stand to reason that the scripture should be taken into the context of the story of the OT...or do you think he is speaking of another "Jacob and Esau"?

You don't think that God can do anything He chooses?Who makes the rules up for God?

He does...then obey them.

[consiglieri]

So you are saying that God the Father had a choice?

Yes. But not the choice you believe in.

You believe that God could have just forgiven us without horrifically sacrificing his own Son, but chose to go ahead and sacrifice his own Son anyway. Why? Because God loved him so much. (Note: Most people would describe God's impetus as something other than love, but I will let you call it what you wish.)

I, on the other hand, believe that God's choice was not in the manner of redemption, but whether to redeem at all. God could have allowed us all to go to hell and not intervened. But once having made the choice to intervene and redeem, there was no other choice to make but to do it through the sacrifice of his only begotten Son.

Why? Because the laws that even God is subject to mandated such a course of action. There was no other way.

The Mormons win on this one, hands down, Billy.

Are you sure you don't want to reconsider coming back to the fold?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[bluebell]

But what about the option for people to pay the price for their own sins? Why couldn't people pay for their own sins after being resurrected, and then receive their eternal reward?

Bruce Hafen says it much better than i could-

"The Savior asks us to repent not just to repay him for paying our debt to justice, but also to induce us to undergo the personal development that will purify our very nature. The â??natural manâ? will remain an enemy to God foreverâ??even after paying for his or her own sinsâ??unless he or she also â??becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lordâ? (Mosiah 3:19)."

Gaining eternal life is about becoming something, not simplying doing something.

[JDave]

Once physical death is removed from the equation, how could we not withstand it? Once we're resurrected, what can happen to us? Are you theorizing a degree of pain that could kill a resurrected being, but couldn't kill the pre-resurrected Jesus?

My view is that it needs to be accomplished before we are resurrected. We are resurrected with a body that may have certain limits. It seems that those consigned to outer darkness are incapable of returning to live with God. So even though they are resurrected, and can 'easily' suffer for their own sins, that does not change the state of their resurrected bodies nor the limitations inherent to it.

[Jason]

That makes no sense. So Joe sins, but if he pays the price for his own sins (through pain), his reward is limited. But if someone else who had nothing to do with Joe's sins offers to pay the price for them (through pain), then Joe's reward is not limited? That's justice?

No, it's mercy.

I understand the Jesus makes it possible for us to be resurrected. But that gift isn't tied to sin in the first place, so it has nothing to do with justice (or the parable).

On the contrary - physical death is tied to a transgression - the Fall.

But it does make it possible for everyone pay the price for their sins as immortal beings.

Does resurrection alone in fact make it possible for us to pay the price for our sins?

I'm just going by what the scriptures say. If you have any other information, please share. But assuming the physical part of the atonement started no sooner than the "Let this cup pass from me", and ended around "It is finished" (at the latest), that's a pretty good timeframe to work from.

Was the physical punishment that Jesus underwent the extent of the atonement, though?

As for the estimate of 25 billion, there are some indications in LDS theology that the atonement may not have been for just the population of this Earth.

The average was for discussion purposes only. Obviously, the Universal Scales of Justice would demand that a very sinful old man have much more suffering than a newborn baby. The point is that it's definitely a finite (and very short by Earthly time) period of suffering for each individual.

I'm not sure that it is definitely finite. It seems to have been accomplished in a finite time frame from our perspective, but the scriptures often speak of the atonement as being infinite.

Once physical death is removed from the equation, how could we not withstand it? Once we're resurrected, what can happen to us? Are you theorizing a degree of pain that could kill a resurrected being, but couldn't kill the pre-resurrected Jesus?

By questioning whether we could endure it I didn't necessarily mean that it would kill us.

[Billy]

Yes. But not the choice you believe in.

You believe that God could have just forgiven us without horrifically sacrificing his own Son, but chose to go ahead and sacrifice his own Son anyway. Why? Because God loved him so much. (Note: Most people would describe God's impetus as something other than love, but I will let you call it what you wish.)

Why? Because the laws that even God is subject to mandated such a course of action. There was no other way.

1. What choices did God the Father have to choose from? And could he really of made a choice other than the one he made, or would that be against the pre-existing eternal laws?

2. Did God the Father take Christ's life, or did Christ lay it down himself?

I, on the other hand, believe that God's choice was not in the manner of redemption, but whether to redeem at all. God could have allowed us all to go to hell and not intervened. But once having made the choice to intervene and redeem, there was no other choice to make but to do it through the sacrifice of his only begotten Son.

I did not think you believed in Hell?

You say that God could have allowed us all to go to hell and not intervened, what about a third option, by taking the LDS plan proposed by Lucifer that allowed ALL to be saved. Could God the Father really have chosen this plan?

Moses 4

1 And I, the aLord God, spake unto Moses, saying: That bSatan, whom thou hast commanded in the name of mine Only Begotten, is the same which was from the cbeginning, and he came before me, sayingâ??Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will dredeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely eI will do it; wherefore fgive me thine honor.

[cinepro]

No, it's mercy.

On the contrary - physical death is tied to a transgression - the Fall.

Right. But we're talking about the Atonement, not the fall. (Not taking into account the theory that physical death existed before and during the Garden of Eden). The only important facet of the resurrection for this discussion is the fact that everyone gets resurrected, no matter how sinful.

Does resurrection alone in fact make it possible for us to pay the price for our sins?

Since the price for sins is apparently physical pain, then I would suggest that a resurrected being does have the capacity to endure the physical pain to atone for sins.

Was the physical punishment that Jesus underwent the extent of the atonement, though?

There may have been other forms of punishment and "suffering" inflicted upon Christ, but I haven't read anything in the scriptures that indicates the nature of the punishment was unavailable to resurrected beings (except they couldn't bleed from every pore because they don't have blood, so if the Universal Law of Justice demands that people bleed from every pore for some sins, then that would be something resurrected being can't do.)

As for the estimate of 25 billion, there are some indications in LDS theology that the atonement may not have been for just the population of this Earth.

Then that makes my argument stronger, as the "slice" of suffering for each individual becomes much, much smaller as the population of sinful souls becomes greater.

I'm not sure that it is definitely finite. It seems to have been accomplished in a finite time frame from our perspective, but the scriptures often speak of the atonement as being infinite.

By questioning whether we could endure it I didn't necessarily mean that it would kill us.

Infinite in scope, but not intensity or duration (or Christ would still be in Gethsemane today).

If it doesn't kill us, then by definition, we can endure it if we choose to.

Certainly, the theology of the atonement is great. I'm just questioning the mechanism and logic of the theory.

[consiglieri]

If it doesn't kill us, then by definition, we can endure it if we choose to.

Certainly, the theology of the atonement is great. I'm just questioning the mechanism and logic of the theory.

Hi, Cinepro,

It is arguable that the scriptures teach just what you are proposing, in the Sermon on the Mount, when Jesus talks about agreeing with your brother in the way (to the courthouse), or else you could be thrown into (debtor's) prison; you shall not come out until you have paid the utmost farthing (senine in the Nephite account).

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Jason]

Right. But we're talking about the Atonement, not the fall. (Not taking into account the theory that physical death existed before and during the Garden of Eden). The only important facet of the resurrection for this discussion is the fact that everyone gets resurrected, no matter how sinful.

And the fact that without the atonement resurrection would have been impossible.

Since the price for sins is apparently physical pain...

Physical pain was not the only price for sin. The first price paid by Adam for his transgression was spiritual death - seperation from God the Father's presence. Physical pain came after that, and eventually physical death.

Physical pain is only one of the things Jesus underwent. The torment in the Garden of Gethsemane was, as far as I can tell, primarily spiritual rather than physical. It had a physical effect on Jesus, but had no physical source.

Then that makes my argument stronger, as the "slice" of suffering for each individual becomes much, much smaller as the population of sinful souls becomes greater.

True, if the suffering of Jesus can in fact be sliced into distinct particles of suffering assigned to individual sinners. Is that a valid approach, though?

Infinite in scope, but not intensity or duration (or Christ would still be in Gethsemane today).

Could it not be infinite in intensity without being infinite in duration?

If it doesn't kill us, then by definition, we can endure it if we choose to.

Can you really endure anything that does not kill you?

[Jason]

1. What choices did God the Father have to choose from? And could he really of made a choice other than the one he made, or would that be against the pre-existing eternal laws?

God could have chosen not to create us in the first place.

2. Did God the Father take Christ's life, or did Christ lay it down himself?

Jesus lay it down himself.

You say that God could have allowed us all to go to hell and not intervened, what about a third option, by taking the LDS plan proposed by Lucifer that allowed ALL to be saved. Could God the Father really have chosen this plan?

Not and remained God.

[Billy]

Billy states,

You say that God could have allowed us all to go to hell and not intervened, what about a third option, by taking the LDS plan proposed by Lucifer that allowed ALL to be saved. Could God the Father really have chosen this plan?

Jason replies,

Not and remained God.

If God is truly omnipotent God, why could he not of chosen Lucifer's plan? (Unless it was not really a choice at all)

[thesometimesaint]

Billy:

I suppose God could have chosen Lucifer's plan. But He would have ceased to be God.

[Billy]

Billy:

I suppose God could have chosen Lucifer's plan. But He would have ceased to be God.

Why?

[thesometimesaint]

Billy:

Lucifer demand Gods' power and glory.

[Billy]

Billy:

Lucifer demand Gods' power and glory.

Moses 4

3 Wherefore, because that aSatan brebelled against me, and sought to destroy the cagency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be dcast down;

I see your point if you have to follow verse 3, but if God is truly omnipotent, God does not need to give anyone his glory or his power. God should be able to implement any rules that he so desires, unless you think that he is bound by some pre-existing laws.