Reklaw Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 I also think that Aaron's perspective requires that God is fundamentally incapable of sin. That is, there is no conceivable way in which God the Father could do wrong. It is at least one limit to his power. For me, such a view seems to lessen God's greatness. If God is utterly incapable of doing wrong, then I see no reason for commending or glorying in his righteousness. He hasn't accomplished anything by simply doing what he can't help but do.I've often said that if you would deny a perfect, loving, just, merciful, and righteous God solely because He was at one time mortal and was less than He is now, then it is your faith that is in question, not God's divinity. Link to comment
Mudcat Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 If they do, what are those implications?LehiOK, lets look at what some of the implications might be from either scenario. Feel free to correct any assumptions, I know a bit about LDS theology but as you are well aware, I am no expert.The Father Sinned.Implications- He needed to atoned for.- A precedent is set for an infinite number of atonements also- Christ's sacrifice is not singularly unique - When Christ was crucified, he was not literally doing what he had seen the Father do.- By example, a sinful man can become GodThe Father Sinless Implications- No atonement necessary for the Father- By example, A precedent is set for a sinless life to be God .... the Father was/is sinless, the Son was/is sinless- Christ's sacrifice is possibly singularly unique - When Christ was crucified, he was may have literally been doing what he had seen the Father do.As I see it, the compatibility with the concept of a sinful (at some point) Father is a better fit to what I understand LDS to believe about exaltation. It actually makes the concept mesh quite nicely. Either position is incompatible with my own beliefs as both seem to tamper with the immutable nature or God, but the concept of a sinful (at some point) Father would be the most incompatible. - Link to comment
Sargon Posted July 22, 2009 Author Share Posted July 22, 2009 OK, lets look at what some of the implications might be from either scenario. Feel free to correct any assumptions, I know a bit about LDS theology but as you are well aware, I am no expert.The Father Sinned.Implications- He needed to atoned for.What if he atoned for his own sins, and literally earned his own salvation?That is just speculation. Maybe it is possible. Link to comment
Mudcat Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 What if he atoned for his own sins, and literally earned his own salvation?That is just speculation. Maybe it is possible.That is an interesting thought, maybe your on to something. Let me ask you, since we are speculating.How do you think this might have worked?Maybe to keep it simple, lets say he had committed only one sin. How does one atone for such? Link to comment
LeSellers Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 [if] The Father Sinned.Implications- He needed to atoned for.- A precedent is set for an infinite number of atonements also- Christ's sacrifice is not singularly unique - When Christ was crucified, he was not literally doing what he had seen the Father do.- By example, a sinful man can become GodNone of these make any difference to me. The issue of His having sinned does not, in the least, change anything in His relationship to us. He is perfect, as I mentioned before. His perfection makes Him God, or at least opened the way for Him to become God. That He may have needed an Atonement does not change His perfection in regards to us. That there are untold Atonements does not diminish Christ's great work for us. The "form" of Atonement (for us by Crucifixion) may not be what Jesus meant when He said He did only what He'd seen the Father do. But we have seen thousands of people crucified on earth. If Father's death was by crucifixion ... . That He was sinful in His mortality means that there is hope for me, also a sinner in mine.[if] The Father [is] Sinless Implications- No atonement necessary for the Father- By example, A precedent is set for a sinless life to be God .... the Father was/is sinless, the Son was/is sinless- Christ's sacrifice is possibly singularly unique - When Christ was crucified, he was may have literally been doing what he had seen the Father do.His sinless life in mortality changes nothing in regards to His perfection vis- Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.