Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

If God doesn't want us to sin . . .


consiglieri

Recommended Posts

The only award you are likely to get would come from the Protestant/Evangelicals, and you would be welcome to it.

This, too, seems a bit beyond the immediate need.

Geeeeeeeeze, folks, hows 'bout some polite decorum? This topic doesn't deserve to be shut down.

Lehi

Link to comment

That's both unfair and uncalled-for.

Much like the repeated inferences that anyone who disagrees with Zerinus doesn't know the scriptures or LDS doctrine? And as Consig pointed out, the logical end of Zerinus' position is that a Savior really isn't needed to overcome hell - just death.

No one has suggested that we can be saved without Christ. We need His Atonement for salvation from physical death, even if, hypothetically, there were anyone, apart from Jesus Christ, who had lived a sinless life.

Did you read the verse I posted in which your namesake said that no flesh is justified because of the Fall? Justification, according to lds.org means, "To be pardoned from punishment for sin and declared guiltless."

As all of us have sinned, the question is purely hypothetical, but I ask once again, if there were no sin a person A's life, what is it that he needs to repent of? Repentance presupposes a sin. No sin, no need for repentance. It is only because of sin that the second principle of the Gospel is "Repentance".

But that's where we fundamentally disagree. This isn't hypothetical. If the plan includes a necessary individual fall then there is a reason for that and the reason is pertinent to our exaltation.

I am reminded again of why hypothetical situation are so unrewarding in most cases. Especially when the hypothetical is not ever going to happen. Too much of the real world is lost in the necessary suppositions.

Lehi

It's only hypothetical if you believe a sinless mortal can exist. For those of us who believe that a personal fall is what brings men to Christ, we need only look around the room for evidence.

Link to comment

If the plan includes a necessary individual fall then there is a reason for that and the reason is pertinent to our exaltation.

Taking a step back, the plan includes a fall because that is all we are capable of at the intersection of our choice to participate in the second estate (not necessarily a fallen estate, for we participated in the creation of the terrestrial world), the readiness / willingness of Adam and Eve to lead the way into the second estate, and Christ

Link to comment

Taking a step back, the plan includes a fall because that is all we are capable of at the intersection of our choice to participate in the second estate (not necessarily a fallen estate, for we participated in the creation of the terrestrial world), the readiness / willingness of Adam and Eve to lead the way into the second estate, and Christ

Link to comment
as Consig pointed out, the logical end of Zerinus' position is that a Savior really isn't needed to overcome hell - just death.

Indeed. If there were no sin, purely hypothetically, then we not need a Savior. There would be nothing to save us from. The wages of sin is (spiritual) death. Without sin, there is no spiritual death.

Did you read the verse I posted in which your namesake said that no flesh is justified because of the Fall?

Geeeeeeze! No one is arguing that there actually is anyone (apart Jesus Christ) who could possibly avoid the necessity of a Savior, of the Atonement, of Redemption.

We're discussing if (assuming) a completely sinless person would need a Savior from his (non-existent) sins. The words don't even make sense. A sinless person can't need saving from sin.

That he would, however, require a Savior to effect his resurrection to immortality and Eternal Life is not in dispute. That part of the Atonement is requisite for all of us, because our mortality is part of the package we signed on for when we accepted Father's Plan.

Justification, according to lds.org means, "To be pardoned from punishment for sin and declared guiltless."

If one is already guiltless because he has not committed any sins, then he needs no justification. He is already just before God. The only problem is, no one meets that qualification. So there is no way to test the premise. But each scripture you (and all the rest who've tried) have posted applies to those who have sinned. They do not apply to this hypothetical individual.

But that's where we fundamentally disagree. This isn't hypothetical.

Sorry, it is. It's hypothetical because no such person exists.

If the plan includes a necessary individual fall then there is a reason for that and the reason is pertinent to our exaltation.

A proposition you have yet to prove.

There is no scripture that claims that we each need to sin in order to receive exaltation. To the contrary, those scriptures we do have about real people who manage to live sinlessly (those who die without accountability, the young and the deficient), we know they rise to the Celestial Kingdom, and if we are to believe Father's statement that His work and Glory is to bring to pass the Eternal Life of Man, then we can only imagine that these must be exalted. Yet they are incapable of sin (even if they are fully capable

Link to comment

Indeed. If there were no sin, purely hypothetically, then we not need a Savior. There would be nothing to save us from. The wages of sin is (spiritual) death. Without sin, there is no spiritual death.

As I've already pointed out, Lehi, this isn't a hypothetical.

Geeeeeeze! No one is arguing that there actually is anyone (apart Jesus Christ) who could possibly avoid the necessity of a Savior, of the Atonement, of Redemption.

We're discussing if (assuming) a completely sinless person would need a Savior from his (non-existent) sins. The words don't even make sense. A sinless person can't need saving from sin.

I never presumed that you didn't agree on this point. I know that you are talking about resurrection. I don't know who "we" is, though. Zerinus and CV75 have been presenting different aspects of the argument altogether. :P

That he would, however, require a Savior to effect his resurrection to immortality and Eternal Life is not in dispute. That part of the Atonement is requisite for all of us, because our mortality is part of the package we signed on for when we accepted Father's Plan.

Of course it is.

If one is already guiltless because he has not committed any sins, then he needs no justification. He is already just before God. The only problem is, no one meets that qualification. So there is no way to test the premise. But each scripture you (and all the rest who've tried) have posted applies to those who have sinned. They do not apply to this hypothetical individual.

That isn't the point of the thread. The point isn't that no such hypothetical individual does exist. The point is that no such hypothetical man can exist. And the scriptures speak to that point expressly in showing that the Fall brought about a condition of weakness and corruptibility that made men carnal, fallen, and enemies to God and allowed for NONE of them to be justified. Again, not a hypothetical, these are statements coming right out of the Book of Mormon.

Sorry, it is. It's hypothetical because no such person exists.

That makes YOUR argument hypothetical, not mine. I'm arguing that no such person can exist and so far the evidence is overwhelming in favor of that position. You already agree that none do exist. So the question becomes "Why?"

A proposition you have yet to prove.

We can agree that all are fallen. All I have to prove is that all are fallen by nature in order to show that every accountable being will sin. I have laid out scriptures to that end repeatedly.

There is no scripture that claims that we each need to sin in order to receive exaltation. To the contrary, those scriptures we do have about real people who manage to live sinlessly (those who die without accountability, the young and the deficient), we know they rise to the Celestial Kingdom, and if we are to believe Father's statement that His work and Glory is to bring to pass the Eternal Life of Man, then we can only imagine that these must be exalted. Yet they are incapable of sin (even if they are fully capable
Link to comment

the Fall ushered in this condition of spiritual and physical corruptibility upon all mankind making Christ the only path to salvation. They key is that after the Fall no flesh is justified.

The Fall certainly ushered in the condition of spiritual and physical corruptibility upon all mankind that are prepared to receive their second estate through Adam and Eve on this earth making Christ the only path to salvation for this earth. But the Fall did not impose spiritual and physical corruptibility upon all mankind that come to earth, as some are still evil spirits that will not receive bodies here.

Like the evil spirits, our spiritual corruptibility is a function of our pre-mortal development. Our physical corruptibility is in turn a function of our spiritual corruptibility. This is why Adam and Eve fell and why we can accept that fall as if we had made the decision they did ourselves, and how the physical corruptibility now in turn facilitates further spiritual corruptibility.

Christ was also the only path to salvation in the pre-mortal world, in the sense of our pre-mortal spiritual development and progress. He atoned for us in that world as well, in the sense of making it possible for us to become as He is and one with God, albeit in a different manner than that which was executed in the Garden of Gethsemane. He would atone for God's children in any other situation where He is more advanced than we are and oneness with God is the mutual aim. With this eternal backdrop for the plan of salvation, and Christ

Link to comment

As I've already pointed out, Lehi, this isn't a hypothetical.

I never presumed that you didn't agree on this point. I know that you are talking about resurrection. I don't know who "we" is, though. Zerinus and CV75 have been presenting different aspects of the argument altogether. :P

Of course it is.

That isn't the point of the thread. The point isn't that no such hypothetical individual does exist. The point is that no such hypothetical man can exist. And the scriptures speak to that point expressly in showing that the Fall brought about a condition of weakness and corruptibility that made men carnal, fallen, and enemies to God and allowed for NONE of them to be justified. Again, not a hypothetical, these are statements coming right out of the Book of Mormon.

That makes YOUR argument hypothetical, not mine. I'm arguing that no such person can exist and so far the evidence is overwhelming in favor of that position. You already agree that none do exist. So the question becomes "Why?"

We can agree that all are fallen. All I have to prove is that all are fallen by nature in order to show that every accountable being will sin. I have laid out scriptures to that end repeatedly.

They will indeed be exalted, they must however acquire knowledge preparatory to receiving that inheritance. We can suppose this with confidence based on prophetic statements about parents rearing their children who died young in the next life and based upon President Young's statements that our progression is based on acquiring certain knowledge. Not to mention the Lord's own words that a man cannot be saved in ignorance. But that's all digression from the issue since it was clarified at the outset of the thread that (1) the lack of accountability does not preclude the ability to violate the commandments and (2) the command to repent was given only to the accountable (Moroni 8:10). This issue was addressed on the first page or two of the thread, iirc.

Just to be clear, again, I'm not the one proposing a sinless man could exist. I'm proposing that all accountable men are by nature sinful and I have ample real life evidence as well as scriptural citations to that end.

Indeed. And this was addressed on, again, iirc the first couple pages of the thread. I even posted a quote by Elder McConkie pointing out that the argument only holds true for accountable individuals.

Don't you think it is about time you admitted that you are wrong? ;)

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...