Towards A Better Understanding Of Agency

[pogi]

 I dont believe he actually paid the penalty of all mens sins because some choose not to repent and thus tey suffer the penalty themselves. 

 

This is basic atonement 101.  Christ paid the penalty for all of our sins in order to answer the demands of justice for a broken law.  No one could receive any degree of glory without the atonement, as we all fall short.  A quick google search will answer your questions regarding what it means to suffer even as Christ if we don't repent.  I remember reading that very discussion on these forums. I am not really interested in discussing that here.

[pogi]

No question. I made this point much earlier. He suffered for all our combined sins, plus temptations, plus sicknesses, plus deaths, plus everything else listed in the scriptures.

 

Yes, he did suffer for all of that.  Maybe you missed it, but the equation in this quote does not allow for any "additional" suffering. 

 

He said: His suffering = the combined suffering of all men

 

The above equation can never be the same as: His suffering > the combined suffering of all men

 

"The combined suffering of men" does not = our combined potential suffering.  Please do not make a hack job out of his words too.

 

He suffered for our temptations so that we might not yeild to them if we accept His help. This is one evidence for His suffering for potential and uncommitted sins. You have these scriptures (and I think I posted tehm earlier) so I won't list them.

 

He suffered that we would not be tempted more than we can bear; this is also evidence that He suffered for sins we did not commit, for we were not even tempted by virtue of His standing between us and the adversary. I provided this reference earlier.

 

Wrong, suffering for temptations is not the same as suffering for a broken law.  You cannot equate the two, that is absurd!  The quote above is proof of this fact.  We never have, and never will, suffer for potential yet uncommitted sin.  We MUST conclude then that neither will Christ suffer for potential yet uncommitted sin, because His suffering is equal to (not greater than) ours.  There is no way around this equation. 

[Ahab]

No question. I made this point much earlier. He suffered for all our combined sins, plus temptations, plus sicknesses, plus deaths, plus everything else listed in the scriptures.

The phrase "suffered for our sins" (and whatever else he "suffered" for) makes more sense to me when I think of that "suffering" as him "experiencing" all of those things as if he had done those things, himself, and because of that he was separated from our Father because our Father won't tolerate sin in any degree whatsoever, even when the "sinner" is someone he loves as much as he loved Jesus then.

 

It's not like he suffered for something without knowing what he was experiencing, or why he was experiencing it.  He felt every "bad" thing we ever go through and ever can go through and because he "felt" all of that and "experienced" all of that, through us, he knows how it feels to go through every bad thing we can ever go through.

 

I think most people don't spend enough time thinking about all of that.

[CV75]

Yes, he did suffer for all of that.  Maybe you missed it, but the equation in this quote does not allow for any "additional" suffering. 

 

He said: His suffering = the combined suffering of all men

 

The above equation can never be the same as: His suffering > the combined suffering of all men

 

"The combined suffering of men" does not = our combined potential suffering.  Please do not make a hack job out of his words too.

 

 

Wrong, suffering for temptations is not the same as suffering for a broken law.  You cannot equate the two, that is absurd!  The quote above is proof of this fact.  We never have, and never will, suffer for potential yet uncommitted sin.  We MUST conclude then that neither will Christ suffer for potential yet uncommitted sin, because His suffering is equal to (not greater than) ours.  There is no way around this equation.

Of course it is additional in that additional purposes represent corresponding suffering. And he suffered in multiple ways, times and places, each in addition to the others.

From my experience, suffering is both potential and actual. I could have suffered things I have not, either because I was spared by grace or because I received through faith the needed strength from God which I did not inherently possess. You must have had the asme experience.

Suffering for temptation and suffering for broken law are different in that temptation is potential sin, and the latter is committed sin. We do suffer temptation—it is not a very pleasant experience, but that is how we grow (or sin).

[CV75]

The phrase "suffered for our sins" (and whatever else he "suffered" for) makes more sense to me when I think of that "suffering" as him "experiencing" all of those things as if he had done those things, himself, and because of that he was separated from our Father because our Father won't tolerate sin in any degree whatsoever, even when the "sinner" is someone he loves as much as he loved Jesus then.

 

It's not like he suffered for something without knowing what he was experiencing, or why he was experiencing it.  He felt every "bad" thing we ever go through and ever can go through and because he "felt" all of that and "experienced" all of that, through us, he knows how it feels to go through every bad thing we can ever go through.

 

I think most people don't spend enough time thinking about all of that.

I see it that way too. I think this aspect of His suffering was further compounded by the fact that He was perfect, innocent and of the highest level of spiritual intelligence, condescending to levels below all else (D&C 88:6).

[Rob Osborn]

The phrase "suffered for our sins" (and whatever else he "suffered" for) makes more sense to me when I think of that "suffering" as him "experiencing" all of those things as if he had done those things, himself, and because of that he was separated from our Father because our Father won't tolerate sin in any degree whatsoever, even when the "sinner" is someone he loves as much as he loved Jesus then.

 

It's not like he suffered for something without knowing what he was experiencing, or why he was experiencing it.  He felt every "bad" thing we ever go through and ever can go through and because he "felt" all of that and "experienced" all of that, through us, he knows how it feels to go through every bad thing we can ever go through.

 

I think most people don't spend enough time thinking about all of that.

So, did he suffer for every one of our individual sins? How many sins then did he experience?

[pogi]

From my experience, suffering is both potential and actual. I could have suffered things I have not, either because I was spared by grace or because I received through faith the needed strength from God which I did not inherently possess. You must have had the asme experience.

Yes, potential suffering is not actual suffering. Christ's suffering is equivalent to our cumulative suffering and penalty for sin. To say that Christ suffered our "potential sin" is an oxymoron.

Our potential for sin is counter balanced by our potential for righteousness. The law of opposition would suggest that, just as Satan did not need to actually experience all "potential" righteousness to make us wicked, neither does Christ need to experience all "potential" wickedness to make us righteous. For your theory to be true, you are also insisting that Satan experienced all "potential" righteousness.

I see it that way too. I think this aspect of His suffering was further compounded by the fact that He was perfect, innocent and of the highest level of spiritual intelligence, condescending to levels below all else (D&C 88:6).

descended below all things—meaning that He suffered the pains of hell for all people if they would repent (see D&C 88:6 ; 122:8 ). He knows each individual’s every weakness. He understands each of us better than we understand ourself, and thus the Savior knows “how to succor them who are tempted” ( D&C 62:1 ).

http://www.ldsces.org/manuals/doctrine-and-covenants-institute-student-manual/dc-in-200-d-f-d.asp

Edited December 13, 2013 by pogi

[CV75]

Yes, potential suffering is not actual suffering. Christ's suffering is equivalent to our cumulative suffering and penalty for sin. To say that Christ suffered our "potential sin" is an oxymoron.

Not when “potential suffering for sin” means “suffering for potential succumbing to temptation” (or “suffering for potential sin,” or "suffering temptation"), which is what happens when we are tempted (we suffer the temptation).

 

Our potential for sin is counter balanced by our potential for righteousness. The law of opposition would suggest that, just as Satan did not need to actually experience all "potential" righteousness to make us wicked, neither does Christ need to experience all "potential" wickedness to make us righteous. For your theory to be true, you are also insisting that Satan experienced all "potential" righteousness.

There is no counter-balancing. Opposition in all things means the two are a compound in one, and we choose which part of that compound we are. I do not see Satan as a counter-balance to Christ, because Christ is victorious over him. Contrary to your position, I see that Satan did once have the potential for "all" righteousness, but he gave that up. We still have that same potential, and hopefully we won't give it up.

 

descended below all things—meaning that He suffered the pains of hell for all people if they would repent (see D&C 88:6 ; 122:8 ). He knows each individual’s every weakness. He understands each of us better than we understand ourself, and thus the Savior knows “how to succor them who are tempted” ( D&C 62:1 ).

Yes, He suffered the pains of hell for all people if they would repent.

[pogi]

There is no counter-balancing. 

 

Our potential for sin is equal to our potential for righteousness.  Once we sin, we loose all potential for righteousness without a counterbalance.  The atonement was the counterbalance for sin which made us free.  In fact, justice is symbolized by a scale.  Because Christ answered the demands of justice for actual injustices (not potential injustices), we are free to choose righteousness.  This also freed Christ to bestow upon us mercy and empowering grace without robing justice.  This is how we are empowered through the atonement, it freed us to choose righteousness, and it freed Christ to bestow grace upon grace unto righteousness. 

[pogi]

Not when “potential suffering for sin” means “suffering for potential succumbing to temptation” (or “suffering for potential sin,” or "suffering temptation"), which is what happens when we are tempted (we suffer the temptation).

 

You should have been a politician.  Yes we suffer the temptation, but if we resist, we do not suffer the penalty for giving into the temptation.  Therefore, Christ also suffered the temptation, but not the penalty for the sin as if we gave into the temptation.  That is what was meant by both quotes which equated Christ's suffering to ours.  Any imbalance is a false equation.

[pogi]

 Opposition in all things means the two are a compound in one

 

Interesting!  If we apply this to time, the past and the future are a compound in one, being always present with God.  Let me demonstrate an example of how this works:

 

The atonement was performed in the meridian of time (representing the present).  It was an eternal atonement, meaning it covered all of those born before (representing the past) and all of those born after (representing the future).  It effectively brought together all things into one (at-one-ment).

 

Consider those who lived before Christ.  Even before Christ performed the atonement, it's effects were already present as if it had already taken place.  They too were empowered by the atonement to overcome temptation, even before it happened! How could this be if the future is not as the present to God?  This demonstrates the eternal nature of the atonement.  It is not restricted by time.  It can therefore atone for injustices even before they happen, just as it strengthened those before Christ, even before it (the atonement) happened.

 

The atonement proves that the future actually has influence on the past (demonstrated by those before Christ), just as the past has influence on the future (demonstrated by those after Christ).

Edited December 13, 2013 by pogi

[CV75]

Our potential for sin is equal to our potential for righteousness.  Once we sin, we loose all potential for righteousness without a counterbalance.  The atonement was the counterbalance for sin which made us free.  In fact, justice is symbolized by a scale.  Because Christ answered the demands of justice for actual injustices (not potential injustices), we are free to choose righteousness.  This also freed Christ to bestow upon us mercy and empowering grace without robing justice.  This is how we are empowered through the atonement, it freed us to choose righteousness, and it freed Christ to bestow grace upon grace unto righteousness.

The law of opposition is not about balance, it is about existence (the compound in one). Justice is about balance; mercy is not, and the Atonement satisfies both as a compound in one. 2 Nephi 2:10-13 and D&C 93:30-31 explain this, as follows:

“For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. …Wherefore, all things [existence] must needs be a compound in one… (verse 11).” “And if these things [the ends of the law, which are what create the compound of existence—D&C 93:30-31] are not there is no God. And if there is no God … all things [existence] must have vanished away. (verse 13).” “And because of the intercession for all … the ends of the law which the Holy One hath given [(the punishment and happiness which are affixed)] …answer the ends of the atonement [“the law of existence,” which includes bringing the laws of justice and mercy together into one compound]… (verse 10).”

“All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence [compound in one]. Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning [existence, or the compound in one, or the law, or at-one-ment] is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light.”

Because of this, the Atonement addresses all possible and potential choices we can have. With regards to sin, the Atonement creates the compound where mercy and justice “counterbalance” each other according to our choices, and where the Lord administers both justice (He is the Judge) and mercy (He is also the Redeemer). God can still enjoy “at-one-ment” without requiring any division to counterbalance it, because at-one-ment is the eternal compound in and of itself.

But like Foreknowledge, there are many philosophies and theologies about the Atonement. This is my take from the scriptures.

[CV75]

Yes we suffer the temptation, but if we resist, we do not suffer the penalty for giving into the temptation.

And we can only resist through the merits of Christ, which come about and are accessible to us through His suffering. So He suffered both the temptation and the effort/labor/pain/cost (whatever one wants to call it) to oevrcome it. He suffered His own temptations (which in my mind are beyond human scale), and our pain of facing and then sinning or overcoming our temptations.

[CV75]

Interesting!  If we apply this to time, the past and the future are a compound in one, being always present with God.

That's one way of looking at it, but it isn't the only way to comprehend "time." Past, present and future can be viewed as being in opposition to eternity (the linear and the bounded in oppositional to the infinite and eternal), so that time and all eternity are brought together as one in the Atonement. If you look at how other cutures in various times and places conceptualize(d) time, what they see as past, present and future, and what tehy see as infinite and eternal as well, differ greatly from yours.

[Rob Osborn]

I don't know about all of this you two have been hashing out. It seems you guys are putting too much into it. I came across a verse yesterday and have been thinking a lot about it. It's John 1:29-

 

29 ¶The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the ^aLamb of God, which taketh away the ^bsin of the world.

 

This got me to wondering about just what it is that Christ is doing or what power he has in his atonement. Christ doesn't literally take away sin- it's always there whenever we are disobedient- it was there before Christ came and during his ministry and certainly after clear up even present to this day. So what did he take away? The only thing to me that makes sense here is that this isn't a literal meaning but rather he came to take away death from the world in the eternal sense and make it so that sin and its effects couldn't reign eternally. In this sense I think it is also reason to re-examine how it is that Christ takes upon him the sins of the world. Does this literally mean Christ took upon himself each and every one of our sins and bore them out as these scriptures state?-

 

12 For these are they whose sins ^ahe has borne; these are they for whom he has died, to redeem them from their transgressions. And now, are they not his seed? (Mosiah 15:12)

 

13 Now the Spirit ^aknoweth all things; nevertheless the Son of God suffereth according to the ^bflesh that he might ^ctake upon him the sins of his people, that he might blot out their transgressions according to the power of his deliverance; and now behold, this is the testimony which is in me. (Alma 7:13)

 

We all suffer for our own sins to some measure, sometimes in full measure. So what is it Christ is taking upon himself? In Old Testament times they offered up a lamb to take away the sins of the people. But the lamb didn't literally take upon it the actual sins nor did it take away the sins of the people. It was an ordinance to fulfill the law of Moses and that by doing it, it became acceptable to God because of the sacrifice that was used in a type of atoning power which was yet to come (Christ, the Lamb of God) that allowed those sins to thus be heaped upon the lamb without it literally being heaped up. It was the sacrifice for sin. That sacrifice was the power which took away the sins of the world not the actual suffering of the lamb suffering the actual sins of the people.

 

Christ knew how to succor his people not by suffering their actual sins for them but because he was tempted by satan in all things. Sure, he feels our pains and sorrows. I myself feel the pains and sorrows of those whom I love and know because in some degree I too have been there tempted with those afflictions. Christ also knows how to relate to the physical pain of things because he suffered death in the flesh. It was actually the shedding of blood that Christ suffered for the sins of the world, not their unique individual sins. Christ never descended into hell, never actually spiritually died, etc.

[pogi]

And we can only resist through the merits of Christ, which come about and are accessible to us through His suffering...

 

Here is how I would finish that thought:

 

...for our sins which free us to choose righteousness and frees him to bestow mercy and grace.  This is how the scriptures read.

 

That's one way of looking at it, but it isn't the only way to comprehend "time." Past, present and future can be viewed as being in opposition to eternity (the linear and the bounded in oppositional to the infinite and eternal), so that time and all eternity are brought together as one in the Atonement.

 

This makes no sense.  The past, present and future are not "bounded" or finite.  The present itself is eternity (it has no beginning, and has no end), as is the past (no beginning), as is the future (no end).  The past, present and future are eternity.  Eternity cannot be in opposition with itself.

 

You seem to have ignored this conundrum to your theory:

 

Consider those who lived before Christ.  Even before Christ performed the atonement, it's effects were already present as if it had already taken place.  They too were empowered by the atonement to overcome temptation, even before it happened! How could this be if the future is not as the present to God?  This demonstrates the eternal nature of the atonement.  It is not restricted by time.  It can therefore atone for injustices even before they happen, just as it strengthened those before Christ, even before it (the atonement) happened.

 

The atonement proves that the future actually has influence on the past (demonstrated by those before Christ), just as the past has influence on the future (demonstrated by those after Christ).

 

If the power of the atonement is what strengthens us to overcome temptation, by what power did they overcome temptation who were before the atonement took place?

 

By what power did Adam receive a remission of sins through baptism, if the demands of justice had not already been answered in the future (which is as the present to God)?

 

Those before Christ were affected by the actual power (not potential power) of the atonement as if it had already happened, just as Christ was affected by the actual suffering (not potential suffering) of our future sins as if they had already happened.  You simply cannot explain away the actual power of the atonement before Christ was born.

Edited December 13, 2013 by pogi

[pogi]

Christ doesn't literally take away sin...So what did he take away? 

 

The penalty for sin.  Each and every sin must have a penalty to answer the demands of justice.

 

For example - Lets say a serial burglar is caught and a penalty affixed.  Should he pay the penalty for only one crime (to cover for all of the crimes), or, should he pay the penalty for each and every crime for justice to be just?  Mercy cannot rob justice. 

[Rob Osborn]

The penalty for sin.  Each and every sin must have a penalty to answer the demands of justice.

 

For example - Lets say a serial burglar is caught and a penalty affixed.  Should he pay the penalty for only one crime (to cover for all of the crimes), or, should he pay the penalty for each and every crime for justice to be just?  Mercy cannot rob justice.

You have both justice and mercy. When we commit sin there is nothing that can be done to undo the sin and consequence of it. That penalty according to justice causes us to be forever cut off from God. That is "justice". Mercy comes into play because of the atonement. Christ overcame all amnner of temptation and overcame the devil and gained the right to eternal life. Christ then pleads before the Father in our behalf. The Father thus cannot deny the Son and so mercy comes into effect which allows the justice to be overridden because of the love the Father has for the Son in accomplishing his will.

Mercy is a principle of a type of sacrifice and love which places in the balance the right to overpower justice. We initiate mercy all the time when we put forth grea sacrifices and then plead before the Father a forgiveness of sin. God sees our sacriHfice and love and thus forgives us our sin because of mercy. By all rights God doesn't have to forgive any of our sins- we truly all are guilty of them and justice would allow Him to enforce an eternal penalty. But, because God has the attribute of mercy, he allows us to be forgiven because of the love he has for us when we seek to do his will. Its thus through mercy that the true penalty of justice is overridden. For instance, suppose a bank robber were to rob a bank and while he was robbing a bank a fire broke out and instead of running away from the scene he instead lays down his gun and money and saves several people from sure death and in the process he gets several 3rd degree burns. Those he saves pleads before the judge their love and concern for the man and the judge, through "mercy" decides to dismiss the case on condition that he become a spokesman for justice. This would be a classic case where mercy has the power to overrule justice.

Have you ever read the new revelations by Harry Baker? Whereas the Church doesnt recognize it as doctrine he hits on these points very well concerning the atonement, justice and mercy. Here is the link, the second message is the best, enjoy

http://newrevelations.net/secondmessage.html

[pogi]

I have never heard of Harry Baker, but this intro to his revelation set off all sorts of red flags:

 

"And now, in presenting the Second Message of the revelation to the world, I, Harry Edgar Baker, of the City of Chicago, Son of James Heaton Baker, late of the City of Mankato, do solemnly declare to all mankind, that it is the Word of the Lord, and that it was given to me by the gift and power of God. Furthermore, that I was commanded to publish it to this present generation; and if I do not, I know that I will be damned."

 

You and I both know where revelation for the world comes through.  The underlined part suggests a false prophet. After some light research I discovered that he was married in polygamy long after the manifesto, suggesting that he was in a break-off group.  Even if I were to assume that it was a true revelation, there was nothing in it that suggests that mercy can rob justice.

 

If you want some authoritative info on mercy and justice, read this:

 

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=2d9da41f6cc20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=198bf4b13819d110VgnVCM1000003a94610aRCRD

 

Alma explained to his son Corianton God’s role in the principle of mercy and justice:

“But there is a law given,” he said, “and a punishment affixed, and a repentance granted; which repentance mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the law, and the law inflicteth the punishment; and if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God.

“But God ceaseth not to be God, and mercy claimeth the penitent, and mercy cometh because of the atonement; and the atonement bringeth to pass the resurrection of the dead; and the resurrection of the dead bringeth back men into the presence of God; and thus they are restored into his presence, to be judged according to their works, according to the law and justice.

“For behold, justice exerciseth all his demands, and also mercy claimeth all which is her own; and thus, none but the truly penitent are saved.

“What, do ye suppose that mercy can rob justice? I say unto you, Nay; not one whit. If so, God would cease to be God.” (Alma 42:22–25.)

 

[CV75]

Here is how I would finish that thought:

I’m not sure why you are offended by the idea that temptation, which is one of the conditions of mortality covered by the Atonement, is a form of probation and thus represents potential sin and potential obedience.

I believe the Lord knows our individual capacity from the onset, and that He makes up the difference between that and exaltation through His Atonement.

While you may see the past, present and future as subsets of eternity, such scriptures as D&C 39:22; 72:3; 132:7, 18-19 show time and eternity as two separate things. There are bounds and habitations to our mortal probation (Acts 17:26-32) to prepare us for the resurrection (eternity). I’m still not sure how this ties in to your objection that temptation is not potential sin or obedience, since we already agreed that foreknowledge of future events can be viewed from at least two perspectives.

You seem to misunderstand me to say that the Atonement was not helpful for overcoming temptation before Christ’s mortal ministry, which I am not (it was and is—Mosiah 4: 6-7). My remark was that Adam, before becoming mortal, may have had no such advantage against the serpent since the Atonement was prepared to address the conditions of mortal probation if/as they came about, and Adam and Eve were not yet in a state of mortal probation. But again, I don’t see how this ties in with objecting to our temptations as opportunities to sin or obey, resulting in potential sin or obedience for which the Lord suffered. This was true for Adam, and it is true for us.

[pogi]

I’m not sure why you are offended by the idea that temptation, which is one of the conditions of mortality covered by the Atonement, is a form of probation and thus represents potential sin and potential obedience.

 

I'm not offended by this.  Temptation is potential for sin.

 

I believe the Lord knows our individual capacity from the onset, and that He makes up the difference between that and exaltation through His Atonement.

 

I believe this as well.

 

While you may see the past, present and future as subsets of eternity, such scriptures as D&C 39:22; 72:3; 132:7, 18-19 show time and eternity as two separate things. There are bounds and habitations to our mortal probation (Acts 17:26-32) to prepare us for the resurrection (eternity). I’m still not sure how this ties in to your objection that temptation is not potential sin or obedience, since we already agreed that foreknowledge of future events can be viewed from at least two perspectives.

 

How ever you choose to define time does not change the fact that God's eternal nature is not bound by your temporal understanding of time. 

 

I have never objected that temptation is potential for sin or obedience.  Yes, foreknowledge of future events can be viewed from many different perspectives.  That doesn't mean that they are all correct. 

 

You seem to misunderstand me to say that the Atonement was not helpful for overcoming temptation before Christ’s mortal ministry, which I am not (it was and is—Mosiah 4: 6-7). My remark was that Adam, before becoming mortal, may have had no such advantage against the serpent since the Atonement was prepared to address the conditions of mortal probation if/as they came about, and Adam and Eve were not yet in a state of mortal probation. But again, I don’t see how this ties in with objecting to our temptations as opportunities to sin or obey, resulting in potential sin or obedience for which the Lord suffered. This was true for Adam, and it is true for us.

 

You seem to misunderstand my purpose in bringing up the effects of the atonement before Christ.  I was using it as an example to demonstrate the eternal nature of God and His ability to defy the bounds of temporal time, both future and past, thereby knowing all things, which includes our future choices.  The atonement was in effect, even before it happened, which suggests that the future was already real and known to God. 

 

This is proof that God does indeed know our future choices.  Those who lived before Christ could not have partaken of the power of the atonement, unless it was already in effect before it happened.  In other words, Christ's future choices, were already in effect, and therefore known to God.  This proves that the future has as much an effect on the present as the past does.  Because the atonement is eternal, it defies time.  This is the nature of eternity.  It helps us to understand the nature of eternal truth, and eternal knowledge. Like the atonement, they are not limited by your temporal understanding of time.

 

"And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come" (D&C 93:24).  By suggesting that God does not know our future choices, you are suggesting that God does not know the truth, because truth is "knowledge of things…as they are to come."  You are restricting God's eternal nature (and eternal truth) to the limits and bounds of time.  The atonement is definite proof that his power and knowledge is not limited by time. 

Edited December 16, 2013 by pogi

[CV75]

I'm not offended by this.  Temptation is potential for sin.

 

I believe this as well.

 

How ever you choose to define time does not change the fact that God's eternal nature is not bound by your temporal understanding of time. 

 

I have never objected that temptation is potential for sin or obedience.  Yes, foreknowledge of future events can be viewed from many different perspectives.  That doesn't mean that they are all correct. 

You seem to misunderstand my purpose in bringing up the effects of the atonement before Christ.  I was using it as an example to demonstrate the eternal nature of God and His ability to defy the bounds of temporal time, both future and past, thereby knowing all things, which includes our future choices.  The atonement was in effect, even before it happened, which suggests that the future was already real and known to God. 

 

This is proof that God does indeed know our future choices.  Those who lived before Christ could not have partaken of the power of the atonement, unless it was already in effect before it happened.  In other words, Christ's future choices, were already in effect, and therefore known to God.  This proves that the future has as much an effect on the present as the past does.  Because the atonement is eternal, it defies time.  This is the nature of eternity.  It helps us to understand the nature of eternal truth, and eternal knowledge. Like the atonement, they are not limited by your temporal understanding of time.

 

"And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come" (D&C 93:24).  By suggesting that God does not know our future choices, you are suggesting that God does not know the truth, because truth is "knowledge of things…as they are to come."  You are restricting God's eternal nature (and eternal truth) to the limits and bounds of time.  The atonement is definite proof that his power and knowledge is not limited by time.

But this (bolded part) only has to do with your particular brand of understanding of what God’s knowledge and foreknowledge are. We've been through that already (did you read the whole link--the various themes that can be found in Christian and LDS thought on the matter, none of which are defined explicitly in scripture? It was only a few paragraphs long...). I don't think you're in much of a position to assert the one true perspective.

The way I read Mosiah 16:6 and Mosiah 4: 6-7, people from Adam onward could exercise faith in the Atonement as though it had already occurred. It simply hadn't occurred. This doesn’t prove that God knows our future choices, but it rather shows that God’s faith in His Son’s Atonement was perfect long before the Person of Jesus appeared in mortality, and for this reason He could command His children’s faith in it from the time of Adam’s fall onward. It also shows His patience and long-suffering towards us, which are also evidences of His faith. Also, its being prepared from before the foundation of the world means the Atonement was conceived in faith (along with the rest of the Plan of Salvation) outside the boundaries of earthly time, preparatory to its actual execution in the meridian of time.

P.S. What is a “temporal understanding of time” supposed to mean? Is it like an “electrical understanding of electricity,” or a “culinary understanding of cooking?” Do you claim to possess an “eternal understanding of eternity?”

 

From now on, I won't post anything I think I've explained one to three times already.

[changed]

This is proof that God does indeed know our future choices.  Those who lived before Christ could not have partaken of the power of the atonement, unless it was already in effect before it happened.  In other words, Christ's future choices, were already in effect, and therefore known to God.  This proves that the future has as much an effect on the present as the past does.  Because the atonement is eternal, it defies time.  This is the nature of eternity.  It helps us to understand the nature of eternal truth, and eternal knowledge. Like the atonement, they are not limited by your temporal understanding of time.

 

"And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come" (D&C 93:24).  By suggesting that God does not know our future choices, you are suggesting that God does not know the truth, because truth is "knowledge of things…as they are to come."  You are restricting God's eternal nature (and eternal truth) to the limits and bounds of time.  The atonement is definite proof that his power and knowledge is not limited by time. 

I agree, Jesus experienced then, what we are experiencing now.  He would not have been able to fulfill the atonement, if the future was not known.... so not only does the idea of an uncertain future rob God of His knowledge, it also robs the atonement of being valid.

That this thread is still going after 13 pages indicates that no one is going to change their minds on this though... to each their own.

[pogi]

From now on, I won't post anything I think I've explained one to three times already.

 

 I appreciate that. 

 

P.S. What is a “temporal understanding of time” supposed to mean? Is it like an “electrical understanding of electricity,” or a “culinary understanding of cooking?” Do you claim to possess an “eternal understanding of eternity?”

 

I used the word "temporal" to distinguish my definition of time (past/present/future=eternity) from the definition you use (time does not equal eternity).

 

The way I read Mosiah 16:6 and Mosiah 4: 6-7, people from Adam onward could exercise faith in the Atonement as though it had already occurred. 

 

Either way you look at it, your theory is in a bind.  Christ had the power to strengthen against temptation even before he atoned for the sins of those before him.  Where did this power to strengthen come from, if not from the atonement which did not yet happen?  How could he bestow empowering grace to be more like God, if he had not yet paid for their "potential" sins?  How could he empathize and succor his people if he did not yet know their suffering?  How did Christ suffer for the "potential" sins of those before him, if their "potential" to sin no longer existed?  So, how did he strengthen them through temptation if your theory is true?

 

You see, the only way the atonement makes any sense is to view it in its eternal nature, in that it's power transcends time (past/present/future), and that the past, present and future are a compound in one to God.  They all affect each other. 

Edited December 16, 2013 by pogi

[pogi]

That this thread is still going after 13 pages indicates that no one is going to change their minds on this though... to each their own.

 

Lol!  I am not really here to change minds.  I enjoy the discussion in that it helps me to have a better understanding of different perspectives (including my own).