Towards A Better Understanding Of Agency

[Rob Osborn]

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.

I tend to disagree about an uncertain future robs the atonement of being valid. Christ only saves those who choose to obey him. The debate here has evolved into whether we truly have agency and can act for ourselves or if the future is set in stone and all sins are foreordained or predestined to happen with God knowing who will be saved and who will not be saved.

I personally don't believe that The atonement Chrrist suffered through included all of mans sins yet uncommitted. The atonement is valid on one principle alone and that being that Christ overcame Satan and death. It thus turned the powers of death from Satan to Christ. Christ becomes our mediator between God and justice and His prayers to the Father allow Christ to gain mercy for and in our behalf. Christ's suffering was totally unjust which allows Him to have mercy on that account in our behalf whose judgments would be just.

Many theories have been advanced about how it was possible for Christ to suffer for each and every one of our unique sins. These theories creates a myriad of problems not easily reconciled. Suffering for sins requires real time to think about and endure unique suffering for each sin. Suffering for one sin could take years, perhaps even a lifetime. Then you have very serious sins like murder where the true penalty for that is a lifetime of suffering, death and more suffering in hell until the penalty for justice is met. So how is it possible that Christ over the period of a day or a little more could accomplish trillions upon trillions of individual sins suffering each one individually? Because justice must work with mercy we know that evryone will suffer until justice is met for each sin before mercy can run its course. This means literally then that Christ didn't suffer the whole effects of our individual unique sins. So what part of the sin did Christ cover- where does mercy come into play? Heres something to think about- lets say that I truly repent of 99% of my sins but I just can't seem to overcome the 1%. In the end I remain in this defiant state. Guess what? I suffer the same torment that Christ suffered and I am as if i repented of no sins at all. I am sure that Christ's suffering was the full brunt of Satan's forces and he suffered greater pains than any man has ever felt. But I do not believe for even a moment that his suffering was for each one of our individual unique sins. It robs us of agency and robs God of His omnipotence.

[CV75]

Where did this power to strengthen come from, if not from the atonement which did not yet happen?

It ultimately came from the Father, whom the Son obeys, (2 Nephi 31:7-15) faith being the principle of action and power, even for God. The Father has always rewarded faith in His Son who was yet to come -- see Moroni 7:22-32.

"…God knowing all things, being from everlasting to everlasting …sent angels to minister unto the children of men, to make manifest concerning the coming of Christ… Wherefore, by the ministering of angels, and by every word which proceeded forth out of the mouth of God, men began to exercise faith in Christ… unto repentance, and to fulfil and to do the work of the covenants of the Father, which he hath made unto the children of men... And by so doing, the Lord God prepareth the way ...and after this manner bringeth to pass the Father, the covenants which he hath made unto the children of men."

It doesn't matter what you think God's foreknowledge is (or isn't), the Atonement still works, and is still just as eternal (no matter what you think that is or isn't).

Your objections are based on holding to an understanding of "foreknowledge" that isn't necessarily correct. As you said earlier, you are just raising a fuss, which hasn't shed any light on the subject.

[pogi]

It ultimately came from the Father, whom the Son obeys, (2 Nephi 31:7-15) faith being the principle of action and power, even for God. The Father has always rewarded faith in His Son who was yet to come -- see Moroni 7:22-32.

 

It is interesting to watch your argument evolve.  Now your position is that suffering for potential yet uncommitted sin was not necessary because the Father can strengthen us.  You see, you have not demonstrated that suffering for potential yet uncommitted sins is essential and required for empowering grace to overcome temptation.  You just admitted that it is not required. 

 

Just to make sure I'm clear.  Your theory is that he did not atone for the potential sins of those before Him, only for those after?

 

It doesn't matter what you think God's foreknowledge is (or isn't), the Atonement still works, and is still just as eternal (no matter what you think that is or isn't).

 

Agreed

 

Your objections are based on holding to an understanding of "foreknowledge" that isn't necessarily correct. As you said earlier, you are just raising a fuss, which hasn't shed any light on the subject.

 

I'm not raising a fuss.  I really do enjoy discussing this topic.  I don't think a lot of people work their understanding of the atonement through very far.  Sure, it doesn't change anything in relation to the atonement, but I think that an accurate understanding sheds light on so much more. 

Edited December 17, 2013 by pogi

[CV75]

It is interesting to watch your argument evolve.  Now your position is that suffering for potential yet uncommitted sin was not necessary because the Father can strengthen us.  You see, you have not demonstrated that suffering for potential yet uncommitted sins is essential and required for empowering grace to overcome temptation.  You just admitted that it is not required.

You asked where the power to strengthen His children that have been on the earth before the Lord's ministry came from, and I answered from the Father by virtue of His faith in the work He gave His true and faithful Son to accomplish. This is consistent with saying that suffering for potential yet uncommitted sin (temptation) is a necessary part of the design of the Atonement, and with saying that the Atonement was prepared from the foundation of the world.

That said, the power to strengthen God's children that have been or will be on the earth since that time also comes from the Father by virtue of His faith in the work He gave His true and faithful Son to accomplish, since faith is exercised on things that are past, present and future (see http://www.lds.org/ensign/2007/09/seek-learning-by-faith);

“Faith as the assurance of things hoped for looks to the future.”

“The combination of assurance and hope initiates action in the present.”

“Faith as the evidence of things not seen looks to the past and confirms our trust in God and our confidence in the truthfulness of things not seen.”

I don’t think you’re following because you are making too much of a fuss to see what I’m saying clearly.

Just to make sure I'm clear.  Your theory is that he did not atone for the potential sins of those before Him, only for those after?

You are not clear by any stretch.

I'm not raising a fuss.  I really do enjoy discussing this topic.  I don't think a lot of people work their understanding of the atonement through very far.  Sure, it doesn't change anything in relation to the atonement, but I think that an accurate understanding sheds light on so much more.

You are "confused":

To make it perfectly clear, if we were just talking about this one single quote, I wouldn't be making such a big fuss.

I really do enjoy discussing this topic.

You are not too convincing about that!

[Rob Osborn]

 

  I don't think a lot of people work their understanding of the atonement through very far.  Sure, it doesn't change anything in relation to the atonement, but I think that an accurate understanding sheds light on so much more. 

There is still the one major hiccup in your theory that you have yet to answer. Concerning this verse (D&C 19:16-18)-

 

16 For behold, I, God, have ^asuffered these things for all, that they ^bmight not suffer if they would ^crepent;

 17 But if they would not repent they must ^asuffer even as I;

 18 Which ^asuffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might ^bnot drink the bitter cup, and shrink—

 

How does one correctly work out their understanding of these verses? If it is as you say that Christ suffered for every individual sin suffered by every single person then in order for the above scripture to be true according to this view then those who don't repent will individually suffer for every other persons sins including their own. I am swayed to believe that you haven't given this much thought on how you work through these scriptures and make it work. You keep putting me off on this issue but I still am waiting for how you reconcile this.

[pogi]

Let us recall two scriptures: (1) “Repentance could not come unto men except there were a punishment” (Alma 42:16); and (2) the Savior said that he had suffered these things for all, “that they might not suffer if they would repent; but if they would not repent they must suffer even as I” (D&C 19:16–17).

This obviously means that the unrepentant transgressor must suffer for his own sins. Does it also mean that a person who repents does not need to suffer at all because the entire punishment is borne by the Savior? That cannot be the meaning because it would be inconsistent with the Savior’s other teachings. What is meant is that the person who repents does not need to suffer “even as” the Savior suffered for that sin. Sinners who are repenting will experience some suffering, but because of their repentance and the Atonement, they will not experience the full, “exquisite” extent of eternal torment the Savior suffered.

 

http://www.lds.org/liahona/1994/04/sin-and-suffering

Edited December 17, 2013 by pogi

[pogi]

You asked where the power to strengthen His children that have been on the earth before the Lord's ministry came from, and I answered from the Father by virtue of His faith in the work He gave His true and faithful Son to accomplish. This is consistent with saying that suffering for potential yet uncommitted sin (temptation) is a necessary part of the design of the Atonement, and with saying that the Atonement was prepared from the foundation of the world.

That said, the power to strengthen God's children that have been or will be on the earth since that time also comes from the Father by virtue of His faith in the work He gave His true and faithful Son to accomplish, since faith is exercised on things that are past, present and future (see http://www.lds.org/ensign/2007/09/seek-learning-by-faith);

“Faith as the assurance of things hoped for looks to the future.”

“The combination of assurance and hope initiates action in the present.”

“Faith as the evidence of things not seen looks to the past and confirms our trust in God and our confidence in the truthfulness of things not seen.”

I don’t think you’re following because you are making too much of a fuss to see what I’m saying clearly.

You are not clear by any stretch.

You are "confused":

You are not too convincing about that!

 

I am only testing your theory.  What I meant by making a fuss before, is that I am paying attention to detail and not letting important details slip through the cracks that you seemed determined to avoid. Such as the scripture which states that" truth is knowledge of things...as they are to come."  You seem to ignore much of my arguments.

 

I don't want this to get personal, so perhaps we should go our separate ways.