Towards A Better Understanding Of Agency

[pogi]

Packer said,

 

"He by choice accepted the penalty in behalf of all mankind for the sum total of all wickedness and depravity; for brutality, immorality, perversion, and corruption; for addiction; for the killings and torture and terror—for all of it that ever had been or all that ever would be enacted upon this earth. In so choosing He faced the awesome power of the evil one, who was not confined to flesh nor subject to mortal pain. That was Gethsemane!"

 

http://jesuschrist.lds.org/SonOfGod/eng/his-life-and-teachings/articles/who-is-jesus-christ

 

The sum total is not the same thing as the sum potential of all wickedness and pain.

Edited December 6, 2013 by pogi

[Ahab]

Each one of us are innocent from sin at birth. As we get older we make choices as to be righteous or not and we become accountable for sins. Each one of us has a clean record with God having no knowledge of any sins we will actually committ before we committ them. God does have knowledge in what areas we are weak and where we may sin but he has no sure knowledge beforehand if we will actually committ them or not only a probability factor of if we are more prone to committ one sin or another or refrain from it. Thus, if I pray strong enough when i am tempted in my weakness God intervenes and helps us to not sin of which without we probably would sin. God is thus pleased when we call upon him in our weakness for his help because he has more power to help us not to sin. Its not all written down- which sins we will or will not committ, in the mind of God beforehand. That choice is up to us of the which he is not sure of until we actually choose and act upon.

You keep making stuff up out of thin air.  God told of some sins some people would commit before they committed them, and before they were even born on this Earth to live their lives here during which time they would be committing those sins.

[Rob Osborn]

You keep making stuff up out of thin air.  God told of some sins some people would commit before they committed them, and before they were even born on this Earth to live their lives here during which time they would be committing those sins.

Not making anything up. God cant possibly know all of our sins we each individually will commit. that's predestination.

[Rob Osborn]

Packer said,

 

"He by choice accepted the penalty in behalf of all mankind for the sum total of all wickedness and depravity; for brutality, immorality, perversion, and corruption; for addiction; for the killings and torture and terror—for all of it that ever had been or all that ever would be enacted upon this earth. In so choosing He faced the awesome power of the evil one, who was not confined to flesh nor subject to mortal pain. That was Gethsemane!"

 

http://jesuschrist.lds.org/SonOfGod/eng/his-life-and-teachings/articles/who-is-jesus-christ

 

The sum total is not the same thing as the sum potential of all wickedness and pain.

Well, that is his opinion. i am still wondering though how it s that we can suffer just like Christ- the same amount of suffering, if we fail to repent. Christ did suffer just not sure he suffered a penalty for every single sin man did or will commit. Tell me. how is it that we can suffer exactly the same amount as Christ if we fail to repent of just our individual sins? Somethings not adding up.

[pogi]

Well, that is his opinion.

 

Or, is that simply your opinion?

I trust his opinion more than yours, either way.  Do you have any "opinions" from scripture or prophets to back up your own?  I have supplied multiple references from scripture and from an apostle/prophet.  I could just as easily supply many, many more quotes from other GA's who have the same "opinion" as packer.  But, I am not going to waste my time when you are just going to lay the scriptures and the GAs words to rest.  

 

Give me something to back up your theory!  I don't care if it is just opinion, give me something from an apostle or from scripture.  If you cannot supply anything, I am not interested in furthering this discussion with you. 

Edited December 7, 2013 by pogi

[Rob Osborn]

No? Supply me with the reference that I am still waiting for.

 

 

Oh, you've prayed about it have you?  You've received a definitive knowledge of this?  Or, is that simply your opinion?

I trust his opinion more than yours, either way.  Do you have any "opinions" from scripture or prophets to back up your own?  I have supplied multiple references from scripture and from an apostle/prophet.  I could just as easily supply many, many more quotes from other GA's who have the same "opinion" as packer.  But, I am not going to waste my time when you are just going to lay the scriptures and the GAs words to rest.  

 

Give me something to back up your theory!  I don't care if it is just opinion, give me something from an apostle or from scripture.  If you cannot supply anything.  I am not interested in furthering this discussion with you.

The scriptures speak plainly about Christ taking upon himself our sins. But what does this mean? In Old Testament times they had according to their law a "sin offering" where the animal(lamb) was offered up as a sacrifice or sin offering where the sin is passed onto the lamb. But does the lamb actually take upon the sin? No, only the penalty of sin which is death. This was in similitude of Christ who was to come to also thus be the new and last sin offering by being put to death in the flesh. Christ only died once. If it were literally true that Christ had to take upon each one of our sins person by person and suffer in full individually speaking then the law would demand that he is put to death for every single person. Not sure how many that would be but probably in the hundred billion range. But Christ didn't' die a hundred billion times he only died once.

Christ takes upon himself the "penalty" of sin which is death (singular) and through his death he overcomes death because of his resurrection. Thus, one by one each of us are saved by taking upon the name of Christ being buried with him and being raised by him (baptism). In order to appease the demands of justice Christ only has to suffer one death- the penalty of one sinner because in truth, by proxy, each of us gain salvation through that one death and resurrection.

The paramount problem you have with a literal belief that Christ takes upon every single sin that all mankind commit is that you have Christ suffering and paying the penalty for sins not yet committed. If it is how you say then Christ suffered my unique sins which at that time wasnt yet committed but "must surely" be committed some 2000 years later. Its like me saying- "I have no choice in the amount of sins I will committ because Christ suffered uniquely for the whole 1235,853,761 sins I will commit according to my predestined sin list and today that includes the extra look at the half naked women on TV, the little swear under my breath for the cheese-hose that cut me off in traffic, the little white lie I had about lifting a few pounds more than I am supposed to (hernia surgery recently) to the doctor. So, I may justify myself to watch some xxx material tonight because it was already written that I would do that anyway and Christ already suffered for it anyway- that was sin # 1,678,901 that he somehow squeezed in- sandwiched in there between the other 294,986,964,973,624,002,564,955,067,098,923,123,904,094,978,009,033,023,643,.005,456,900,009,323,676,987,090,777,345,751,067,894,090,343,990...sins that he also suffered for while on the cross.

The point i am trying to make is that there are literally countless ways that man can and does sin. Christ, being offered as the sacrifice for sin does not actually have to "become the sin", he is just the "sacrifice" for sin just as the sacrificial lamb was just that- a sacrifice for the sinner. The penalty of sin is death and Christ suffered that one death. As we individually come to the bar of God we are saved because we take upon his name.

You still haven't answered why it is that the unrepentent must suffer the same suffering Christ suffered?

[pogi]

You still haven't answered why it is that the unrepentent must suffer the same suffering Christ suffered?

 

I would be happy to answer your question after you supply me with some references that validate your interpretation of scripture.  All I see is more of the same - your opinion.

[Rob Osborn]

I would be happy to answer your question after you supply me with some references that validate your interpretation of scripture.  All I see is more of the same - your opinion.

My interpretation hinges quite a bit off of D&C 19. If the unrepentent must suffer the same as Christ and that suffering is only for one persons unrepented sins then it stands to reason that Christ didnt suffer everyones sins. How do you thus interpret D&C 19? If Christ suffered all peoples sins, as you say, then so too will be the same suffering for one unrepentent soul because they must suffer the same torments and pains of Christ?

[Rob Osborn]

When it says in scripture that Christ will take upin him the sins of the world does this mean he becomes the sinber? No. When it says that christ will bear the sins of the world does this literally mean he will pay the penalty and suffer the torment of even the vilest of sins such as murder, rape, incest, molestation, whoremongering?

How is this reconciled with D&C 138-

58 The dead who repent will be redeemed, through obedience to the ordinances of the house of God,

59 And after they have paid the penalty of their transgressions, and are washed clean, shall receive a reward according to their works, for they are heirs of salvation.

If they must pay the penalty themselves for their sins then Christ obviously didnt do their suffering for their sins.

[CV75]

Right, which means that my understanding of his foreknowledge is not the same as predestination.

 

Ok, so you are saying that he actually has experienced every pain and sorrow, plus every potential pain and sorrow.  I will have to think about this.  I like that it is still performed on a personal level in that he actually experienced every pain exactly as I have or ever will.

Neither do I think foreknowledge is predestination.

 

I’ve always held that the Atonement is personal and individual and that He knew and had each of us in mind. Because it is personal and individual, and because we are numbered unto God, the eternal nature of it is in the same sense that D&C 19 describes it. Alma 34’s reference to infinite and eternal is more in line with the meaning of “the great and last sacrifice” which can only be performed by the Son of God.

 

Having said that, as if the atonement was not already incomprehensible in that he "only" suffered for the total sum of our sins, suffering, pain, sorrow, illness, etc. you just multiplied his suffering by an infinite amount.  Indeed, there would be no end to the potential suffering and sin of all eternity.  His atonement is infinite and eternal, there simply could be no end to the potential for sin and suffering.  That posses a problem.

 

Also, how does Christ suffering for potential sin (yet unfulfilled), help me to avoid temptation?  How does that give me agency?  The way I understand it is that agency comes through the redemption from the fall, as it says in 2 Nephi 2:26-27-

 

"And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given."

 

Here is another good link about the atonement and agency:

http://scottwoodward.org/atonement_central_a-z_survey_agency.html

 

I don't see any connection to the atonement of "potential" sin and agency.  I have never heard any reference to an atonement of potential sin.  This is completely new to me.  Do you have any references?

"Infinite" also means "indeterminate," which covers any possibility, whether it is realized or not. He knows what we are capable of, for both good and evil, according to our intelligence, bounds and habitations, etc. He suffered for what we are capable of acheiving both with and without Him, and this is how exaltation is made available to all His chidlren, and at the same time any level of condemnation is made availble. We are free to choose any level.

 

Christ’s suffering helps us with temptation in that in He made the way to escape it and to bear it (1 Corinthians 10:13). By suffering (Mosiah 3:7) and overcoming all he suffered, He qualified to stand as our advocate with the Father, which includes a role in succoring us in temptation (D&C 62:1).

 

The redemption in 2 Nephi 2:26-27 was brought about through Christ’s suffering of all kinds, not just for our sins. For example, the resurrection makes us free to exercise our agency to choose eternal life, for without the resurrection we could not choose eternal life no matter how sinless we are. The remission of sin also makes us free to exercise our agency to choose righteousness, for without righteousness we have correspondingly limited agency no matter how immortal we are. We can be free from death without agency, simply by being immortal, but agency is an attribute of being free from condemnation. Jesus’ payment of the price for our condemnation ensures us agency.

 

The potential to sin is inherent in our agency to do so (or not). D&C 82:3 speaks to this in that we are not required to sin against the greater light, but potentially could.

[pogi]

I have read all of your links and do not come to the same conclusion.  There was not one reference that said that Christ paid for every potential sin.  Every GA I have ever heard explains that he has suffered for the total sum of sin.  If he had suffered for that, plus our potential for sin, wouldn't that be an important point to mention?

 

Again, potential sin is limitless.  There could be no end to Christ's suffering if that was the case.  That simply is not so.

[Rob Osborn]

So, if he only paid for real sins the how could he pay for sins not yet committed? Aren''t those potential sins until they happen? This sounds like predestination to sin exact certain sins. If that is the case then why even try? This theory poses that no matter what I do I will commit certain exact sins, which by the way, was already known before I was even born. That's predestination. The church doesn't believe in predestination. If the church doesnt believe in predestination then our futures are not written and thus god can't know it. Thus, Christ couldn't possibly have paid for my exact sins which were yet uncommitted.

[pogi]

So, if he only paid for real sins the how could he pay for sins not yet committed? Aren''t those potential sins until they happen? This sounds like predestination to sin exact certain sins. If that is the case then why even try? This theory poses that no matter what I do I will commit certain exact sins, which by the way, was already known before I was even born. That's predestination. The church doesn't believe in predestination. If the church doesnt believe in predestination then our futures are not written and thus god can't know it. Thus, Christ couldn't possibly have paid for my exact sins which were yet uncommitted.

 

I'm not responding until I get what I asked for. 

[Rob Osborn]

I have given scriptures. Take it as you will. D&C 19 is pretty plain that the unrepentent suffer the same as Christ.

[pogi]

I have given scriptures. Take it as you will. D&C 19 is pretty plain that the unrepentent suffer the same as Christ.

 

You have given your interpretation of scripture - your opinion.  I'm not asking for a reference to how the unrepentant suffer the same as Christ.  I am asking for a reference to your claim that Christ only suffered for one man.

[Rob Osborn]

You have given your interpretation of scripture - your opinion.  I'm not asking for a reference to how the unrepentant suffer the same as Christ.  I am asking for a reference to your claim that Christ only suffered for one man.

If Christ suffered for every man how is this possible? How does one suffer for a 100 billion peoples sins of which each person having on average tens of thousands of sins??

[Tacenda]

If Christ suffered for every man how is this possible? How does one suffer for a 100 billion peoples sins of which each person having on average tens of thousands of sins??

That's the powerful God we must have, don't put him in a box, if that is what is happening. He must be incomprehensible.

[CV75]

I have read all of your links and do not come to the same conclusion.  There was not one reference that said that Christ paid for every potential sin.  Every GA I have ever heard explains that he has suffered for the total sum of sin.  If he had suffered for that, plus our potential for sin, wouldn't that be an important point to mention?

 

Again, potential sin is limitless.  There could be no end to Christ's suffering if that was the case.  That simply is not so.

No potential for sin means no potential for exaltation, which does violence to the principle of opposition in all things. Agency relies on the principle of potential because at least two options with corresponding outcomes are two of the requirements, along with freedom, capacity, faith and the other requirements discussed in this thread. God knowing from the foundation of the world the precise nature and degree of sins we are individually and actually going to commit is not one of them.

 

The potential for sin, as the potential for exaltation, is not limitless in the sense it is limited by our intelligence and our opportunity. This is why I offered the doctrines and references about the atonement being more than just about the payment of our sins as Mosiah 3:7 explains, and being about strengthening and enabling us to go beyond sin and death and enter into our exaltation (if we choose). Especially in being limited by our intelligence, Christ opens up our potential for exaltation. These ideas are contained in more just the links; they are in the scriptures I gave about relationship between the atonement and agency; the relationship between agency and existence (which is the relationship between intelligence, light, truth, knowledge); and the relationship between faith and knowledge.

 

Our faith in Christ could not keep us from sin if He had not already overcome all sin by suffering the very things we would be tempted to commit. You believe the GAs testify about His overcoming “the total sum of sin” – this has to include potential and well as actual sins since “all” and “infinite” mean “total” and “indeterminate,” which refer to “actual” and “potential.”

 

And then there are all the other temporal and spiritual impediments, actual and potential, that Christ overcame for us through His suffering. Whatever we are spared in this life and probation it is because He suffered them for us and protects us from them. That is why we say, “But for the grace of God, there go I.”

 

And then there is the kind of suffering (effort) that went into making the Atonement effective from the foundation of the world (Mosiah 4:6-7), enabling us to speak of things to come as if they already had come (Mosiah 16:6).

[Calm]

He must be incomprehensible.

Why?

[Tacenda]

Why?

Can you comprehend how he is able to hear and answer so many prayers? The only way I see it being done is with the help of angels, but still put God as something incomprehensible. Don't understand how he created the world, or created his children. So the only way for me is to think He is something bigger and encompassing.

[pogi]

CV75, on 08 Dec 2013 - 2:02 PM, said:

 

No potential for sin means no potential for exaltation, which does violence to the principle of opposition in all things. Agency relies on the principle of potential because at least two options with corresponding outcomes are two of the requirements, along with freedom, capacity, faith and the other requirements discussed in this thread. God knowing from the foundation of the world the precise nature and degree of sins we are individually and actually going to commit is not one of them.

 

I have never argued that agency relies on the principle of God's foreknowledge.  Agency comes from the redemption from the actual fall, not from the suffering of potential falls (sin).  

 

The potential for sin may be limited by our intelligence, but our potential for intelligence is unlimited by our potential for obedience and faith, which would have to be taken into account if he is unaware of our future choices.  You will probably argue that our potential for intelligence is only through his suffering for potential sin, but I see no evidence of this whatsoever.  God can bestow intelligence upon us without suffering needlessly.  The law of opposition than increases our potential for sin, but without transgression, there is no punishment for anyone.  Light is intelligence, and we can tap into that light through obedience and faith, no suffering necessary.  That light existed even before Christ was a spirit being.  Also, not only did God suffer for sin, but for transgression as well.  Transgression of law requires no intelligence or knowledge of the law.  The potential for transgression is unlimited as well.  Not to mention the potential for emotional and physical suffering.  There could be no end to it all.

 

CV75, on 08 Dec 2013 - 2:02 PM, said:

The potential for sin, as the potential for exaltation, is not limitless in the sense it is limited by our intelligence and our opportunity. This is why I offered the doctrines and references about the atonement being more than just about the payment of our sins as Mosiah 3:7 explains, and being about strengthening and enabling us to go beyond sin and death and enter into our exaltation (if we choose). Especially in being limited by our intelligence, Christ opens up our potential for exaltation. These ideas are contained in more just the links; they are in the scriptures I gave about relationship between the atonement and agency; the relationship between agency and existence (which is the relationship between intelligence, light, truth, knowledge); and the relationship between faith and knowledge.

 

I understand the principle of the enabling power of the atonement, this is not new to me.  I also understand the relationship between the atonement and agency, etc.  It is your inferences as to how it is all possible that I disagree with, and I don't see any evidence that any GA agrees with you.

 

CV75, on 08 Dec 2013 - 2:02 PM, said:

Our faith in Christ could not keep us from sin if He had not already overcome all sin by suffering the very things we would be tempted to commit. You believe the GAs testify about His overcoming “the total sum of sin” – this has to include potential and well as actual sins since “all” and “infinite” mean “total” and “indeterminate,” which refer to “actual” and “potential.”

 

 

Here is what he said:

 

"He by choice accepted the penalty in behalf of all mankind for the sum total of all wickedness and depravity; for brutality, immorality, perversion, and corruption; for addiction; for the killings and torture and terror—for all of it that ever had been or all that ever would be enacted upon this earth. In so choosing He faced the awesome power of the evil one, who was not confined to flesh nor subject to mortal pain. That was Gethsemane!"

 

Note, the purpose of this statement was to instill upon us the awesome and incredible suffering of Gethsemane.  If Packer really wanted to make an impact, he would have specified the infinitely greater sacrifice of suffering not only for the "enacted" sins, but for the potential sins as well.  No, Packer clearly believes that Christ only suffered for our "enacted" sins.  Do you have one single reference to show me that any GA believes otherwise.  You are only giving me your opinions and interpretations.  I think your interpretation is stretching these words into realms beyond what was intended.  That goes for your links and scriptures as well. 

 

Whatever we are spared in this life and probation it is because He suffered them for us and protects us from them. That is why we say, “But for the grace of God, there go I.”

To conclude that "grace for grace" means that he has suffered for temporal ills beyond what we will experience is a strange concept to me the I see no evidence for.  He bore our temptations, he doesn't need to bare the consequences of sins uncommitted to strengthen us with grace. 

Edited December 9, 2013 by pogi

[CV75]

He bore our temptations, he doesn't need to bare the consequences of sins uncommitted to strengthen us with grace.

The penalty for sin is one thing, and just one aspect of the Atonement. There was additional suffering by the Lord for protecting, succoring, enabling, and strengthening us. Anyone going face-to-face with the adversary will need more help than just payment for his sins. He will need from infancy protection against mortal dangers, and later help to resist temptation and to repent, and to be spared any number of ills (Mosiah 2: 21-25). The vicissitudes of life constitute our potential for sin, for they often motivate us to respond as the “natural man”—but most of us are spared most of the possible vicissitudes of life, and not by chance or accident. Without His advocacy and intermediacy, we would commit many more sins than we actually do and have.

Consider how many sins we would have committed had we never been helped, or if we had suffered life under different circumstances. The Lord’s Atonement allows Him to stand between us and all this, as well as between us and the punishment for our actual sins. The meaning of “all that ever would be enacted upon this earth” means “all that ever would be enacted upon this earth if the adversary were given full sway over the children of men,” which would be the case if the Atonement were not prepared from the foundation of the world.

So His Atonement does cover our potential for sin by sparing us all of the possible conditions of mortal probation that would lead us to more sin. And it covers our potential for sin by sparing us all of the “awesome power of the evil one,” which he would exercise against each of us if the lord wasn’t standing between him and us.

[pogi]

The penalty for sin is one thing, and just one aspect of the Atonement. There was additional suffering by the Lord for protecting, succoring, enabling, and strengthening us. 

 

Again, show me where it says "additional suffering" for "potential" sins is required for this enabling power.  Yes, this is a CFR...again.  You are only giving me your opinion.  Re-read your links, there is not one mention of "additional" suffering or suffering for "potential sins."  Curiously, you have added that yourself.

 

The vicissitudes of life constitute our potential for sin, for they often motivate us to respond as the “natural man”—but most of us are spared most of the possible vicissitudes of life, and not by chance or accident. Without His advocacy and intermediacy, we would commit many more sins than we actually do and have.

 

I really do understand that there is an enabling side of the atonement, you don't need to keep explaining it to me.  I don't disagree with this, I disagree with your theory as to why and how it is possible.

 

The meaning of “all that ever would be enacted upon this earth” means “all that ever would be enacted upon this earth if the adversary were given full sway over the children of men,” which would be the case if the Atonement were not prepared from the foundation of the world.

 

You are putting words in his mouth and manipulating his message.  No unbiased person would read Packer's words and think that he is saying that Christ suffered "extra" for our "potential" yet never-enacted sins.   This is a classic example of confirmation bias.  It is almost shocking how strong your confirmation bias is in this example.  Which is why it is pointless to discuss anything with you further, until you can give me a reference for your theory from an authority.  Don't make me read between the lines or add on sentences for your theory to be clearly presented by anyone other than yourself.

 

I have given you my references which are plain and clear.  You have tried to manipulate, twist, stretch, or add to them for your own use.  You have done the same manipulation with your own links and that is not fair to the author.  I shouldn't have to bend my mind with every reference for it to read like you want it to.  You have explained your theory just fine in very few words, why can't your references do the same?  Are you really that much of a better writer than they are, or, are you simply reading what is not there?

Edited December 10, 2013 by pogi

[CV75]

Yes, this is a CFR...again.

To me, the use of the word “would” expresses the conditional mood, indicating the consequence of a potential event or situation. It is also used as the past tense of “will,” which still allows for any level of kind and possibility of sin being committed. So your quote serves as my reference.

As far as my using the word "additional": if the Lord suffered for the penalty for sin, then He suffered additionally for death and all ills. If He suffered for we have actually done, then He also suffered additionally for what we would have done had Satan had full sway over us during our probabtion. This is part and parcel of the enabling and strengthening blessings of the Atonement, which was prepared before teh foundation of the world. I believe I gave references for all these ideas. And if you take my statements as opinion only, there is no CFR to be given.

There are references to Christ suffering in the Garden of Gethsemane and additionally on the cross. Here is just one I quickly Googled: "Later, as He hung upon the cross, Jesus again felt the weight of our sins even as He willingly suffered painful death by one of the most cruel methods ever known. Jesus the Christ, page 462 states, “It seems, that in addition to the fearful suffering incident to crucifixion, the agony of Gethsemane had recurred, intensified beyond human power to endure. In that bitterest hour the dying Christ was alone, alone in most terrible reality.” Where the suffering in the garden was unto great disress, and the suffering on the cross was unto death, both sin and death become covered with the additional suffering.

http://mormon.org/faq/atonement-of-christ

[pogi]

To me, the use of the word “would” expresses the conditional mood, indicating the consequence of a potential event or situation.

 

In other words, you don't have any references which clearly state your theory from an authority.

 

It simply doesn't read the way you want it to without a strong confirmation bias.  For it to be clear, it would have to read - "Christ paid for all sins that would potentially be committed, but will be prevented through the atonement.  I give Packer much more credit as a writer than that.. 

 

The past tense of "will" does not allow for "possible" future events, without inclusion of the word "potential" or "possible".  Example - "I had no idea of the things that I would accomplish in my life."  Another- "Christ would suffer for our sins." One more- "Christ had a foreknowledge of the things that I would do in my life."  Packer's use of the word expresses that Christ suffered for our future "enacted" sins in the past.  It only allows for what "would (past-tense of "will") be enacted" from the time of Christ.  There is no reading between the lines required to understand that this is how he was using the word.

 

As far as my using the word "additional": if the Lord suffered for the penalty for sin, then He suffered additionally for death and all ills. If He suffered for we have actually done, then He also suffered additionally for what we would have done had Satan had full sway over us during our probabtion. This is part and parcel of the enabling and strengthening blessings of the Atonement, which was prepared before teh foundation of the world. I believe I gave references for all these ideas. And if you take my statements as opinion only, there is no CFR to be given

 

 You have used the word "additional" to mean "potential, yet never-enacted sins".  I am still waiting for clear evidence for this.  I believe that Satan does not have full sway over us for different reasons than you suggest.  To say that your links confirm your theory is ridiculous.

 

Yes, I take your statements as theory only, and I don't believe that you can support your claims with any clear reference.  I have been doing a lot of research to find any evidence of your theory from the brethren, not one of them used the words "potential sins" or hinted in anyway that he would suffer for more than our enacted sins. 

 

One more time, give me something that suggests clearly, that Christ suffered for our potential, yet never-enacted sins.  You have failed to do so.  It shouldn't be that hard if that is really what they are teaching.  

 

There are references to Christ suffering in the Garden of Gethsemane and additionally on the cross. Here is just one I quickly Googled: "Later, as He hung upon the cross, Jesus again felt the weight of our sins even as He willingly suffered painful death by one of the most cruel methods ever known. Jesus the Christ, page 462 states, “It seems, that in addition to the fearful suffering incident to crucifixion, the agony of Gethsemane had recurred, intensified beyond human power to endure. In that bitterest hour the dying Christ was alone, alone in most terrible reality.” Where the suffering in the garden was unto great disress, and the suffering on the cross was unto death, both sin and death become covered with the additional suffering

 

Is this an attempt at answering a CFR for "additional suffering"?  Sorry, that is not how you used it. There is no suggestion here that "additional" is in reference to the suffering of "potential yet never-enacted sins", you are going to have to do better than that.  Once again, this is an example of your confirmation bias at work.  I am surprised that you would use this to support your theory. 

 

I have no problem if you claim it as your theory, but do not pretend that this is what the brethren are teaching in your links and in my references.

Edited December 10, 2013 by pogi