The Living Christ

[a-train]

Here is my question. If 'the work of justice could not be destroyed; if so, God would cease to be God', then how is it that God can forgo the implimentation of the law by 'dropping all charges'?

To me, the point of Alma 34 is to prove penal-substitution and the need for a Saviour so that both Justice and Mercy could be satisfied, just as the Mediator parable describes.

Good question. Here's my answer. There is a law that says if you repent and change it is permissible for the rest of your penalty to be cancelled. Here's where I glean that understanding from:

23 And he commandeth all men that they must repent, and be baptized in his name, having perfect faith in the Holy One of Israel, or they cannot be saved in the kingdom of God.

24 And if they will not repent and believe in his name, and be baptized in his name, and endure to the end, they must be damned; for the Lord God, the Holy One of Israel, has spoken it.

25 Wherefore, he has given a law..." (2 Ne. 9:23-25)

To me, that is saying, "There is a law that states that if you comply with certain conditions (baptism, repentance) then God can remit your sins and withdraw the demand that you or anyone be punished."

I view that as a law. Now even if you agreed that this is a law, we might still disagree on what makes it okay for God to withdraw the punishment for our sins...in essence, why such a law is valid.

Based on all the other scriptures I've read and those I've discussed with you guys here, I believe that this supreme law is predicated on Christ's unjust suffering.

OK, so if I understand this right, you are saying that:

1) We have the commandments as laws.

2) We have a law that states that if you comply with certain conditions (baptism, repentance) then God can remit your sins and withdraw the demand that you or anyone be punished, your penalties for breaking the commandments are cancelled.

So, basically repentance, baptism, etc. complies with law (2) and the law/justice is therefore fulfilled and this second law fulfills the first, justice is served.

Is that right?

If that is right, why do we need the sufferings of Jesus in all of this? How does He Mediate for us? And, doesn't that mean we save ourselves, or that our obedience to law (2) saves us from the punishments of breaking the commandments?

-a-train

[CrimsonKairos]

So, basically repentance, baptism, etc. complies with law (2) and the law/justice is therefore fulfilled and this second law fulfills the first, justice is served.

Pretty much, except I might phrase it that law (2) is more important to God than punishing those who break law (1). Why? I believe that when we comply with law (2), Jesus takes up our cause and asks God to withdraw justice's demands, for the sake of what he went through out of love for us.

Essentially, Jesus is saying: "You can punish CK for breaking law (1), or you can withdraw law (1)'s demands for my sake, and because CK has complied with law (2). If you enforce law (1), you will be valuing the letter of the law more than my life and death. Which is more important to you?"

That is why it's not a matter of us saving ourselves, and that is why we need Christ's suffering and death.

Repentance and Christ's death are like the blades in a pair of scissors. Without both blades, the scissors cannot function.

I believe that robbing justice would occur if a law was broken, a punishment demanded, and the guilty party wasn't punished. However, that is not the same thing as withdrawing the demand that someone be punished. That is not robbing justice. That's overpowering justice.

Here's a practical example that illustrates the principle of overpowering justice. Please note in advance that this is not a perfect parallel, nor does it include all the elements we've been discussing. This is purely to show why withdrawing the demands of justice is not the same as robbing justice:

Suppose that you're a landlord. You and a tenant sign a contract that says that if the tenant fails to pay their rent on time, you can evict them. Your tenant is a single mother with two children.

So it comes time for her to pay the rent, and your tenant doesn't pay her rent on time. According to the contract you both signed, you are justified in demanding that she be evicted.

However, your tenant explains that the reason she didn't pay the rent was that on the way home from the bank, with the money in her pocket, she was robbed. She is now without money, and if you evict her, her two children will have no place to stay. Oh, and it's one of the coldest winters in decades.

Now according to the contract, justice demands that she lose her apartment. You would be justified in turning her out on her ear along with her two kids. Then again, you think of her two toddlers shivering in the icy cold with nowhere to go or stay.

A strange thing happens. You notice that you are beginning to forget about the money she owes you, and instead are beginning to think of the suffering those two innocent children would have to endure if you enforce the letter of the law.

Ultimately, you realize that your desire to collect the rent is not as great as your desire to keep those two toddlers warm and safe. Their welfare is more important to you than money.

Hence, you tell the tenant that you will allow her to pay the missing rent when the next month rolls around. You withdraw the demand of justice that she be evicted. Justice has not been robbed. Justice has been overpowered.

Since you are no longer demanding payment, the fact that she can't pay does not break any law or contract and hence, there has been no injustice. The only injustice would be if you caused two innocent children to freeze to death all for the sake of a few hundred dollars.

Their lives are more valuable to you than the just demands which your contract entitles you to.

[a-train]

OK,

So the Saviour is working out our salvation by convincing the Father to implement law (2).

Why did Jesus need to do all that suffering just to convince the Father to let us do the Law (2) thing? Why didn't that Father just have compassion on us in the first place and impliment Law (2) without benefit of Jesus on the cross? Also, Why did the Father's will dictate that the Son go through that in order to convince that Father to allow law (2)? In other words, are you saying that the Father basically told Jesus: 'Convince me that I should do this law (2) thing.'?

-a-train

[CrimsonKairos]

Why did Jesus need to do all that suffering just to convince the Father to let us do the Law (2) thing? Why didn't that Father just have compassion on us in the first place and impliment Law (2) without benefit of Jesus on the cross?

Excellent question!

I believe that God does want to remit our sins already, so that's not totally what Christ's sacrifice is meant to accomplish.

Even if God wants to remit our sins, without a third party giving Him a valid reason to do so, and without us being cleansed of our sins, He cannot. It is the fact that there must be a third party that is the key, I believe. Why?

If God were to demand that we be cast off due to our being unclean through disobedience, and then reverse His decision just because He loves us, He would either have to:

1.) Let unclean beings dwell with Him eternally; or...

2.) Cleanse us of our sins.

The first option is not possible, as Moses 6 explains:

57 Wherefore teach it unto your children, that all men, everywhere, must repent, or they can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God, for no unclean thing can dwell there, or dwell in his presence; for, in the language of Adam, Man of Holiness is his name, and the name of his Only Begotten is the Son of Man, even Jesus Christ, a righteous Judge, who shall come in the meridian of time. (Moses 6:57)

27 And no unclean thing can enter into his kingdom; therefore nothing entereth into his rest save it be those who have washed their garments in my blood, because of their faith, and the repentance of all their sins, and their faithfulness unto the end. (3 Ne. 27:19)

So if we're unclean due to our sins, and can't dwell with God while unclean, why doesn't God just cleanse us then? He loves us, right? What's stopping Him from cleansing us if we repent? Why did Jesus need to enter the equation at all?

I will answer that anon. I must gather my thoughts and scriptures, and I am quite tired right now. Good question though...this is getting down to the core of it, I feel.

[a-train]

If God were to demand that we be cast off due to our being unclean through disobedience, and then reverse His decision just because He loves us, He would either have to:

1.) Let unclean beings dwell with Him eternally; or...

2.) Cleanse us of our sins.

I thought He wasn't 'reversing His decision' in this model. Isn't He inacting law (2) which was in the law from the beginning?

-a-train

[CrimsonKairos]

I was talking about if there had been no savior, if Christ had not suffered and died. I was trying to show why Jesus had to do what he did, and to show that I'm explaining what would've happened without his suffering and death.

So if there had been no Savior to plead on our behalf and "activate" a higher law based on his unjust death, I was saying that God would not be able to withdraw the law's demands in deference to a higher law. In that case, without the higher law to appeal to, if God pardoned our punishment He'd be reversing His decision or contradicting His judgment.

See the difference?

[a-train]

I think so.. But, I guess I have to ask this: 'Did God set all His laws from beginning to end and set His mind unchangable from the beginning? If so, then doesn't that mean that Law (2) was a law from the beginning? Are you saying law (2) was there, but Jesus had to activate it somehow?

-a-train

[CrimsonKairos]

Yes.

The question becomes: "If God is willing to forgive us in this life if we repent and change our ways, and if God is willing to subdue our carnal nature at our invitation, and if God is willing to cleanse us by remitting our past sins and perfecting us...why does Jesus need to do anything for this to occur?"

That is what I was going to get to later...why Christ is needed to activate or give force to law (2). Is this the direction you were headed with your earlier questions about why Christ had to suffer at all if God already loves us and is willing to forgive us?

[a-train]

Yeah, if our repentance, baptism, etc. fulfills the law without Christ, then why do we need him for remission of sin, when we are in compliance with the law?

-a-train

[CrimsonKairos]

I'm gonna' hit the shower and then hit the hay, but I will give my answer to that tomorrow. It's a tough question! B)

[Adomini22]

Adomini, you said:

I dont see how we enter in a contract with anyone at any time...We never entered any contract...We owe a debt, not through a contract, but thru consequence of an act of transgression in the Garden of Eden.

We enter a contract or covenant with God when we partake of gospel ordinances.

A covenant is essentially a contract. Two parties sign or agree to a set of conditions in which both parties agree to do certain things.

When we are baptized, we enter into a covenant with God. We agree to forsake sin, love our neighbor and obey God in all things. God agrees to remit our sins if we do so.

You said at the end of the above quote that we owe a debt through the transgression in Eden. I don't owe a debt because of Adam's acts. I won't be punished for his transgression, but for my own sins.

By sinning, I violate the terms of my covenant or contract with God. You don't view entering covenants as equivalent to entering into a contract with God?

Yes. Of course. That wasnt where I was getting at. I was viewing the whole parable thingy as hey, Adam transgressed in the Garden of Eden, all men fell because of that, hence, there is a debt to pay if I want to return to God. I wasnt born into a fallen state because I entered in a covenant with God before I got baptized. I am talking about the parable and the Fall. I know a convenant is a contract, a promise. Dude, how could I not know that? Sorry if my words were mistaken. I know we do ordinances in our life. I was talking about the Fall. I did not eat the fruit...yet, I was born into a fallen world, where I cant save myself from, unless I follow the example of Jesus. To me, that is what the parable is saying, to an extent. ANywayz, we are past the parable part.

[a-train]

I don't want to get us off topic, so don't let me take us off on this verse. But, I wanted to jot this into the thread before I forgot about it. The following is difficult for me to interpret in any way other than 'penal-substitution'.

'For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust...' (1 Peter 3:18)

This certainly sounds to me as though the punishment for our sins was given to a just 3rd party. The just suffered for the sins of the unjust.

I think I know how your model would answer this. It says that the just (Jesus) suffered because of our sins, but not the punishments for our sins. Is that right?

-a-train

[CrimsonKairos]

Okay, I'll respond to this question and then get back to the one about why Christ's suffering was necessary within the framework of God's willingness to forgive us.

I think I know how your model would answer this. It says that the just (Jesus) suffered because of our sins, but not the punishments for our sins. Is that right?

Correct.

I believe that Christ's death had to be an injustice (for reasons I've already shown).

An injustice involves receiving treatment you don't deserve and that is not in accordance with law.

The only one who could claim they didn't deserve anything bad to happen to them was Jesus, since he was the only perfect mortal to dwell on earth.

In fact, Christ points to the unjustness of his suffering and death in D&C 45:4 when he points out that he did no sin:

Saying: Father, behold the sufferings and death of him who did no sin, in whom thou wast well pleased; behold the blood of thy Son which was shed, the blood of him whom thou gavest that thyself might be glorified;

So I think in 1 Peter 3, Peter is highlighting the fact that because Jesus has never sinned, because he was just, he was able to bear the burden of our sins, or offer a sacrifice powerful enough to overpower justice. The rest of that verse that you quoted from 1 Peter 3:18 mentions Christ being put to death in connection with his suffering for sin.

This brings me to one reason why penal-substitution makes no sense on a fundamental level.

God is the one who executes the law and administers the demands of justice. Christ seeks to stand between us and God's justice as Abinadi says in Mosiah 15:9. So:

1.) If God is the one executing the demands of justice; and...

2.) If Christ satisfies justice by complying with its full demands in our place; and...

3.) If the punishment for our sins (being cast off and becoming unclean) could somehow have been suffered by Christ's death on the cross (and not being cast off and becoming unclean in our place); then...

4.) God--as the One who administers justice's demands--had to be the One who crucified Jesus.

But we know that God had nothing to do with crucifying Christ. In fact we know that God had withdrawn and left the scene completely by the time Christ was slain. It was wicked men who judged and executed the sinless Son of God. That is the injustice.

I don't think justice is only concerned with symmetry, but also accuracy. When a law is broken, justice demands that a punishment must be dispensed (symmetry, or for every action there must be a reaction), but justice also demands that the one who broke the law pay the penalty (accuracy).

The Law of the Harvest says, "Reap what you sow." That is the standard of justice. So for God to take our punishment and make someone else suffer it, He would be breaking the Law of the Harvest, robbing justice, and we know that God is a perfect, just God. He only operates within the framework of the laws of His kingdom.

I know of no scripture anywhere that says God's sense of justice can be satisfied by transferring the specific punishments for our sins to an innocent being in place of the guilty. I'm talking about an explicit statement like, "Wherefore I, God, shall force My Son Jesus to suffer all of the penalties for all of mankind's sins, so that My desire to punish every single sin can be satisfied."

That is not the same thing as God saying, "It is necessary for Jesus to suffer for--or because of--the sins of the world."

That is why my model of the atonement is fundamentally different from the penal-substitution model.

Penal-substitution demands that we believe in a God who is not only capable of punishing an innocent person instead of a guilty person, but who is comfortable with making an innocent person suffer in place of the guilty.

My model of the atonement demands that we believe in a God who withdraws the demands of justice against us precisely because men punished an innocent person instead of the guilty...the just for the unjust.

My model is portrayed in Helaman 11, when the Lord turns away his anger and withdraws the remainder of the punishment that wicked sinners deserve, because they repent and forsake their wickedness.

So my position is that penal-substitution is not complying with justice at all since I believe justice requires both symmetry and accuracy. To me, penal-substitution requires a perversion of justice, violation of the Law of the Harvest, and turns God into a vindictive Being whose anger cannot be appeased until He has been allowed to whip someone, anyone, for every sin committed, and whose sense of justice cannot be overpowered by the bowels of mercy.

But we've gone over all that before. I'll get back to your previous question in my next post.

[a-train]

'I know of no scripture anywhere that says God's sense of justice can be satisfied by transferring the specific punishments for our sins to an innocent being in place of the guilty.' -CK

'And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children’s children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.' (Exodus 34:6-7)

Doesn't the LORD administer punishments to the innocent children of the guilty? Can we inherit blessings from our parents which they do not have? Doesn't the law require that the children take on the blessings and cursings of their parents?

'For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.' (1 Cor. 15:21-22)

Do we not all partake of the fall, though we partook not of the forbidden fruit? Under Adam's stewardship and through his transgression, we fell, but under Christ's stewardship we shall be made alive. Are we unjustly therefore suffering the punishments of the fall of Adam?

'And thus we see that all mankind were fallen, and they were in the grasp of justice; yea, the justice of God, which consigned them forever to be cut off from his presence.' (Alma 42:14)

Are we not innocently brought into this telestial, fallen world? Is this life a punishment for our personal sins?

'And again, inasmuch as parents have children in Zion, or in any of her stakes which are organized, that teach them not to understand the doctrine of repentance, faith in Christ the Son of the living God, and of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of the hands, when eight years old, the sin be upon the heads of the parents.' (D&C 68:25)

In this case, it is just to lay the sin upon the parents because it is their stewardship underwhich these children went neglected and thereby fell into sin.

Therefore, couldn't it be just for the Saviour to suffer the judgements of those who are under the His stewardship? All of this and much, much more seems to say to me that God DOES transfer the punishment and judgements of sin through stewardship and birthright.

-a-train

[CrimsonKairos]

'And the LORD passed by before him, and proclaimed, The LORD, The LORD God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth, Keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children’s children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.' (Exodus 34:6-7)

First, that does not say that God forgives the iniquity of the fathers because He puts the punishment upon the children in their place. This is another example of reading a scripture in a vacuum. By itself, this scripture might be twisted to support penal-substitution (well, sorta...it's not really penal-substitution, it's penal-extension).

What this scripture says, actually, is that the Lord will not suffer a guilty person to have their punishment given to someone else. Your quote above includes this part: "The LORD God...will by no means clear the guilty;"

What the scripture means is that if the iniquity of the fathers (idolatry, adultery, you name it) is continued or practiced by their children, they too will be punished as their fathers. Ezekiel 18 explains this in a painfully clear manner. The point of the chapter is to to disprove a proverb among that Jews that said: The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge. (Ezek. 18:2) Read the whole chapter sometime because it's alot to quote, but I'll quote the pertinent parts that show men are punished for their own sins, and God does not punish a righteous child for his wicked father:

4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.

5 But if a man be just, and do that which is lawful and right,

9 Hath walked in my statutes, and hath kept my judgments, to deal truly; he is just, he shall surely live, saith the Lord GOD.

10 If he beget a son that is a robber, a shedder of blood, and that doeth the like to any one of these things,

11 And that doeth not any of those duties, but even hath eaten upon the mountains, and defiled his neighbour’s wife,

12 Hath oppressed the poor and needy, hath spoiled by violence, hath not restored the pledge, and hath lifted up his eyes to the idols, hath committed abomination,

13 Hath given forth upon usury, and hath taken increase: shall he then live? he shall not live: he hath done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon him.

14 Now, lo, if he beget a son, that seeth all his father’s sins which he hath done, and considereth, and doeth not such like,

15 That hath not eaten upon the mountains, neither hath lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, hath not defiled his neighbour’s wife,

16 Neither hath oppressed any, hath not withholden the pledge, neither hath spoiled by violence, but hath given his bread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment,

17 That hath taken off his hand from the poor, that hath not received usury nor increase, hath executed my judgments, hath walked in my statutes; he shall not die for the iniquity of his father, he shall surely live.

18 As for his father, because he cruelly oppressed, spoiled his brother by violence, and did that which is not good among his people, lo, even he shall die in his iniquity.

19 Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live.

20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

So what the passage from Exodus that you quoted really means, is that the Lord will punish the children of wicked fathers if those children carry on in their father's wicked ways. Ezek. 18:20 is explicit:

The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Another example of clarifying your quotation is from another place in Exodus. This passage shows that God punishes the generations of wicked fathers if those subsequent generations "hate Him" or do wickedly as well:

5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; (Ex. 20:5)

If anything, these scriptures show that God does not punish an innocent person for the sins of another. This disproves penal-substitution and shows that it is an unjust concept. I know you're trying to find a basis for penal-substitution, but your scripture from Exodus, at least, is not a sound basis for the doctrine.

Doesn't the LORD administer punishments to the innocent children of the guilty?

As we just saw, nope. Unless you have other scriptures that contradict Ex. 20:5; Ezek. 18:20; Ps. 106:6; Isa. 65:7 (among others) and Jer. 14:20 which says:

We acknowledge, O LORD, our wickedness, and the iniquity of our fathers: for we have sinned against thee.

Can we inherit blessings from our parents which they do not have?

We don't have to inherit blessings. We qualify to receive blessings if we live righteous lives. If we are righteous, we shall live with God, even if our fathers were wicked. Ezekiel 18 is clear about that.

Doesn't the law require that the children take on the blessings and cursings of their parents?

Nope. Not at all, as we've just seen.

'For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.' (1 Cor. 15:21-22)

Do we not all partake of the fall, though we partook not of the forbidden fruit?

The punishment for Adam's transgression is in part physical death. Just because all of us die, that does not mean we will stay dead. Your scripture proves that God doesn't punish righteous children for the sins of their fathers, for we know we will be resurrected as a free gift. We need not do anything to receive it, because we didn't cause it. Remember Article of Faith #2? "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression?"

Are we unjustly therefore suffering the punishments of the fall of Adam?

No, because we don't stay dead. The only reason Adam doesn't stay dead (for he did deserve to die and remain dead) is because God forgave his transgression (see Moses 6:53).

Therefore, couldn't it be just for the Saviour to suffer the judgements of those who are under the His stewardship? All of this and much, much more seems to say to me that God DOES transfer the punishment and judgements of sin through stewardship and birthright.

Christ suffered and died for the benefit of those under his stewardship, but he does not suffer our punishments in our place. The scriptures I've quoted show that God has decreed every man must bear his own sins.

Now, you didn't comment on this part of my last post, and I think it's crucial to address now that we've dispensed with your reasons why the scriptures support penal-substitution.

God is the one who executes the law and administers the demands of justice. Christ seeks to stand between us and God's justice as Abinadi says in Mosiah 15:9. So:

1.) If God is the one executing the demands of justice; and...

2.) If Christ satisfies justice by complying with its full demands in our place; and...

3.) If the punishment for our sins (being cast off and becoming unclean) could somehow have been suffered by Christ's death on the cross (and not being cast off and becoming unclean in our place); then...

4.) God--as the One who administers justice's demands--had to be the One who crucified Jesus.

But we know that God had nothing to do with crucifying Christ. In fact we know that God had withdrawn and left the scene completely by the time Christ was slain. It was wicked men who judged and executed the sinless Son of God. That is the injustice.

[Adomini22]

The more I read these posts, the less I feel is right. CK, your argument doesnt feel right. Sure, I am looking at it, and I see to an extent where you are coming from, but something is missing......

Not to change the subject again, but above it was written:

"QUOTE

Doesn't the LORD administer punishments to the innocent children of the guilty?

As we just saw, nope. Unless you have other scriptures that contradict Ex. 20:5; Ezek. 18:20; Ps. 106:6; Isa. 65:7 (among others) and Jer. 14:20 which says:

We acknowledge, O LORD, our wickedness, and the iniquity of our fathers: for we have sinned against thee."

Please tell me that you didnt just say that, because punishments are administered to the innocent children of the guilty. Look at the OT, where whole cities were destroyed, and not one living thing was left. Cities have children, and cities have been destroyed due to orders from God himself. There are alot of examples like that all over. Just thought you should be reminded of that small detail. Spiritually..... I see the same thing happen.

[CrimsonKairos]

Well therein lies your problem, Adomini.

There are no scriptures that say innocents will be spiritually cast off because of the wickedness of any relative, let alone their fathers. Please, quote me one. Find me one, please. If you can't, don't assert it is doctrine. I scripturally support all my claims that penal-substitution is wrong.

I may not know in every detail how the atonement does work, but I know how it doesn't work, and it does not work by means of penal-substitution. So say the scriptures.

What the scriptures say is that each man shall be punished for his own sins.

When I said God doesn't punish the innocent for the iniquities of their fathers, I'm talking about spiritual punishments such as dying because of Adam's transgression and being eternally separated from God.

The atonement is about making us at one with God despite our sins. The atonement isn't about restoring houses and other physical possessions that may have been taken when Israel took Canaan by storm in the OT.

You are free to believe what you want, but the scriptures do not support penal-substitution. Wishing they do won't make it so; cramming them into the comments of modern apostles won't make it so; wresting the scriptures won't make it so.

You are trying to wrest the scriptures to fit the mold you think our modern apostles have set forth, and that is why you are experiencing an increasing feeling of unease. You are not looking at what the scriptures say. Hey, that's no skin off my nose, but you can't rewrite the scriptures to suit your views.

If the scriptures don't fit, the mold ain't legit.

[Adomini22]

Well therein lies your problem, Adomini.

There are no scriptures that say innocents will be spiritually cast off because of the wickedness of any relative, let alone their fathers. Please, quote me one. Find me one, please. If you can't, don't assert it is doctrine. I scripturally support all my claims that penal-substitution is wrong.

I may not know in every detail how the atonement does work, but I know how it doesn't work, and it does not work by means of penal-substitution. So say the scriptures.

What the scriptures say is that each man shall be punished for his own sins.

When I said God doesn't punish the innocent for the iniquities of their fathers, I'm talking about spiritual punishments such as dying because of Adam's transgression and being eternally separated from God.

The atonement is about making us at one with God despite our sins. The atonement isn't about restoring houses and other physical possessions that may have been taken when Israel took Canaan by storm in the OT.

You are free to believe what you want, but the scriptures do not support penal-substitution. Wishing they do won't make it so; cramming them into the comments of modern apostles won't make it so; wresting the scriptures won't make it so.

You are trying to wrest the scriptures to fit the mold you think our modern apostles have set forth, and that is why you are experiencing an increasing feeling of unease. You are not looking at what the scriptures say. Hey, that's no skin off my nose, but you can't rewrite the scriptures to suit your views.

If the scriptures don't fit, the mold ain't legit.

Hold on there, I am not "wishing" that the scriptures support penal substitution, nor cramming them into comments of modern apostles. Not really. I said I have seen it happen, and that your argument isnt feeling right. Thats it. That was the extent of my post. I havent included scriptures where children spiritually suffer or learn to disobey commandments due to the unrighteousness and wickedness of their fathers, nor anything like it. Not on this post. I am stating my opinion, as is my right, and looking at everyones posts and taking it into consideration. Thats the extent of it.

[CrimsonKairos]

Hmmm. It seemed to me that you were pointing to the deaths of children that resulted from Israel possessing Canaan after the Exodus, as support for penal-substitution. If not, my bad.

[a-train]

I did NOT take any of those verses to demonstrate penal-substitution on the part of the children for the fathers. The issue is that here in probation we receive NO punishments whatsoever. That was my whole point. We are NOT being punished for our sins here, none of us.

However, we DO inherit the blessings and cursings of our fathers. We inherited death, seperation from God, sickness, and a host of issues from our parents because of the fall. Are these punishments for our sins? No. Are they they punishements for Adam's trangsression? No. They are the probationary circumstances of the fall. Of course, we are passing through them as a test, not as the ultimate reward for our deeds whether good or evil. But that is why and how the world is so unjust. Justice was delayed. There is a space granted for us to repent.

Jesus didn't undergo the only wrongful death sentence by the hand of man. The injustices He endured were also endured by the prophets who went before Him. Does God not love those others who were so killed? Why aren't the injustices in the world convincing enough for the Father to implement law (2) without benefit of the Saviour's wrongful crucifixion? I've already asked that I guess.

My point in that post is to demonstrate stewardship as an issue. Christ having stewardship over all mankind possesses certain obligations we do not. As do we for our stewardships over our children who are without such obligations. The law CAN dictate that the sins of those under a given stewardship can be answered upon the head of the stewards.

Your model would say however, that Jesus's work is only to convince the Father to implement an existing law, right? In this model, He did not suffer for our sins as would a steward for his stewardship. My question still remains: If justice can be served without Christ's suffering, why did He suffer?

-a-train

[CrimsonKairos]

The issue is that here in probation we receive NO punishments whatsoever. That was my whole point. We are NOT being punished for our sins here, none of us.

Um, yes we are. When we sin, we lose the Spirit. We forfeit blessings such as the right to attend the temple. We feed the natural man and starve the divine nature within. Of course we are punished for sins. We don't receive the ultimate punishment for our sins until Judgment Day, but until then we do suffer punishments when we sin.

Jesus didn't undergo the only wrongful death sentence by the hand of man. The injustices He endured were also endured by the prophets who went before Him.

Not true. Jesus is the only spirit child of God to ever obey Him perfectly. Period. Hence, Jesus is the only one who can say, "I didn't deserve to die. I deserved only blessings, honor, glory and immortality."

No prophet--not even Joseph Smith or Melchizedek--can claim they didn't deserve to die. They may suffer injustices (such as being arrested on false charges like Joseph Smith), but ultimately they have sinned at some point in their life and deserve to die, since the wages of sin are death.

Without Christ's help, their sins would never be remitted even if they never sinned again from that point on. Just one sin and you're sunk. Adam transgressed but one law and he was driven from God's presence. Since all of us mortals will sin, all of us mortals will deserve to die or be separated from our physical bodies.

Christ is the only being who didn't deserve physical and spiritual death. Christ never sinned, hence he never had to take the wages of sin, which is death. So his death is ultimately the only death in all eternity that was unjust. Do you see what I'm saying?

I think Aaron said something important as well in Alma 22:14 as here:

And since man had fallen he could not merit anything of himself; but the sufferings and death of Christ atone for their sins, through faith and repentance...

The point is that Jesus is the only one who merits anything good by himself, without any outside aid. Without Christ's grace to help us crucify our natural man, despite our best efforts we would always fall into sin. We cannot, by ourselves, obey perfectly.

Christ can be and is perfect without the aid of any other being. What I mean is that he obeys perfectly because he is perfect. No one had to help him get over past sins he had committed, because he never sinned. Hence, he is the only one who didn't deserve to die. Hence, his death is the only truly unjust death possible.

Why aren't the injustices in the world convincing enough for the Father to implement law (2) without benefit of the Saviour's wrongful crucifixion?

Well first, because law (2) is predicated on Christ's crucifixion. When the Father said, "Whom shall I send?" I believe He was in essence asking, "Who is willing to die an unjust death (among other things) and fill the role that law (2) requires?" (more on that later).

As I've shown above, the only one who could truly say they did not deserve to die (which is the wages of sin) was Jesus since he was the only sinless being within the Father's stewardship.

The law CAN dictate that the sins of those under a given stewardship can be answered upon the head of the stewards.

You're only focusing on the phenomenon and not the cause. That'd be like saying, "I can survive underwater for an hour without drowning, because some guy in scuba gear stayed underwater for an hour without drowning."

Well yeah, sure, he didn't drown while underwater for an hour, but why didn't he drown?

Likewise, you're claiming that because God can punish parents for the sins of their children, then God can also hold Jesus responsible for our sins and punish him in our place. But you're forgetting why God can hold parents responsible for the sins of their children.

It's only when a parent fails to teach their children the gospel commandments that the sins of those children can be answered upon the heads of the parents.

Since Jesus has sent us prophets into the world from day one (minus the apostasy ), and since those prophets have taught us the law and the gospel requirements, God cannot accuse Jesus of not having sufficiently taught us right and wrong, and hence, God cannot punish Jesus for our sins. Jesus covered his bases when he organized the faithful spirits in paradise to preach to the spirits in prison. So he's made sure that every single child of God will be taught the law and the requirements for salvation. None will be able to claim ignorance at Judgment Day.

Do you see the difference? The only reason God would punish one person in place of another is if the first person failed to equip the second person with the necessary knowledge to avoid sin.

If I promised to fix the brakes on your car, and then didn't, and you got into an accident as a result, it would be just to make me pay the penalty due to my negligence. Otherwise, if I do my duty, fix the brakes as I promised (read: teach the gospel to my children), then I can't be punished for any accidents they get in because they failed to brake in time.

Your model would say however, that Jesus's work is only to convince the Father to implement an existing law, right?

Wrong. Jesus's work is also to do for us what the Father cannot do, due to His being the One who executes the law against us. The Father cannot be both our Judge and Advocate, or be divided against Himself. This is what I was going to get into before we got on the subject of children suffering for the iniquity of their fathers.

If justice can be served without Christ's suffering, why did He suffer?

I will answer this tomorrow. I gotta' hit the hay if I'm going to get up on time for Church.

[a-train]

Um, yes we are. When we sin, we lose the Spirit. We forfeit blessings such as the right to attend the temple. We feed the natural man and starve the divine nature within. Of course we are punished for sins. We don't receive the ultimate punishment for our sins until Judgment Day, but until then we do suffer punishments when we sin.

Confusing. In your opinion, are we being punished for Adam's transgression or not? Is our seperation from God and the physical death which we all endure in this telestial world, which was a result of Adam's transgression, a punishment?

Jesus is the only spirit child of God to ever obey Him perfectly. Period. Hence, Jesus is the only one who can say, "I didn't deserve to die. I deserved only blessings, honor, glory and immortality."

So a two year old child beaten to death deserved to die?

Christ is the only being who didn't deserve physical and spiritual death. Christ never sinned, hence he never had to take the wages of sin, which is death. So his death is ultimately the only death in all eternity that was unjust. Do you see what I'm saying?

I agree that the Saviour was the only man to never sin, but what of those innocent children? Agreed that every prophet other than Jesus was a sinner and therefore could not suffer for our sins, but why did Jesus need to die to convince the Father to implement law (2) and save those children of his who have fallen?

Well first, because law (2) is predicated on Christ's crucifixion.

This is news to me. We have not discussed this part.

As I've shown above, the only one who could truly say they did not deserve to die (which is the wages of sin) was Jesus since he was the only sinless being within the Father's stewardship.

How do we assign guilt to the dead babies and those who die without a knowledge of the gospel? If it is by virtue of Adam's fall, then we are back to the problem of being punished for Adam's transgression. Plus, Jesus by virtue of His heritage from Adam would also be guilty by that same token.

The law CAN dictate that the sins of those under a given stewardship can be answered upon the head of the stewards.

I'm not worried about the cause. If a slothful and wicked parent can take upon himself his child's sins by virtue of his neglect, why can God in infinite righteousness and goodness not take upon Himself the sins of His children?

Since Jesus has sent us prophets into the world from day one (minus the apostasy ), and since those prophets have taught us the law and the gospel requirements, God cannot accuse Jesus of not having sufficiently taught us right and wrong, and hence, God cannot punish Jesus for our sins. Jesus covered his bases when he organized the faithful spirits in paradise to preach to the spirits in prison. So he's made sure that every single child of God will be taught the law and the requirements for salvation. None will be able to claim ignorance at Judgment Day.

I make no assertion that Christ through neglect is made responsible for the sins of mankind, nor did I fail to understand that or see any difference.

Do you see the difference? The only reason God would punish one person in place of another is if the first person failed to equip the second person with the necessary knowledge to avoid sin.

So at least I got you to admit that in certain circumstances, God CAN answer the sins of one on another.

Your model would say however, that Jesus's work is only to convince the Father to implement an existing law, right?

Wrong. Jesus's work is also to do for us what the Father cannot do, due to His being the One who executes the law against us. The Father cannot be both our Judge and Advocate, or be divided against Himself. This is what I was going to get into before we got on the subject of children suffering for the iniquity of their fathers.

There is a little bit of a problem here. 'the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom.' (2 Tim. 4:1) 'the great Jehovah, the Eternal Judge of both quick and dead' (last line of the Book of Mormon). JESUS will be our Judge at the final judgement. Just take a look at the Topical Guide listing: Jesus Christ, Judge. Jesus IS both our Redeemer and Judge. His our Advocate with the Father and will be our Judge at the final judgement. The attestation of His role as our Eternal Judge is widespread throughout the scriptures, the teachings of LDS prophets, and if you served a mission and did the old discussions, it was in the first paragraph of the first discussion.

If justice can be served without Christ's suffering, why did He suffer?

-a-train

[CrimsonKairos]

Tell ya what, a-train. Let me take a different approach. You'll remember I said earlier that I might not know 100% how the atonement does work, but I know how it does not work.

I'm still fleshing out my own theory by re-reading the scriptures and paying attention to every phrase and doctrine related to the sacrifice for sin. I don't have a "master explanation" worked out yet. So instead of me trying to whip something out on the fly as we go, let me ask you to do something for me. Let's take our time, and discuss the scriptural evidence that in my mind disprove penal-substitution.

The reason I'm pausing from discussing my own emerging views on how the atonement works is because I believe that I can show from the scriptures how penal-substitution cannot be the way the atonement works. If--and I say that with a capital "i"--if you were to be convinced that there is room for another interpretation of how the atonement works, I'd have one more sharp mind searching the scriptures and adding to the process of discovery instead of just my own.

I feel it's pointless to argue in favor of my half-formed ideas on the atonement if you literally do not believe anything but penal-substitution is possible.

In other words, I don't want to disprove penal-substitution by persuading you that my own views (which aren't fully matured yet) are true. I want to disprove penal-substitution by appealing to what the scriptures say...not just one verse here or there, but all of them in harmony.

If after that you still cannot see how any other theory of atonement could explain why Jesus died, what he actually suffered, etc... then I'll turn my focus to developing my views instead of trying to support them which at this point I've realized is impossible since I haven't yet answered all my own questions...let alone yours!

Before I get to my questions, let me argue in favor of penal-substitution (remember, I came from that camp). In other words, this is an argument you have not yet advanced in support of penal-substitution that I have thrown against my own emerging theory.

1.) If Justice will not punish an innocent person in place of the guilty;

2.) And if Christ did indeed have to suffer the full penalty for all of our sins in our place;

3.) Then Christ being allowed to suffer the punishments of our sins in our place could be defined as overpowering Justice's demand that no innocent person suffer for another's sins.

While this explanation served me for a time (when I still believed penal-substitution), the following contradiction cannot be explained away satisfactorily to me:

God is the one who executes the law and administers the demands of justice. I know He has given Christ authority to judge us by our works, but I believe that ultimately Christ has to go before the Father and say, "Here are those whom I have cleansed and found worthy through my grace to inherit Thy glory. Dost Thou approve? Wilt Thou remit or forget their past sins, as I have?" The reason I believe that is because in the scriptures, Christ is portrayed as asking God to let us be exalted (D&C 38; D&C 45). Also, we will not just be judged by Christ but before all the members of the Godhead (Alma 11:44).

So continuing on, Christ seeks to stand between us and God's justice as Abinadi says in Mosiah 15:9. So:

1.) If God is the one executing the demands of justice; and...

2.) If Christ satisfies justice by complying with its full demands in our place; and...

3.) If the punishment for our sins (being cast off and becoming unclean) could somehow have been suffered by Christ's death on the cross (and not being cast off and becoming unclean in our place); then...

4.) God--as the One who administers justice's demands--had to be the One who crucified Jesus.

But we know that God had nothing to do with crucifying Christ. In fact we know that God had withdrawn and left the scene completely by the time Christ was slain. It was wicked men who judged and executed the sinless Son of God. That is the injustice.

So how do you square penal-substitution with the above facts? I'm not asking rhetorically, I'm truly interested to see if you can reconcile the penal-substitution theory with the above contradiction. I'm listening, and open to hear new views.

p.s. In case you didn't catch my multiple admissions earlier, I unashamedly admit that I do not yet have a full theory for how the atonement works if penal-substitution is not "the way." I'm playing around with different theories, picking them apart, scrapping others, etc... I think I'm getting close to a potential "winner" but I'll confess that I just can't yet advance a complete picture let alone support one from scriptures. All I have done so far is abandon penal-substitution as my personal view of how the atonement works.

[a-train]

OK, good. I thought you knew what answer I would have for that. The question being: Why didn't the Father crucify Christ? Or, if Christ suffered the punishments for our sins, how were those punishments executed?

I believe that God laid the sins of all the world on Jesus in Gethsemane and there He suffered the wrath of God.

Back to D&C 19: 'Therefore I command you to repent—repent, lest I smite you by the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and your sufferings be sore—how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not. For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent.'

What did Christ suffer? The wrath and anger of God by the rod of His mouth and His sufferings were sore.

'Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.' (Gen 9:6)

The law did NOT require that if a man murder, God kill him. It was required that man kill him. Although if God want's to kill a man, He can at any time and it is just.

Jesus was punished not only by the laws of God, but suffered also the ultimate sentence available to be inflicted by man, the death penalty. He did all this alone. He was cut off from the presence of God and suffered the full penalty of sin in a telestial sphere, both physically and spiritually. However, His crucifiers had NOT power to kill Him. He gave up His life. He suffered all that man could inflict and much, much more.

All this was His payment of all penalties of those under His stewardship, which is endless. Was it legal for the sins of men to be placed upon our Eternal Steward and God? Absolutely, it is according to the law of God.

In short, my answer is: Jesus WAS punished by the Father AND by man.

[CrimsonKairos]

I believe that God laid the sins of all the world on Jesus in Gethsemane and there He suffered the wrath of God.

Now I'm confused. I thought we all had agreed earlier in the thread that the sacrifice for sin occurred on the cross, not in Gethsemane.

This distinction is separate from the question of whether penal-substitution was involved.

If you believe that Christ paid the penalty for our sins in Gethsemane and on Calvary, you are basically claiming that:

1.) Christ divided the penalty for our sins into two "lumps;" and...

2.) Took one "lump" in the garden and the other "lump" on the cross.

How do you divide infinite suffering into two or more parts? If all the punishment for sin was dished out in Gethsemane, why the need for crucifixion at all? There were other ways Christ could have died or laid down his life.

Back to D&C 19: 'Therefore I command you to repent—repent, lest I smite you by the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and your sufferings be sore—how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not. For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent.'

What did Christ suffer? The wrath and anger of God by the rod of His mouth and His sufferings were sore.

Well you certainly can read it that way. I myself don't think the "these things" refers specifically to God's wrath, and anger, but instead to the "sore sufferings" attendant to losing the Spirit in Gethsemane in order that Christ might proceed alone and be crucified for the sins of the world.

That's my whole problem with reading D&C 19 to mean Christ offered the sacrifice for sin in part or in whole while in Gethsemane. No scriptures say that.

On the one hand, there are about six scriptures alone from the D&C that explicitly reveal Christ was crucified for the sins of the world, to make remission of sin possible.

On the other hand, we have an ambiguous reference in D&C 19 to suffering "these things" whatever that truly means (i.e. it can't be proved although verse 20 indicates the bleeding from every pore was caused by Christ suffering the withdrawal of a sustaining spiritual influence).

So you're asking me to ignore those explicit scriptures about crucifixion in favor of what D&C 19 might mean. I can't do that, personally. There is not enough compelling evidence to do so. All the standard works together contain about 20 scriptures that point to the crucifixion as the sacrifice for sin. Only two scriptures (Mosiah 3:7 and D&C 19) mention Christ bleeding from every pore, and not one of them says it was for the remission of sins explicitly like the crucifixion scriptures do.

So I guess we'll just have to disagree about that.

Jesus was punished not only by the laws of God, but suffered also the ultimate sentence available to be inflicted by man, the death penalty. He did all this alone...All this was His payment of all penalties of those under His stewardship, which is endless.

This is a stretch I can't quite make for a few reasons.

First, you're saying that God invested the Jews and Romans with authority to execute judgment and punishment against His Only Begotten Son? Where do the scriptures say that?

Second, where in the scriptures do we read that Christ dying by crucifixion was necessary versus dying of "old age" or leprosy, etc...? How was dying on the cross required instead of dying by some other method? Not all of us deserve to die by being crucified, or even at the hands of man for that matter, so how does Christ having to hang on a cross pay the penalty for infinite sins?

Was it legal for the sins of men to be placed upon our Eternal Steward and God? Absolutely, it is according to the law of God.

I still don't really get why the stewardship thing seems so important to you. Earlier, you pointed out that God has given Jesus the authority to judge us. Yet if Jesus is the one administering justice now, for him to pay the penalty for our sins that justice demands, he'd essentially have had to "whip himself" because he is now the one enforcing justice's demands.

In short, my answer is: Jesus WAS punished by the Father AND by man.

But why in the world did he have to be punished by man at all? That's where I think your theory is untenable. The punishment for sin is physical and spiritual death. It's not physical death by crucifixion. So why the need for Christ to be crucified by men specifically? In case you didn't know, I'm asking for you to furnish me with scriptures I can examine which would support your assertion.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.