The Bitter Cup Of The Atonement

[CrimsonKairos]

I wanted to share some scriptures I recently found that filled in gaps in my understanding of the atonement and whatnot.

All my life I was taught that Christ drank from the bitter cup while atoning for our sins, and that Christ drank this bitter cup while in Gethsemane. Recently, I've been persuaded by the scriptures that this is not the case, and that the bitter cup was actually Christ's crucifixion. I'm excited to share the following with you all.

I'll divide this into easily digestible segments in the format of questions and answers. This is primarily for LDS Christians, as I cite not only the Bible but LDS scriptures as well. Still, non-LDS Christians may get a better understanding of how LDS scriptures fit in with Biblical teachings about Christ's atonement.

I condense many scripture passages to their most important elements for clarity, but there is much more to learn by reading all of the scriptures I cite. Please bear with the abundance of ellipses that follow. :)

Question #1: What do the scriptures tell us about atonement?

Answer #1: Atonement is a sacrifice offered to bring forgiveness of sin.

And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the LORD for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him. (Lev. 19:22)

Question #2: How did the High Priest make atonement for Israel's sins in the Old Testament?

Answer #2: The High Priest had to kill an animal and use its blood as an atonement for sin.

15 Then shall [Aaron] kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people, and bring his blood within the vail...and sprinkle it upon the mercy seat, and before the mercy seat:

30 For on that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the LORD. (Lev. 16:15, 30)

...it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. (Lev. 17:11)

Question #3: Why did Jehovah command the High Priest to atone for Israel's sins with blood?

Answer #3: Jehovah---who is Jesus---was foreshadowing his own future atoning sacrifice for sin.

1 For the law [had] a shadow of good things to come...[but could] never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.

10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

19 Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus,

20 ...through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; (Heb. 10:1, 5, 9-10, 19-20)

30 Therefore there was a law given [to Israel], yea, a law of performances and of ordinances, a law which they were to observe strictly from day to day, to keep them in remembrance of God and their duty towards him.

31 But behold, I say unto you, that all these things were types of things to come. (Mosiah 13:30-31)

Question #4: How did Christ make atonement for the world's sins?

Answer #4: Christ's blood was shed to atone for the world's sins and make remission possible.

For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. (Matt. 26:28)

...Jesus the mediator of the new covenant...wrought out this perfect atonement through the shedding of his own blood. (D&C 76:69)

Question #5: What does it mean to "shed blood?"

Answer#5a: Blood is a symbol of life.

But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat. (Gen. 9:4)

For the life of the flesh is in the blood... (Lev. 17:11)

Answer #5b: Shedding blood refers to killing.

Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man. (Gen. 9:4, 6)

What man soever...killeth an ox, or lamb, or goat...he hath shed blood... (Lev. 17:3-4)

Question #6: If Christ's blood was shed to atone for sin, where did this atonement occur?

Answer #6: Christ's atoning blood was shed---he was killed---on the cross at Calvary.

14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

20 [Jesus] made peace through the blood of his cross...to reconcile all things unto himself; (Col. 1:14, 20)

And I, Nephi, saw that he was lifted up upon the cross and slain for the sins of the world. (1 Ne. 11:33)

...the Comforter...manifesteth that Jesus was crucified by sinful men for the sins of the world, yea, for the remission of sins unto the contrite heart. (D&C 21:9)

To some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world. (D&C 46:13)

Question #7: Christ speaks of drinking from a "bitter cup." What does that refer to?

Answer #7: The "bitter cup" refers to the awful pain Christ felt while taking the world's sins upon him as he atoned.

11 And behold...I have drunk out of that bitter cup which the Father hath given me, and have glorified the Father in taking upon me the sins of the world...

14 Arise and come forth...thrust your hands into my side...feel the prints of the nails in my hands and in my feet...know that I am the God of Israel, and the God of the whole earth, and have been slain for the sins of the world. (3 Ne. 11:11, 14)

Question #8: Didn't Christ drink the "bitter cup" of our sins while bleeding from every pore in Gethsemane?

Answer #8: Christ hadn't yet drunk from the "bitter cup" when he left Gethsemane.

10 Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest’s servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant’s name was Malchus.

11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it? (John 18:10-11)

Question #9: Then what made Jesus bleed from every pore?

Answer #9: The Father and the Spirit withdrew from Christ in Gethsemane, causing infinite shock and agony in our Lord's spirit and body.

16 For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent;

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

18 Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all...to bleed at every pore...

20 Wherefore, I command you again to repent...lest you suffer these punishments...of which in the smallest, yea, even in the least degree you have tasted at the time I withdrew my Spirit. (D&C 19:16-18, 20)

Question #10: Why would the Father and the Spirit have to withdraw their sustaining influence from Jesus?

Answer #10: Jesus had to be alone when he drank from the "bitter cup" and atoned for our sins.

And there shall be no man in the tabernacle of the congregation when [the High Priest] goeth in to make an atonement in the holy place... (Lev. 16:17)

7 But into the [Holy of Holies] went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:

11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come...

12 ...by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats...sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God...?

22 ...without shedding of blood [there] is no remission.

28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many... (Heb. 9:7, 11-14, 22, 28)

Question #11: So was Christ spiritually alone while his atoning blood was shed by wicked men?

Answer #11: Jesus says he atoned for our sins alone.

3 I have trodden the winepress alone; and of the people there was none with me...

5 And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me... (Isaiah 63:3, 5)

1 My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?

2 O my God, I cry in the daytime, but thou hearest not; and in the night season, and am not silent.

11 Be not far from me; for trouble is near; for there is none to help.

16 ...the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.

18 They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.

19 But be not thou far from me, O LORD: O my strength, haste thee to help me. (Psalm 22:1-2, 11, 16, 18-19)

3 I am weary of my crying: my throat is dried: mine eyes fail while I wait for my God.

17 And hide not thy face from thy servant; for I am in trouble: hear me speedily.

20 Reproach hath broken my heart; and I am full of heaviness: and I looked for some to take pity, but there was none; and for comforters, but I found none.

21 They gave me also gall for my meat; and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.

31 This also shall please the LORD better than an ox or bullock that hath horns and hoofs. (Psalm 69:3, 17, 20-21, 31)

And again, another angel shall sound his trump...saying: It is finished; it is finished! The Lamb of God hath overcome and trodden the wine-press alone, even the wine-press of the fierceness of the wrath of Almighty God. (D&C 88:106)

And his voice shall be heard: I have trodden the wine-press alone, and have brought judgment upon all people; and none were with me; (D&C 133:50)

Question #12: So is the sacrament wine/water symbolic of Christ's bleeding in Gethsemane or not?

Answer #12: The bread and water are tokens of Christ's body and blood given for us on the cross.

For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come. (1 Cor. 11:26)

Question #13: Are there scriptures that teach that Christ's atoning sacrifice was offered in Gethsemane?

Answer #13: No. There are only three scriptures in the entire LDS canon that mention Christ sweating blood in Gethsemane. On the other hand, there are many, many scriptures teaching that Christ's atonement occurred on the cross.

Below I've separated a host of scriptures into different sections for quick reference. I hope you are as grateful as I am for their unanimous witness of our dear Lord's sacrifice for sin on Calvary. To God alone the glory!

JESUS CRUCIFIED FOR SINS OF WORLD

[Jesus] made peace through the blood of his cross...to reconcile all things unto himself; (Col. 1:20)

For Christ also hath once suffered for sins...being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: (1 Pet. 3:18)

And I, Nephi, saw that he was lifted up upon the cross and slain for the sins of the world. (1 Ne. 11:33)

11 ...I have drunk out of that bitter cup which the Father hath given me...in taking upon me the sins of the world...

14 ...and have been slain for the sins of the world. (3 Ne. 11:11, 14)

13 Behold I have given unto you my gospel, and this is the gospel which I have given unto you—that I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me.

14 And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; (3 Ne. 27:13-14)

For, behold, the Lord your Redeemer suffered death in the flesh...that all men might repent and come unto him. (D&C 18:11)

...Jesus was crucified by sinful men for the sins of the world, yea, for the remission of sins unto the contrite heart. (D&C 21:9)

1 ...Jesus Christ your Redeemer...

3 ...so loved the world that he gave his own life, that as many as would believe might become the sons of God... (D&C 34:1, 3)

I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was crucified for the sins of the world, even as many as will believe on my name, that they may become the sons of God, even one in me as I am one in the Father, as the Father is one in me, that we may be one. (D&C 35:2)

To some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world. (D&C 46:13)

40 And this is the gospel, the glad tidings, which the voice out of the heavens bore record unto us—

41 That he came into the world, even Jesus, to be crucified for the world, and to bear the sins of the world, and to sanctify the world, and to cleanse it from all unrighteousness; (D&C 76:40-41)

And so it was made known among the dead, both small and great, the unrighteous as well as the faithful, that redemption had been wrought through the sacrifice of the Son of God upon the cross. (D&C 138:35)

CRUCIFIXION IS CENTRAL DOCTRINE

23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. (1 Cor. 1:23-24)

For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. (1 Cor. 2:2)

But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ... (Gal. 6:14)

These next two sections are particularly important. They demonstrate that in the scriptures, "shedding blood" always means killing, murdering, slaying, et al. Hence, Christ's blood was not shed in Gethsemane since no wicked men killed him there. Christ's blood was shed on the cross, as we shall see from the scriptures. This distinction between blood coming from Christ's pores, and his blood being shed by murderers, is absolutely critical to accurately discerning the doctrine of the atonement of Christ.

PHRASES "SHED BLOOD," "SHEDDING BLOOD," "BLOODSHED" and "BLOOD WHICH WAS SHED" ARE SCRIPTURAL TERMS THAT ALWAYS REFER TO KILLING

37 Yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto devils,

38 And shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood. (Ps. 106:37-38)

...thou hast had a perpetual hatred, and hast shed the blood of the children of Israel by the force of the sword in the time of their calamity... (Ezek. 35:5)

And when the blood of thy martyr Stephen was shed, I also was standing by, and consenting unto his death, and kept the raiment of them that slew him. (Acts 22:20)

And it came to pass that I was constrained by the Spirit that I should kill Laban; but I said in my heart: Never at any time have I shed the blood of man. And I shrunk and would that I might not slay him. (1 Ne. 4:10)

Yea, and I will suffer even until death, and...if ye slay me ye will shed innocent blood, and this shall also stand as a testimony against you at the last day. (Mosiah 17:10)

And behold, now I say unto you, ye cannot dethrone an iniquitous king save it be through much contention, and the shedding of much blood. (Mosiah 29:21)

Now when Ammon had said these words unto him, he answered him, saying: I know that if I should slay my son, that I should shed innocent blood... (Alma 20:19)

17 ...all the people...took their swords, and all the weapons which were used for the shedding of man’s blood, and they did bury them up deep in the earth.

18 And this they did, it being...a testimony to God...that they never would use weapons again for the shedding of man’s blood; and this they did, vouching and covenanting with God, that rather than shed the blood of their brethren they would give up their own lives... (Alma 24:17-18)

14 Now the Nephites were taught to defend themselves against their enemies, even to the shedding of blood if it were necessary...

23 Now, they were sorry to take up arms against the Lamanites, because they did not delight in the shedding of blood; yea...they were sorry to be the means of sending so many of their brethren out of this world into an eternal world.... (Alma 48:14, 23)

Now Moroni seeing their confusion, he said unto them: If ye will bring forth your weapons of war and deliver them up, behold we will forbear shedding your blood. (Alma 52:37)

And so swift and speedy was the war that there was none left to bury the dead, but they did march forth from the shedding of blood to the shedding of blood, leaving the bodies of both men, women, and children strewed upon the face of the land... (Ether 14:22)

For, behold, I say unto you, that it mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when ye partake of the sacrament, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my glory—remembering unto the Father my body which was laid down for you, and my blood which was shed for the remission of your sins. (D&C 27:2)

...if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood... (D&C 132:19)

BLOOD OF CHRIST WAS SHED BY WICKED MEN AS ATONEMENT & TO BRING REMISSION OF SIN

...Jesus the mediator of the new covenant...wrought out this perfect atonement through the shedding of his own blood. (D&C 76:69)

3 Listen to him who is the advocate with the Father, who is pleading your cause before him—

4 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;

5 Wherefore, Father, spare these my brethren that believe on my name, that they may come unto me and have everlasting life. (D&C 45:3-5)

For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. (Matt. 26:28)

And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many. (Mark 14:24)

Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you. (Luke 22:20)

Now Aaron began to...[teach]...that there could be no redemption for mankind save it were through the death and sufferings of Christ, and the atonement of his blood. (Alma 21:9)

...the blood of the Son of our great God...shall be shed for the atonement of our sins. (Alma 24:13)

... bless and sanctify this wine to the souls of all those who drink of it, that they may do it in remembrance of the blood of thy Son, which was shed for them... (Moroni 5:2)

...if ye by the grace of God are perfect in Christ...then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ, which is in the covenant of the Father unto the remission of your sins, that ye become holy, without spot. (Moroni 10:33)

...ye must be born again into the kingdom of heaven, of water, and of the Spirit, and be cleansed by blood, even the blood of mine Only Begotten; that ye might be sanctified from all sin... (Moses 6:59)

CHRIST'S SUFFERING & DEATH ATONES, SAVES, REDEEMS, MAKES REPENTANCE POSSIBLE

...the redemption of the people...was to be brought to pass through the power, and sufferings, and death of Christ... (Mosiah 18:2)

...the sufferings and death of Christ atone for their sins, through faith and repentance... (Alma 22:14)

15 For behold, he surely must die that salvation may come; yea, it behooveth him and becometh expedient that he dieth...

18 Yea, and [his death] bringeth to pass the condition of repentance, that whosoever repenteth the same is not hewn down and cast into the fire... (Helaman 14:15, 18)

And there began to be men inspired from heaven and sent forth...testifying unto them concerning the redemption which the Lord would make for his people...and they did testify boldly of his death and sufferings. (3 Ne. 6:20)

8 He was taken from prison and from judgment...he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.

12 ...he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors. (Isa. 53:8, 12)

6 And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne...stood a Lamb as it had been slain...

7 And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne.

9 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy...for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood...

12 ...Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing. (Rev. 5:6-7, 9, 12)

As you've read this post, I hope you've been touched, edified, enlightened and awed by the atonement of Christ upon the cross where his innocent blood was shed as the sacrifice for our sins.

I pray God will grant you a witness by the Spirit that these things are true, and that we can be forgiven if we repent, because of the Son of God's suffering, blood and death on Calvary. We may become one with God, and not cast off, because of the intercession of Jesus Christ, the Holy Messiah, full of grace and mighty to save. Christ died for our sins, but Christ also rose from the grave.

Christ is alive, and Christ is coming.

I'll close by repeating to you the final words Mormon spoke to his son:

...may Christ lift thee up, and may his sufferings and death...and his mercy and long-suffering, and the hope of his glory and of eternal life, rest in your mind forever. (Moroni 9:25)

In Christ's name I so pray. Amen.

[a-train]

OK,

What portion of the whole thing actually atones within the Law of Moses?

Is it when I hand my young lamb to the priest?

Is it when I confess my sins?

Is it the actual infliction of the wounds of death in the animal?

Is it the actual instance of the death of the animal?

Is it the burning of the carcass of the animal?

Is it the sprinkling of the blood?

Are we to isolate a particular event within the process and define it as the one that atones? If so why?

I find myself then asking: Was it His rejection by the people when Pilate sought to release Him?

Was it His carrying of the cross?

Was it His walk to Calvary?

Was it the driving of the nails in His hands and feet?

Was it the spear in His side?

Was it the vexing hatred spewing from the mouths of the spectators?

Was it His cry to His Father?

Was it His actual giving up the Ghost?

Do we even have any qualification to make such distinctions?

When a prophet says 'The Saviour's crucifixion brings salvation', does this mean only the actual instance of the driving of the nails? If he said: 'His death brings life', are we to understand that only His act of giving up the ghost brings life and none of the scourging, beating, nailing, and torture avail anything?

I think we are so specific here that we are far beyond the limits of what vision we have of the matter.

-a-train

[Traveler]

You have done a very good job CK - Just one observation that may lead to a question. Jesus was not alone at the cross.

The Traveler

[CrimsonKairos]

a-train: Jesus gives a pretty definitive answer in D&C 45:3-5.

Christ cites his innocence, his sufferings and death/shed blood, as reasons for God to forgive us for Christ's sake.

I suppose the best answer to your question, a-train, is that God was slain to atone for the sins of the world, and anything not immediately connected to that death on the cross is---to me---of secondary importance as far as what constitutes the atonement.

Applying this to our discussion, Christ bleeding from every pore in Gethsemane didn't "lead" to or "cause" his being crucified. If the High Priest's thugs hadn't found Jesus outside Gethsemane, they would have found him wherever he was. But Christ's arrest did lead to his crucifixion.

So I think it's safe to say that those things immediately connected with Christ's death might be loosely lumped together if you want to do something like that. However, ultimately it is the murder of Christ, his shed blood, which atones for sin. Remember, Christ said, "It is finished," then gave up the ghost and at the same time, the Temple veil was torn in two, thus signifying that at the moment of Christ's death, redemption had been made sure through the sacrifice of his life.

I believe the crucifixion would have sufficed to atone, without Christ's being mocked, spit upon, and scourged. I say this based on the scriptural portrayal of atonement. It was never about inflicting the maximum amount of pain on a living offering.

Atonement has always been about spilling the lifeblood of a suitable sacrifice. The pain experienced by the offering as its blood is shed is not the focus of the sacrifice; just that the blood is shed.

By the way, a-train, you asked some awesome questions. Really got me thinking. Thanks.

Jesus was not alone at the cross.

Ah, but I said "spiritually alone." :)

Of course there were criminals on his left and right hand; of course a few of his apostles sat helplessly before his cross; of course his mother and Mary Magdalene and a few others were present as Christ hung in agony.

But the sustaining, strengthening, quickening influence of God and the Spirit seem to have been absent, as evidenced by that awful query: "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken me?"

And then there's D&C 19:19-20, where Christ says that what we suffer when the Spirit is withdrawn from us is in the smallest degree like what made him bleed from every pore.

[Traveler]

Ah, but I said "spiritually alone." :)

Sorry I missed the "spiritually alone" in your comments and scriptures.

The Traveler

[CrimsonKairos]

No worries. Thanks for keeping me on my toes. B)

[a-train]

I suppose the best answer to your question, a-train, is that God was slain to atone for the sins of the world, and anything not immediately connected to that death on the cross is---to me---of secondary importance as far as what constitutes the atonement.

Jesus told Pilate: 'To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth.' (John 18:37) Was not Jesus' birth for the purpose of the Atonement? Did He only become the atoning sacrifice while on the cross?

Under the law of Moses, the selection of the animal and its presentation to the priest is as much a part of the sacrifice as is the slaying of the animal. How connected to the infinite sacrifice was the selection of the Saviour in the pre-mortal realm? Do you see another meaning for the 'Lamb slain from the foundation of the world'?

And, how connected to the Atonement of Jesus Christ would you say is His submission to the will of the Father in Gethsemane to perform it? Was the Atonement not completely contingent on that?

Do you view Jesus' crucifixion as the Atonement, or Jesus as the Atonement? Was His loss of life on the cross the sacrifice, or was He the sacrifice? Back to the Law of Moses, is the killing of the animal the sacrifice , or is the animal the sacrifice?

For God so loved the world, that he gave the crucifixion of his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life?

-a-train

PS If shedding blood can only mean killing, who shed the blood of Jesus? Who killed Jesus?

[CrimsonKairos]

Was not Jesus' birth for the purpose of the Atonement?

Yes.

13 ...this is the gospel which I have given unto you—that I came into the world to do the will of my Father...

14 And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; (3 Ne. 27:13-14)

Did He only become the atoning sacrifice while on the cross?

Yes.

And so it was made known among the dead, both small and great, the unrighteous as well as the faithful, that redemption had been wrought through the sacrifice of the Son of God upon the cross. (D&C 138:35)

Under the law of Moses, the selection of the animal and its presentation to the priest is as much a part of the sacrifice as is the slaying of the animal.

No, not really. It is preparation for the sacrifice, but it's not the sacrifice itself.

Do you see another meaning for the 'Lamb slain from the foundation of the world'?

In the premortal council, once Christ said, "Here am I, send me," and once the Father chose Jesus to be our Savior, Christ's death was guaranteed. Both Christ and the Father knew Christ would go through with the sacrifice despite the agony and dread that would be thrust upon Christ in Gethsemane.

Heavenly Father's foreknowledge of Christ's future victory at Calvary was why the Father forgave sins before Christ was actually crucified: because it was known with 100% certainty that he would allow himself to be put to death for the sins of the world. Hence, this certainty made it as if Jesus had been "slain from the foundation of the world."

The Father choosing Christ to be our Savior is not even close to being the same thing as Christ actually having his blood shed. One is preparation for the other.

I'm not aware of any scriptures that say, "Christ's premortal anointing to be our Savior will atone for the sins of the world," or, "Christ's birth will atone for the sins of the world," etc.

I'm not just pulling my beliefs out of thin air, a-train. I'm going by what the scriptures say. It feels so funny having to defend the scriptures to another gospel scholar such as yourself.

And, how connected to the Atonement of Jesus Christ would you say is His submission to the will of the Father in Gethsemane to perform it?

That's rather circular reasoning. That's like asking, "Is the decision to do something connected to doing it?"

Do you view Jesus' crucifixion as the Atonement, or Jesus as the Atonement? Was His loss of life on the cross the sacrifice, or was He the sacrifice?

a-train, you ask alot of basic questions for one who's as well-versed with the scriptures as I know you are. The scriptures teach clearly that Christ's blood was shed for the remission of sins. Christ's innocent blood, his very life was offered as the sacrifice without spot that atones for sin.

Back to the Law of Moses, is the killing of the animal the sacrifice, or is the animal the sacrifice?

Well by definition, a-train, an animal is not a sacrifice until it has been sacrificed. What's your purpose in asking these no-brainers?

For God so loved the world, that he gave the crucifixion of his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life?

Exactly! That's precisely what Jesus himself revealed through the Prophet Joseph Smith as we see here:

Jesus Christ your Redeemer...so loved the world that he gave his own life, that as many as would believe might become the sons of God. (D&C 34:1-3)

But wait, you may say, that just says that Christ gave his own life, and that can mean his entire 33 year mortal life was a gift to us to allow us to become his adopted sons. In the very next section of the D&C, Christ clears up that little ambiguity if such an ambiguity even exists:

I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was crucified for the sins of the world, even as many as will believe on my name, that they may become the sons of God, even one in me as I am one in the Father, as the Father is one in me, that we may be one. (D&C 35:2)

Well that's pretty cool. First, it says Christ was crucified so men could become the sons of God...the exact same thing D&C 34:3 said when it described the reason that Christ "gave his own life." So we know "giving his own life" refers to his crucifixion.

Second, D&C 35:2 specifically says that Christ was crucified to allow us to become one with him and God. Wait, become "one with God?" Isn't that what the word "atonement" was invented to convey? Sinners being forgiven of their sins and being made "at one" with God? How much clearer can the Lord be about this? His crucifixion was the atonement for our sins, the point where sinful men shed his blood for the remission of your sins and mine.

What quarrel do you have with such plain doctrine, a-train? Am I not writing in English? Am I speaking in code? Are my posts getting butchered during the upload process, ending up as nonsensical fragments?

You have the scriptures before you, bro. Search it out. It's right there. I'm not making it up. I'm just testifying of it.

If shedding blood can only mean killing, who shed the blood of Jesus? Who killed Jesus?

Search the scriptures. You know the answer. In case you aren't close to your scriptures right now, let me help you out. Who shed Christ's blood on the cross? Let's take a look:

...Jesus was crucified by sinful men for the sins of the world, yea, for the remission of sins unto the contrite heart. (D&C 21:9)

Who crucified Jesus and shed his blood? You have read the Gospels, correct? I don't mean to be snide, but seriously bro, c'mon. It was the Romans who physically did the crucifying, but it was the Jewish High Priest and other Jewish authorities who persuaded the rank and file Jews to demand that the Romans crucify the Lord. This is---again---plainly laid out in scripture.

3 Then assembled together the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders of the people, unto the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas,

4 And consulted that they might take Jesus by subtilty, and kill him. (Matt. 26:3-4)

If the High Priest's minions hadn't illegally arrested Jesus outside Gethsemane, the Romans would never have been put into a position to crucify our Lord.

15 Now at that feast the governor was wont to release unto the people a prisoner, whom they would.

16 And they had then a notable prisoner, called Barabbas.

20 But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas, and destroy Jesus.

22 Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? They all say unto him, Let him be crucified. (Matt. 27:15-16, 20, 22)

So the High Priest, elders and Jewish multitude pulled the trigger of the gun that was the Roman executioners. The Jews might not have literally had their hands on the mallets that drove the cruel nails through Christ's flesh, but the Jews were the driving force behind the Lord's execution. So taught Jacob in the Book of Mormon:

But because of priestcrafts and iniquities, they at Jerusalem will stiffen their necks against him, that he be crucified. (2 Ne. 10:5)

Of course Pilate wasn't innocent even though he publicly "washed his hands" of the affair. He was the one in authority who gave the order to crucify Christ, after all. He was no saint, and in fact had a history of ruling the troublesome Jews with brutal efficiency (see McConkie's "The Messiah Series" for historical background on Pilate). Pilate did, however, give the Jews one last "out" when he asked whether they really wanted him to order the crucifixion of a man who had not broken any laws.

25 Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.

27 Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus...

35 And they crucified him... (Matt. 27:25, 27, 35)

So what is unclear about who killed Jesus? The Jews convinced their Roman rulers to shed Christ's blood at Golgotha/Calvary. Who shed Christ's blood? According to the New Testament, Book of Mormon and D&C, it was sinful men who crucified our Lord, who shed the blood that makes remission of sins possible.

Now, it's entirely possible that all you're getting at is that Christ had to be the one to consent to his death and give up his ghost. If so, I think that's beside the point.

The only reason Christ was in a position where a normal mortal would have died was because the Romans crucified him. Christ didn't commend his spirit into the Father's Hands while Jesus was sleeping at home, or fishing on the sea of Galilee, or preaching in a synagogue.

Christ gave up the ghost only when his mortal frame had been made to suffer to the point where death would have normally claimed any other mortal.

Christ took no shortcuts, invoked no special privileges, dodged no requirements, appealed to no supernatural laws to lessen his suffering on the cross. For crying out loud, he even refused to drink the wine mingled with myrrh that would have helped numb his quivering nerves (see Mark 15:23).

His blood was shed by sinful men, and only then did Christ give up the ghost. Christ did not shed his own blood. At least, I'm unaware of any scripture that says, "Christ so loved the world, that he crucified himself for the sins of the world." In fact, Christ said the opposite during his appearance to the Nephites following his resurrection:

11 And behold...I have drunk out of that bitter cup which the Father hath given me, and have glorified the Father in taking upon me the sins of the world...

14 Arise and come forth...thrust your hands into my side...feel the prints of the nails in my hands and in my feet...know that I am the God of Israel, and the God of the whole earth, and have been slain for the sins of the world. (3 Ne. 11:11, 14)

If we assert that Christ's blood wasn't truly shed because he had to consciously give up his ghost, we call our Lord a liar for making statements such as the one above where he says he was slain. He didn't slay himself.

p.s. Maybe you weren't trying to get at the fact that Christ decided when to "give up his ghost," but I thought I'd anticipate you anyway.

[Adomini22]

I dont know really what to say. I see your point, CK. Its obvious that the atonement was the sacrifice for sin which happened on the cross. Yeah, obvious. However I tend to stick GA's and what they say regarding gethsemane true. I believe it had a portion to play other than just the spirit withdrawing. It wasnt the sacrifice itself, but it was something.

[a-train]

Well by definition, a-train, an animal is not a sacrifice until it has been sacrificed. What's your purpose in asking these no-brainers?

So, if I understand your view correctly, the Saviour Himself is not the Sacrifice for sin or the Atonement. In your view, only the death of Christ is the Sacrifice for sin and the Atonement. Correct? And with that, you would say that only the death of the sacrificial animal is a sacrifice and the giving of the live animal to the priest is no sacrifice on the part of it's owner, it is not the animal that is the sacrifice, but it's death. Correct?

For God so loved the world, that he gave the crucifixion of his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life?

Exactly!

You must understand that for me this is a very new interpretation: one I am yet unable to see coming through the scriptures even in all the verses that you have outlined, and I appreciate your lengthy efforts to offer them. As far as I can tell, God gave His only begotten Son, not just the death of His only begotten Son.

Let there be no doubt that I accept the LDS doctrine that the work of Christ on the cross is the pinnacle and crux of the atonement for the sins of mankind and without it there could be no salvation, but even among all the scriptures brought forward thus far I am unable to confine the whole of the reconciliatory efforts and necessities on the part of the Saviour to His work on the cross.

What do you make of this verse: 'For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.' (Romans 5:10) The verse following is the only use of the term atonement in the New Testament of which I am aware.

Paul goes on to say: 'Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.' (verses 18 & 19) In your view, would you say that the righteousness of Christ by which comes the justification of life is limited to His death and His death alone?

D&C 35:2 specifically says that Christ was crucified to allow us to become one with him and God. Wait, become "one with God?" Isn't that what the word "atonement" was invented to convey? Sinners being forgiven of their sins and being made "at one" with God? How much clearer can the Lord be about this? His crucifixion was the atonement for our sins, the point where sinful men shed his blood for the remission of your sins and mine.

So, in your view, Jesus' crucifixion is all He ever did to allow us to become one with him and God?

If we assert that Christ's blood wasn't truly shed because he had to consciously give up his ghost, we call our Lord a liar for making statements such as the one above where he says he was slain. He didn't slay himself.

Hmmm.... So in your view, it was His crucifiers who slew Jesus for the sins of the world? In your view the Father didn't kill a Sacrifice?

I am trying to get your position to fit through all the facets of my understanding.

-a-train

[CrimsonKairos]

So, if I understand your view correctly, the Saviour Himself is not the Sacrifice for sin or the Atonement.

Jesus Christ's life was sacrificed to atone for our sins. Hmm, how else can I say this?

When wicked men shed Christ's blood on the cross, he became the sacrifice and his blood became the atonement for our sins.

In your view, only the death of Christ is the Sacrifice for sin and the Atonement. Correct?

Well a-train, there are like twenty scriptures which teach this. I'm not just making up random doctrine.

And with that, you would say that only the death of the sacrificial animal is a sacrifice and the giving of the live animal to the priest is no sacrifice on the part of it's owner, it is not the animal that is the sacrifice, but it's death. Correct?

It seems you're getting into semantics. Is giving up something you value what we might call "a" sacrifice? Sure. But atonement was not made because an Israelite gave the priest a goat or lamb. Atonement was made when the life blood of that offering was shed.

You must understand that for me this is a very new interpretation: one I am yet unable to see coming through the scriptures...

I have a hard time seeing why, though, because I shared this most explicit of scriptures with you, from the Lord's own mouth:

...I, the Lord God...Jesus Christ your Redeemer...so loved the world that he gave his own life, that as many as would believe might become the sons of God. (D&C 34:1-3)

And did not Christ say this in the New Testament?

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. (John 15:13)

As far as I can tell, God gave His only begotten Son, not just the death of His only begotten Son.

I guess it's semantics. God gave His Only Begotten Son...why? To die for the world.

11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.

15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.

18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father. (John 10:11, 15, 17, 18; emphasis mine)

13 ...I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me.

14 And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; (3 Ne. 27:13-14)

...even among all the scriptures brought forward thus far I am unable to confine the whole of the reconciliatory efforts and necessities on the part of the Saviour to His work on the cross.

Just so we're on the same page: I'm not saying that the resurrection isn't necessary, or that Christ isn't the one who gives us that gift. But resurrection is in no way part of the sacrifice for sin. We can be forgiven whether we're embodied or disembodied. Else why the ordinances for the dead?

What I'm saying is that the unanimous message of the LDS canon is that Christ died as the atonement for our sins. I don't see the scriptures teaching anything else on the subject. Now we can talk all day about the decisions Jesus had to make to get to the cross, and all the rest, but until his blood was shed, there was no atonement for sin.

What do you make of this verse: 'For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.'

After reading all of Romans 5, it seems that Paul spends the first 11 verses talking about redemption from sin, and the verses 12-21 talking about "redemption" from the grave, or resurrection the free gift to all. The verse you quote above is the pivot point where Paul segues from talking of sin to resurrection. That's my initial take on it, but again, I don't read that scripture isolated from all the others I've provided on the subject of atonement.

In your view, would you say that the righteousness of Christ by which comes the justification of life is limited to His death and His death alone?

Jesus Christ's righteousness came from the moment of his spirit birth in the premortal epoch, since Jesus has always obeyed the Father perfectly. This perfect obedience continued throughout Christ's mortal life. It is the fact that Jesus was the only child of God who was premortally and mortally innocent of sin that qualified Jesus to be the spotless lamb slain for the sins of the world.

So my answer to you is that Christ's righteousness or perfect obedience to God is what qualified Jesus to be the sacrifice for sin; but Christ's righteousness couldn't save us until the Lord's blood was shed as an atonement for our sins.

There are lots of reasons why Christ's sacrifice was sufficient in God's eyes, and I'm not arguing about that. What I'm saying is that Christ's sacrifice for sin took place on the cross and on the cross alone.

Christ taught that his blood was shed for the remission of sins, and his blood wasn't shed anywhere but on the cross.

So, in your view, Jesus' crucifixion is all He ever did to allow us to become one with him and God?

Of course not, a-train. Christ created the world. Christ sent angels to teach the gospel of redemption to Adam and on down to us. Christ taught the gospel during his mortal life, and that more eloquently and powerfully than any prophet before or after. Christ has "done" alot of things in his mission to save us.

But what I'm saying is that if someone is going by the definition of "atonement" being to make us "at one" with God, then D&C 35:2 clearly defines the atonement as consisting solely of the crucifixion. This is the weakest of the evidences I've brought forward to establish that the atonement was on the cross alone. The rest of the scriptural record is far more persuasive.

I just thought I'd note in passing how Christ included the concept of us "becoming one with God" in the same verse that he mentioned being crucified for the sins of the world. I just saw a cool correlation, I wasn't trying to hang my whole argument on that one observation.

So in your view, it was His crucifiers who slew Jesus for the sins of the world? In your view the Father didn't kill a Sacrifice?

God may have sent Jesus into the world to die for our sins, but God didn't crucify Jesus. God didn't kill Jesus, no.

Did God make an emotional "sacrifice" in letting sinful men torture and murder His Only Begotten Son in whom He was well pleased? Of course that was a sacrifice.

But again, the sacrifice for sin occurred when wicked men nailed the perfect Son of God to the cross at Calvary, and shed his innocent blood at the behest of the priestcraft-ridden Jewish populace.

If we argue that God actually sacrificed Jesus since God sent Jesus to die and God didn't prevent Jesus from being crucified, then we attribute to God the evil actions of men with the free agency to act for themselves.

I think the episode with God commanding Abraham to sacrifice Isaac (or Ishmael if you believe the Muslim tradition) was about symbolizing the relationship God has with the Son as it relates to the crucifixion. God "gave" His Son to be crucified, but God did not crucify Jesus. Would you agree with that distinction?

[Traveler]

KC. I have thought a lot about your post and thought I would post some ideas for thought.

There can be said to be 3 parts to the atoning sacrifice of the Messiah.

First: The Suffering - There must be an infinite sacrifice for all sin – We know that in the garden of Gethsemane that Jesus suffered the anguish of all sin.

Second: A sacrificial death – Sin and the fall of man require death for redemption – it is important to note that there are two deaths and the sacrificial death requires both the first and second death. I will note at this point that the second sacrificial death could never take place under a single Trinitarian G-d. Jesus suffered a physical death on the cross – we also know that Jesus suffered a spiritual death. I would be careful not to rule out the possibility that Jesus suffered a spiritual death beyond the cross.

Third: A sacrificial resurrection – The atoning resurrection was unique in that it opened the door and allowed all mankind the resurrection.

Although there can be said to be 3 parts of the atonement – I am concerned when too much emphasis is placed on any individual part. For without all three the other two or one would be useless and worthless. Understanding and comprehending the atonement must be inclusive of all three parts or we can become side tracked into matters that are not complete – or as Jesus said perfect.

So here is an interesting assignment – how is it that the color red (or sometimes scarlet or crimson) is used in scripture to symbolize all three parts of infinite suffering, death and resurrection? And just for fun – why is Red and Green the colors of Christmas?

In the past I have referenced both the books of Revelation and Genesis to piece together important notions concerning the mission of the Messiah. Again there are important notions concerning the atonement.

The Traveler

[a-train]

OK,

So how would you or do you differentiate the Atonement of Jesus Christ from the Sacrifice for Sin?

In your view, at what point did the Atonement begin and how did you choose that point?

With that, in your estimation, at what point does the atonement begin in the process of an animal sacrifice under the Law of Moses?

-a-train

PS, I thought this whole thing was semantics from the beginning??!!?

[CrimsonKairos]

We know that in the garden of Gethsemane that Jesus suffered the anguish of all sin.

What does that mean, exactly?

it is important to note that there are two deaths and the sacrificial death requires both the first and second death.

I disagree that atoning for our sins required the resurrection. Resurrection comes free to all. In other words, I believe that our sins can be remitted whether we are resurrected or not. If there is a scripture that teaches otherwise, I'd literally love to know about it. I'm always open to learning new doctrine.

I would be careful not to rule out the possibility that Jesus suffered a spiritual death beyond the cross.

What does that mean?

Third: A sacrificial resurrection – The atoning resurrection was unique in that it opened the door and allowed all mankind the resurrection.

The problem I have with that phrase is that resurrection is never portrayed in scripture as a necessary element to having our sins remitted. The concept of atonement in the scriptures is always about reversing personal unworthiness, blotting out sins. That's why I wouldn't call the resurrection "atoning," since "atoning" refers to sin, not being disembodied.

...how is it that the color red (or sometimes scarlet or crimson) is used in scripture to symbolize all three parts of infinite suffering, death and resurrection?

I don't think red is used to symbolize resurrection. The closest analog we have in the Old Testament is the "wave offering" or "heave offering" which consisted of the people taking the "firstfruits" of their harvest and lifting them high into the air. Oh, and this took place three days after the Passover feast...which symbolized the death of Christ, and was the evening of Christ's arrest in the New Testament.

Where do the scriptures use red to symbolize resurrection?

So how would you or do you differentiate the Atonement of Jesus Christ from the Sacrifice for Sin?

The atonement was the sacrifice for sin. Stated differently, the sacrifice atoned for sin. They are the same thing. Christ was sacrificed to atone for sin. You can't have atonement without sacrifice. That is what I read in the scriptures.

In your view, at what point did the Atonement begin and how did you choose that point?

My only clue would be based on the fact that Christ said he wrought out the atonement by himself (as per the scriptures I've shared repeatedly). So the only guideline I'd have to determine "when" the atonement started would be, "Was Christ receiving strength, or was he going it alone?"

That is why I rule out Gethsemane, because it was there that an angel appeared, "strengthening" Christ, if we believe Luke's account (which I do). However, if Gethsemane was about God and the Spirit withdrawing from Christ in preparation for Christ's coming crucifixion, it would be entirely appropriate for God to send an angel to comfort Jesus through the initial shock of spiritual isolation.

Then there's the whole thing about Christ saying his blood was shed to atone for sins, and no one shed his blood in Gethsemane. Oh he bled alright, but that wasn't his blood being shed. The scriptures are explicit about that.

Unless shedding blood suddenly takes on a new meaning only when we're talking about Gethsemane, which I think is silly.

With that, in your estimation, at what point does the atonement begin in the process of an animal sacrifice under the Law of Moses?

No idea. What do you think? Perhaps more importantly, how does that affect what the scriptures say or don't say about Christ's being crucified for the sins of the world?

[a-train]

In your view, at what point did the Atonement begin and how did you choose that point?

My only clue...

That is why I rule out Gethsemane...

So, are you saying you don't know? Would you include the ridicule and violence to which the Saviour was subjected in the night before the crucifixion? Would you limit only the pains He suffered on the cross itself as the sacrifice for sin? How would you make this distinction?

With that, in your estimation, at what point does the atonement begin in the process of an animal sacrifice under the Law of Moses?

No idea. What do you think? Perhaps more importantly, how does that affect what the scriptures say or don't say about Christ's being crucified for the sins of the world?

In my estimation the selection of the animal and the bringing of it to the priest is as much a part of the sacrifice as is the infliction of the wounds of death at the gate. With that, the burning of the carcass and sprinkling of the blood after the death of the sacrifice are also just as requisite. In my view the entire process is the offering or sacrifice and the omission of any event within that process invalidates the whole of it.

I would say the very same thing about the Infinite Sacrifice for Sin and the Atonement of Jesus Christ. As I would credit the selection of the beast in the field with the point at which the sacrifice begins, I credit the selection and presentation of the Firstborn in the Grand Council as the beginning of the Sacrifice of the Lamb of God.

In my view, scriptures to the effect that Jesus 'was lifted up upon the cross and slain for the sins of the world' or that He 'made peace through the blood of his cross' do not define the Sacrifice of the Atonement as the sufferings of the cross alone. Statements that the killing of the beast at the gate of the tabernacle makes an atonement under the Law of Moses also do not in my view define that atoning sacrifice as the actual death of the animal, but only pinpoint the dramatic crux of the atonement process.

I would say that if the beast were there killed and the body taken from the tabernacle it would be completely invalid. The blood must be sprinkled, the carcass cared for and so forth as prescribed, or it is no atonement. In my view every facet of the process is a point within the whole and only the whole can be defined as the sacrifice. Just the same, the Sacrifice of God's Only Begotten Son did NOT begin and end at Calvary in my view, but began at the Grand Council with His selection and has no end.

Do you see why I have the questions I do?

I get the feeling you know what I think about all this, my intention at this point is to understand your view.

-a-train

[Traveler]

I disagree that atoning for our sins required the resurrection. Resurrection comes free to all. In other words, I believe that our sins can be remitted whether we are resurrected or not. If there is a scripture that teaches otherwise, I'd literally love to know about it. I'm always open to learning new doctrine.

It is written in scripture that “The wages of sin is death.”

Sin cannot be atoned until death is overcome.

Perhaps someday we will discuss the sympolic colors of red and green in relation to the atonement.

The Traveler

[AnthonyB]

a-train,

I had actually thought that link and was surprised that no LDS postered made that the link you have when I asked about pre-shadowing of the Garden in scripture.

It is at once the choosing of the Lamb in the Mosaic sacrifice but also the reversal of the Garden of Eden, Jesus chose the Father's will, Adam chose his own.

As long as the cross is the crux of the atonement then I am happy with what your saying.

Can I suggest we move the issue to another example.

For instance getting your driving license. Do you get your licence when you pass the driving test or can the whole experience that was needed to get it be included, as well as the process fo keeping it.

In normal conversation when someone says they got their driving licence, they are refering to the act of passing the test required to get it and getting the piece of plastic. However equally you could say, it took weeks of driving instructions for me to have got my licence.

Are the driving lesson before the test part of getting your licence, imho yes. Of course all the lessons in the world won't help unless you take the actual test. You also can't say that having done the lessons you've got your licence.

It makes sense to me but I don't know if that helps you, maybe you can think of a better example.

[CrimsonKairos]

So, are you saying you don't know?

I'm saying that I don't think the scriptures indicate that Christ sweating blood in Gethsemane was "his blood being shed for the remission of sins." That is what I've been trying to establish through the scriptures, since so many people seem convinced that Christ's "shed blood" refers to the episode in Gethsemane.

As for dilineating at what exact point the sacrifice for sin began (the scourging or the first nail being driven through Christ's hands) I can't say because I don't think the scriptures say explicity. What I do know is that it was his death on the cross that won us the victory from sin and gave Christ the "leverage" to plead for mercy for his sake alone.

Would you include the ridicule and violence to which the Saviour was subjected in the night before the crucifixion?

I don't think that the concept of killing a sacrifice would require the ridiculing and torture and abuse of the sacrificial lamb prior to the sacrifice. I don't see that as a requirement in scriptures. Hence, I wouldn't try to argue that the scourging and all that was necessary, even though I used to think that if you recall my old theory about Christ's atonement working by means of the injustices attendant to it.

Again, I can't with confidence say how the atonement does work, but I do think the scriptures show how it did not work (penal-substitution). Whether I am correct about how the atonement works or doesn't work, I am confident in where the atonement took place.

Would you limit only the pains He suffered on the cross itself as the sacrifice for sin?

I honestly don't know. All I know is that the scriptures say sinful men shed Christ's blood on the cross as an atonement for our sins. The scriptures aren't clear about details such as whether the scourging was necessary too. I'm inclined to think it was not, but I don't have scriptures to establish that view so I won't give it.

I do know that the sacrifice for sin was slain on the cross. I'm not sure anything else matters to me, but maybe if there were more scriptures about what you're asking I might be more interested.

In my estimation the selection of the animal and the bringing of it to the priest is as much a part of the sacrifice as is the infliction of the wounds of death at the gate.

Ah, I see we're talking about different things. I think that the Day of Atonement is the ritual that specifically symbolizes Christ's atonement on the cross for sin.

The individual trespass offerings, burnt offerings, peace offerings, etc... that everyone else offered throughout the year are more symbolic to me of the repentance process, the forsaking of personal sins, confessing them to the appropriate priesthood leader who---if our repentance is sincere and sufficient---declares our forgiveness much as the OT priests took the sacrifice from the Israelites and then killed/burned them, etc...

On the Day of Atonement, the High Priest takes two goats and casts lots on them and from there on out, the High Priest does all the necessary sacrificing and sprinkling himself. No Israelites assist in casting lots on the goats, or killing it, or sprinkling its blood on the mercy seat, and before the mercy seat.

With that, the burning of the carcass and sprinkling of the blood after the death of the sacrifice are also just as requisite.

This is where we get into personal interpretation of relatively ambiguous details of the sacrifice rituals enjoined in the OT.

For example, I think many parts of the sacrifice process are simply included as necessary steps for Israel to accomplish and not necessarily as symbolic of anything. Take the burning of the carcasses of the bullock, goat and ram. Once their blood had been shed and sprinkled, I believe the sacrifice was complete. Instead of letting the carcasses rot or instead of eating them like common food, they were to burn them outside the camp.

Similarly, the High Priest killing a bullock to atone for himself before killing the goat to atone for Israel...Christ obviously had no need to atone for his sins since he had no sins. Yet Aaron did sin, and had to be clean before he could appropriately officiate on behalf of Israel. So the bullock and ram offerings do not foreshadow Christ's atonement in any specific way. That is the way I understand it.

Now the goat of the sin offering for Israel...that is the foreshadowing of Christ's atoning death. It is also impossible to have an exact symbolism of the atonement of Christ. For example, we both know that although wicked men nailed Christ to the cross, ultimately Christ had to relinquish his hold on life and "give up the ghost" of his own volition.

There is no way to symbolize this in the Day of Atonement ritual of the OT. Unless you hang a goat off the edge of a cliff and can convince it to chew through the rope holding it up, or something, y'know?

So I think that alot of the details of the sacrificial processes were pragmatic considerations and not necessarily straight-across-the-board comparisons to Christ's atoning death. Here is an example:

And he shall make an atonement for the holy sanctuary, and he shall make an atonement for the tabernacle of the congregation, and for the altar, and he shall make an atonement for the priests, and for all the people of the congregation. (Lev. 16:33)

We know that the tabernacle, the Holy Place, and the Holy of Holies were figures of their heavenly counterparts. The Holy of Holies represented the presence of God. Yet Aaron (and the subsequent High Priests after him) were to make atonement for the holy sanctuary, tabernacle, etc... Well we know there is no sin or filth in heaven or God's presence, so again this part of the Day of Atonement ritual speaks more to the fact that the telestial instruments and buildings by which the atonement for Israel's sins was to be made, had to be cleansed before they could be used for the purpose of atoning.

That's my take on it.

In my view the entire process is the offering or sacrifice and the omission of any event within that process invalidates the whole of it.

I think that killing the goat on the Day of Atonement was so its blood could be sprinkled in the Holy of Holies, on the mercy seat. To me, this symbolizes Christ interceding for us sinners by virtue of his blood which was shed. Something along the lines of his prayer in D&C 45:3-5.

So yes, we could not be forgiven if Christ did not plead our case for us, but the sacrifice that gives such pleas power, is his death on the cross. I guess I see you trying to include the whole process of justification and sanctification under the term "atonement."

I, on the other hand, see atonement as a scriptural synonym for sacrifice, as a noun that describes the act of shedding the blood of a suitable sacrifice. So is the atonement the only thing we need for salvation? Of course not. We need Christ's endorsement, his cleansing grace to be applied to our sinful souls, the ordinances whereby we partake of such grace, etc...

I'm not trying to say that the atonement for sin on the cross was the only thing Christ had to do to bring salvation to his people. I see the crucifixion as the keystone of our salvation, much as the Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion. Is the Book of Mormon the only significant thing about the Restoration? No, but without it, everything else falls apart. Similarly, without the crucifixion and atoning death of Christ, all the ordinances and other things associated with acquiring salvation are useless.

Does that make sense? Is that different than what you thought I've been saying? Maybe I should have used the keystone example earlier.

...I credit the selection and presentation of the Firstborn in the Grand Council as the beginning of the Sacrifice of the Lamb of God.

Again, I'd use the arch analogy. Christ's premortal anointing to be our Savior is definitely part of the arch of salvation, but without Christ's death on the cross which atones for our sins, all the other parts of the arch (such as his premortal selection) are useless and fall apart.

Again, I see you as wanting to include everything Christ did or had done to him as part of his atonement, whereas I view his sacrifice on the cross as the atonement, and everything else as ancillary thereto. I believe that because of the scriptural descriptions of the atonement, and how it is always identified with Christ's blood being shed and/or his crucifixion, as here:

...the blood of the Son of our great God...shall be shed for the atonement of our sins. (Alma 24:13)

So I see you defining atonement as all the premortal and mortal actions Christ took to secure our salvation.

I define atonement as I believe the scriptures do: atonement is the actual sacrifice for sin, the shed blood.

In my view, scriptures to the effect that Jesus 'was lifted up upon the cross and slain for the sins of the world' or that He 'made peace through the blood of his cross' do not define the Sacrifice of the Atonement as the sufferings of the cross alone.

The only way I'd agree is if there were other scriptures that said something like, "Christ's birth shall atone for sin," or, "Christ's 40 day fast and subsequent temptations shall atone for sin." But since I've found no such scriptures, I don't see how it can be reasonable to extend the concept of atonement beyond what the scriptures describe, which is Christ's death.

Statements that the killing of the beast at the gate of the tabernacle makes an atonement under the Law of Moses also do not in my view define that atoning sacrifice as the actual death of the animal, but only pinpoint the dramatic crux of the atonement process.

Well again, if we're only basing our beliefs on the OT symbolism (which is rich and powerful, I agree) then we might have some wriggle room. However, when we take into account also the clear teachings in the D&C and Book of Mormon, we surpass symbolism (imperfect or incomplete as it sometimes is) and arrive at the concrete doctrine of not what the OT showed Christ would do, but what Christ actually did.

I would say that if the beast were there killed and the body taken from the tabernacle it would be completely invalid. The blood must be sprinkled, the carcass cared for and so forth as prescribed, or it is no atonement.

In the OT, correct. However, as I said I do not think the OT details all have an analog in our Lord's death. Many of the OT requirements beyond the shedding and sprinkling of the animal's blood were pragmatic considerations made necessary by those performing the sacrifice. For example, we know Christ's body was buried, not burned.

In my view every facet of the process is a point within the whole and only the whole can be defined as the sacrifice.

If we were only debating OT rituals, I'd agree. However, the OT is not the only book in our canon, and as beautiful as the symbolism can be, it is after all only symbolism which can never exactly portray that which it stands for. In addition to the OT symbols, we have the clear teachings of the resurrected Lord to the Nephites and Joseph Smith in the D&C, wherein he could speak plainly about what he had done, and was not limited by using animals to represent himself, or a portable temple in the wilderness to represent God's presence, etc...

Symbols do have value, but there is a limit to that value. The word "God" is a symbol that to English speakers calls to mind the Being we love and worship. But does the word "God" accurately portray the Being we love and worship? No, it is but a reference to something far surpassing in wonder and glory that which the mere symbol can afford.

It seems to me that you're spending the majority of your focus dissecting the OT symbolism instead of studying the clear teachings of the resurrected Lord in latter-day scriptures. The OT symbolism gives us a 2D image of the sacrifice for sin, a painting if you will. The other scriptures provide a 3D sculpture of the atonement with bold strokes, clearly defined lines and breath-taking clarity.

Just the same, the Sacrifice of God's Only Begotten Son did NOT begin and end at Calvary in my view, but began at the Grand Council with His selection and has no end.

Do you see why I have the questions I do?

Totally. I think we're disagreeing on how the scriptures define atonement. You see it as a word encompassing everything the Lord ever did, ending with his resurrection. I see it as a word that describes the actual sacrifice for sin, the shedding of the blood. There are too many scriptures which say this for me to think otherwise, but I can see where you're coming from in terms of concept and the "big picture." I just don't think the scriptures substantiate your definition.

[a-train]

I'm saying that I don't think the scriptures indicate that Christ sweating blood in Gethsemane was "his blood being shed for the remission of sins."

Perhaps you've already said, but what, in your view, DID happen in Gethsemane?

I don't think that the concept of killing a sacrifice would require the ridiculing and torture...

As I imagine the same being who sent fire from the altar which consumed Nadab & Abihu for offering strange sacrifices in a disrespectful manner, sitting blindfolded in a room quietly taking a beating, I sit in awe at the astounding amount of self control and grace. I think of when the angel asked Nephi: 'Knowest thou the condescension of God?' and then told him of the birth and life of the Lamb of God, yea even the Son of the Eternal Father. Certainly the Saviour made a tremendous Sacrifice being born and living in the circumstances He did. It was His love for us that caused Him to condescend to that lowly birth in Bethlehem, to prepare and send out His disciples, to take upon Himself the baptism of John, to go forth and bless and heal the sick, to resist not the cruelest of treatments among His fellows, to be subjected to the crucifixion, and to lay down His own life.

This, to me, is the truest meaning of sacrifice. That out of love, He descended from the divine throne and lived in every way as the lowliest of men and was subjected to the life we read of only to end in the most disgracing of deaths. There is no doubt that the act of His death was the sacrifice for sin and the propitiation of the Atonement of man and God, but how can we say that any part of this Man's life was not a tremendous sacrifice in the efforts to redeem man from the fall?

Especially, if penal substitution is to be rejected, and if no measure of the pains He suffered actually paid the demands of justice, how can we say that any moment of His life was anything other than a vivid and poignant plea to forgive the sins of man? Was the Father somehow unconvinced as His Son was laid in a manger? Was He not persauded when His mother fled with Him to escape a mass infanticide aimed entirely at the babe?

I am well aware, especially thanks to you, that the scriptures teach Christ crucified. I am certain His work on the cross was nothing but the propitiatory work of God in the behalf of fallen man, but I am compelled by those same scriptures that the work of Christ in the manger was also the Sacrifice of the Only Begotten.

With that, would you say that the Saviour made many sacrifices? Would you say that the sacrifices made by the Saviour away from Calvary were also for us, but weren't for our sins?

Looking back at Tyndale's formulation of the term atonement, and taking into account the inclusion of reconciliation, propitiation, and covering within the term; would you say that the Atonement of Jesus Christ under that definition is something more than the propitiatory sacrifice for our sins? Would you let it therefore include reconciliatory efforts away from Calvary?

I guess I see you trying to include the whole process of justification and sanctification under the term "atonement."

You got me, that's what I have been doing all along.

Again, I'd use the arch analogy. Christ's premortal anointing to be our Savior is definitely part of the arch of salvation, but without Christ's death on the cross which atones for our sins, all the other parts of the arch (such as his premortal selection) are useless and fall apart.

The brethren would call the arch the Atonement, you want to call the keystone the Atonement. So what would you call the arch?

-a-train

PS, I'm an old testament guy I guess, but what do you make of the non-blood atonement payments in the Law of Moses?

[CrimsonKairos]

Perhaps you've already said, but what, in your view, DID happen in Gethsemane?

I have already said it, but I'll repeat it here since if our positions were reversed, I'd definitely be asking you what happened in Gethsemane if it wasn't atonement. It's question/answer #9 in my original post in this thread, but here it is for convenience's sake.

16 For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent;

18 Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all...to bleed at every pore...

20 Wherefore...repent...lest you suffer these punishments...of which in the smallest, yea, even in the least degree you have tasted at the time I withdrew my Spirit. (D&C 19:16-18, 20)

To me, that is Christ saying, "You know how you feel when the Spirit withdraws from you due to your sins? Well that's similar to the feeling I experienced which made me bleed from every pore, though your suffering is but an infinitesimal amount of what I shouldered in the garden."

So I read that to mean that it was a fulness of spiritual withdrawal in Gethsemane that made Christ bleed from every pore. Again, if I cut down the above verses to the key parts it becomes very interesting reading:

16 ...I, God...suffered these things for all...

18 Which suffering caused myself...to bleed at every pore...

20 Wherefore...repent...lest you suffer these punishments...which...you have tasted at the time I withdrew my Spirit. (D&C 19:16-18, 20)

See how Christ explains what "these punishments" are that he suffered, by telling us its like what we feel when the Spirit leaves us alone?

As I imagine the same being who sent fire from the altar which consumed Nadab & Abihu for offering strange sacrifices in a disrespectful manner, sitting blindfolded in a room quietly taking a beating, I sit in awe at the astounding amount of self control and grace.

That, my friend, made my spine tingle. Well said.

There is no doubt that the act of His death was the sacrifice for sin and the propitiation of the Atonement of man and God, but how can we say that any part of this Man's life was not a tremendous sacrifice in the efforts to redeem man from the fall?

Oh, well I never said that. In fact, I said a few posts ago that from Christ creating the world, to preaching in the flesh, everything he has done was with an eye towards securing our salvation.

- Was giving up his heavenly throne in exchange for a manger a personal sacrifice? Yes.

- Was having the veil drawn across his mind and having to experience the absolute helplessness and powerlessness of an infant a personal sacrifice? Yes.

We could go on all day listing personal sacrifices Christ made for us, wherein he gave up something he possessed in order to be in a position to help us or teach us. I agree that his life was one of continual personal sacrifices.

Now when it comes to the atonement for sin, that is a very special and particular sacrifice, called in scripture "the sacrifice for sin." It was a discrete, specific act whose sole purpose was to atone for our sins if we repent and forsake our ungodly ways. Nothing else that Christ gave up or did or had done to him could equal the potency of his laying down his life for our sake.

So did Christ give the Sermon on the Mount to help us overpower sin? Sure. The principles he taught help us avoid sin in the first place which is what we all should be striving for. But the Sermon on the Mount by itself did not and cannot atone for our sins.

The crucifixion of Christ was a very special, distinct and overpowering sacrifice that by itself atoned for our sins. Based on what I've read in the scriptures, I truly think all Christ had to do to redeem us from sin was to be crucified without external spiritual aid. If Christ had somehow come to earth in a physical body that was already matured to adulthood and was ready to be nailed to the cross the moment his spirit entered that body, I think he could have been crucified and atoned for our sins without doing anything else.

In other words, I think Christ only had to make one sacrifice for sin, and that was his laying down his life for us, having sinful men shed his blood just because he was righteous. For me, that throws a whole new light on---and inspires a greater degree of gratitude in my heart for---all the other personal sacrifices Christ made aside from his crucifixion on Calvary. Why?

Because I don't think the scriptures teach that Jesus had to be born in a manger to atone for our sins; he didn't have to grow up as a carpenter's son to atone for our sins; he didn't have to fast 40 days in the wilderness to atone for our sins; he didn't have to walk on water or heal the lepers or multiply the fish and loaves or raise Lazarus from death or any of the other thousand things he did during his mortal sojourn, to atone for our sins.

But he did those things anyway, even though they weren't "required" to atone for our sins. That is true love.

In other words, I think there was more to be done for our salvation to be complete than for Christ to atone for our sins, and that is what all the rest is about. Salvation isn't just about having your sins blotted out, or having your innocence renewed (which is what I see the sacrifice on the cross accomplishing).

Salvation is about partaking of the divine nature through ordinances and covenants which tap the grace of God beyond atonement for sin, for once we are justified, we have to then be sanctified until we possess God's grace in such a way that our natural man dies, our old lives end and we are wholly and truly reborn, new beings free of sin or temptation or any ungodly trait.

Does the cross alone accomplish all that? I don't think so. Is the cross the atonement for the sins of the world, the sacrifice that blots out our abandoned sins? Yes. Is exaltation just about having our sins blotted out? No.

...I am compelled by those same scriptures that the work of Christ in the manger was also the Sacrifice of the Only Begotten.

I guess I'd say it was a sacrifice of the Only Begotten, but when I hear someone slap "the" in front of "sacrifice," I think of the greatest sacrifice Jesus ever made, out of his great love for us...the shepherd laying down his life for his sheep. If we're going to sum up Christ's work and pains by referring to the sacrifice of the Only Begotten, I can't see how it could mean anything other than his unlawful death.

Does that mean I think the crucifixion was the only sacrifice Jesus made for us? Of course not, that'd be ridiculous for me to assert. The world is too small to contain enough books to adequately chronicle and catalogue all of Christ's personal sacrifices for our benefit. I don't believe I've ever disputed that.

All I've been pointing out is that there was only one sacrifice that by itself atoned for our sins, independent of any other act Christ performed, and that sacrifice consisted of sinful men shedding Christ's blood as an atonement for our sins.

With that, would you say that the Saviour made many sacrifices? Would you say that the sacrifices made by the Saviour away from Calvary were also for us, but weren't for our sins?

Absolutely!!! As I said, I truly believe that there aren't enough books in the world to list all the sacrifices Jesus has made for me and for you and for the world. I also truly believe that among all of those sacrifices, one stands out as supreme, surpassing all others in brightness, difficulty, depth and importance: Christ's crucifixion.

By saying that, I don't mean in any way to take away from everything else Christ did and does for us. As I said, salvation is about more than just the remission of sins...it's about the transformation of telestial beings into celestial beings. Having our sins remitted doesn't automatically make us celestial beings with celestial desires and all of Christ's attributes.

...would you say that the Atonement of Jesus Christ under [Tyndale's definition] is something more than...Calvary?

Good question. I'm not sure. I guess I tend to skip Tyndale's intent whenever I hear or read the word "atonement." Instead, I think of the original Hebrew word that prompted Tyndale to coin the word "atonement" in the first place, and that word is "kaphar" meaning "to cover."

If you want to try something interesting, go through the scriptures and replace the word "atonement" with the noun "covering," and replace the word "atoning" with the verb "covering," and replace the word "atone" with the noun "cover." I think that better illustrates what Calvary was all about. I'll give a few examples:

Christ's atoning blood = Christ's covering blood.

The atonement for sin = the covering for sin.

Christ died to atone for our sins = Christ died to cover our sins.

It is in that sense that I say that the crucifixion was all that was needed to blot out or "cover" or remit our sins. At the same time, exaltation consists of more than just having your sins blotted out, doesn't it? So of course Christ's other sacrifices were important, they just weren't sacrifices to cover or blot out our sins.

If you think of atonement as literally the act which allows our past sins to be covered up and forgotten by God, then the atonement does only consist of the crucifixion. Nothing else Christ did was meant to "cover" our sins. It was his blood that was shed for the remission of sins, but salvation involves more than just remission of sins.

The brethren would call the arch the Atonement, you want to call the keystone the Atonement.

That's a good way to say it. I think the scriptures define "atonement" as only consisting of the death of Christ, but I think you've nailed the difference between what I'm saying and what the GA's are saying, and we are talking about different things when we say "atonement."

So what would you call the arch?

I would call the arch "Sanctification," and I would call the atonement the "Keystone of Sanctification."

What do I mean by that?

You can be justified (pronounced innocent of sin, have your sins remitted or "covered") without being sanctified (perfected, sharing all of God's attributes); you cannot be sanctified without being justified.

Stated differently: You can apply the atonement to your sins even if you're not perfect; you cannot be perfect without applying the atonement to your sins.

...what do you make of the non-blood atonement payments in the Law of Moses?

Profit.

Seriously though, I was just looking over that today. I think that is more a symbol of personal repentance, the effort we must make to demonstrate remorse and godly sorrow. What do you think?

[a-train]

So,

If I have it all right, you call what LDS commonly call the Atonement of Jesus Christ: Sanctification.

You call what LDS would commonly call the Sacrifice for Sin: the Atonement.

But, I can see little or no difference between the common LDS view and your view of what these things are once we have them designated by their respective terms.

Beyond that, you reject any notion that could be considered penal substitution which is thought by the LDS to be scriptural, and while you view the events at Gethsemane as a vivid and stirring part of Sanctification, it is NOT part of the Sacrifice for sin.

Now, here come my questions. As I call the whole of the efforts on the part of Christ to redeem man the Atonement, I picture sanctification as only a portion of that work. To sanctify is to make holy, to set apart as sacred, to consecrate, to spiritually cleanse. Now I would consider that to be only a portion of what it takes to take fallen man from this telestial sphere and raise him to immortality and eternal life in the presence of the Father.

How do you define Sanctification?

I think Tyndale's formulation of the term atonement was designed to be something even bigger than sacrifice, than covering, than even reconciliation. I really like the term reconciliation because it's latin roots give it the literal meaning of 'to sit with again'. The image of fallen Adam sitting once again in the splendor of the heavenly abode with his Father comes into my mind.

As big as reconciliation is, Tyndale didn't think it big enough to designate what he felt was conveyed in the original Hebrew 'kafer'. He felt it was more than a covering, it included a propitiation and was a reconciliation. I am compelled by that. I like the term atonement to describe the arch we spoke of. Within that arch there is sanctification, covering for sins, propitiation, mediation, healing, sacrifice, and much more. This is my view of the Atonement of Jesus Christ which you would call Sanctification.

How do you view Sanctification and what does the term convey to you? How does it offer a picture of everything within that arch?

-a-train

[CrimsonKairos]

sorry i'm taking so long...busy few days ahead...i'll get back to you soon

[Traveler]

Not only must there be a sacrificial death and resurrection (for remission of sins) - which is the symbolism of baptism but such a sacrifice must be done according to the order and covenant of the priesthood. So expanding the understanding of the atonement – remission or redemption of sins I list the following:

1. Suffering for sins by covenant of the priesthood

2. The offering of one’s life by covenant of the priesthood (broken heart and contrite spirit)

3. The resurrection – to new incorruptible life by covenant of the priesthood.

As a type and shadow of both the atonement of Christ and or our eventual resurrection we must do the following:

1. Suffer with Christ for sin

2. Repent and offer our old self which is a natural man – this is also done with a broken heart and contrite spirit.

3. Be borne again of the spirit and become a new person – a covenant son or daughter of G-d or a covenantal saint of G-d.

Again – the atonement includes the resurrection – whereby we are atoned for our sins and our “natural man” that is our fallen state.

The Traveler

[CrimsonKairos]

Okay, I'm back from the East Coast. Sorry I took so long to reply.

You call what LDS would commonly call the Sacrifice for Sin: the Atonement.

Correct. I think LDS members and leaders have---over the years---redefined the word "atonement" to mean something different than the scriptural definition (I'm talking about LDS scriptures too, not just the Bible).

But, I can see little or no difference between the common LDS view and your view of what these things are once we have them designated by their respective terms.

Here's the difference. Everyone I ask---and I've asked quite a few friends and siblings-in-law---believes that the sacrifice for sin took place in Gethsemane.

They believe that Christ bleeding from every pore is what the sacrament prayer is referring to when it says, "in remembrance of the blood of Thy Son, which was shed."

They venerate the Garden above the Cross and teach others that it was in Gethsemane that Christ took the punishment for our individual sins.

To me, those are three pretty serious reasons to differentiate between the LDS myth about where Christ atoned for our sins, and where he actually had his atoning blood shed by wicked men.

Beyond that, you reject any notion that could be considered penal substitution which is thought by the LDS to be scriptural

Correct.

Just so others remember, penal-substitution is an old theory of atonement. It was a modification of St. Anselm's "satisfaction theory" of atonement, which he described in his 1098 A.D. work, "Cur Deus Homo." Thomas Aquinas and Calvin modified this theory into what nearly all of Protestant (and LDS) Christians believe describes how the atonement works: penal-substitution, punishing the innocent in place of the guilty.

You know I have many objections to penal-substitution from both a conceptual and scriptural standpoint, a few of which I've recently discovered were also laid out by the 16th century Italian theologian Faustus Socinus:

1.) There is nothing that conforms to justice in punishing the innocent and letting the guilty go free;

2.) The temporary death of one is not a suitable substitute for the eternal death of many;

3.) Perfect substitutionary satisfaction would confer on its beneficiaries an unlimited permission to sin.

Number three above is particularly significant. I know all you penal-substitution believers would say, "But God only forgives us if we repent." Well that begs the question: "What happens if we don't repent?" I'll tell you.

If God "whipped" Christ for our sins so we could repent and God could be just and fair and all that jazz, and then we don't repent and God has to "whip" us too for our sins, then God "whipped" Jesus for nothing. A God who "whips" the only innocent being besides Himself, and then whips us too, is anything but a Just God. That'd be more like a revenge-hungry deity with a whip surgically attached to his hand, and that's not my God nor the God of the LDS canon.

Seriously, say there's two young brothers. The younger brother breaks their living room window. The dad goes to punish him, but the older son says, "Spank me instead of my younger brother. That way, if he says he's sorry you don't have to punish him and you'll have spanked me and so not violated the family rule that says you have to spank whoever breaks a window."

So the dad spanks the older brother in place of the younger. But then the younger brother sticks his tongue out and says, "I'm not sorry." So the dad goes and spanks the younger brother too. How in the world is that just or fair or in any way an image in harmony with the loving God portrayed in the scriptures? (no response needed, just being rhetorical )

Anyway, I don't wanna get into the penal-substitution debate again...if I recall, we hashed it out for like 10 or more pages in a previous thread, and I don't think either of us has changed our beliefs. :)

...and while you view the events at Gethsemane as a vivid and stirring part of Sanctification, it is NOT part of the Sacrifice for sin.

Bingo. This is what I see clearly taught in scripture over and over again. Gethsemane was preparation for---not part of---the sacrifice for sin wherein Christ's innocent blood was shed while he had no outside or heavenly aid or help. That previously ever-present heavenly aid and help was withdrawn during Christ's agony in Gethsemane.

Now I would consider [sanctification] to be only a portion of what it takes to take fallen man from this telestial sphere and raise him to immortality and eternal life in the presence of the Father...How do you view Sanctification and what does the term convey to you? How does it offer a picture of everything within that arch?

Let me tell you what I mean when I say I believe sanctification is the over-arching goal we must attain if we are to dwell with God in celestial glory hereafter. I'll do so by listing what I believe is required for us to dwell with God in the highest degree of celestial glory after we're resurrected:

1.) We must be innocent of sin, have spotless spiritual records. (D&C 1:31)

2.) We must not commit sin or have any desire to do so. (Alma 41:3)

3.) We must possess charity or the pure love of Christ. (Moro. 10:21)

4.) We must have taken upon ourselves the name of Christ. (Mosiah 5:7, 9)

5.) We must have our name written in the Book of Life. (Rev. 21:27; Alma 5:58)

A more concise list would be:

1.) Remitted

2.) Reborn

3.) Benevolent

4.) Adopted

5.) Attested

To me, all five of those general things together comprise "sanctification." I didn't list resurrection because we aren't required to have physical bodies to qualify to dwell with God, though without glorified bodies of flesh and bone we cannot have a fulness of joy (D&C 93:33-34). In other words, the spirits of those who have died can attain to or acquire the above five conditions and qualify for exaltation even while disembodied (D&C 138:58-59).

So I believe that in order to be exalted on God's Right Hand, we must be sanctified beings; and in order to be sanctified beings, we must have/be all five of the things above; and in order to have/be all five of the things above, there had to be a sacrifice for sin. In other words, with all that Christ did and taught and was, without his atoning blood we could not have/be all five of those things, could not be sanctified, and hence could not be exalted which is what God and Christ want for us.

The Father and Son don't merely want us to avoid outer darkness; They want us to be exalted to a fulness of joy in Their presence, in the highest degree of celestial glory.

It is within that framework that I say that the atonement or sacrifice for sin is the keystone in the arch of our sanctification, which arch stands as the gateway to salvation/exaltation.

The atonement does not serve as a single term to encompass that whole list; rather, the atonement is the specific sacrifice which makes possible the things on that list.

I like the term atonement to describe the arch we spoke of. Within that arch there is sanctification, covering for sins, propitiation, mediation, healing, sacrifice, and much more. This is my view of the Atonement of Jesus Christ which you would call Sanctification.

That's cool. I'm just pointing out that the scriptures don't define atonement to include all that. The scriptures define atonement as the sacrifice for sin that was made by Christ on the cross at Calvary.

I understand that in common usage, most LDS members mean what you mean when they hear or say the word "atonement." And I think that's unfortunate inasmuch as Christ's death was the supreme act which makes possible exaltation, and hence deserves special emphasis and focus which is best achieved--I feel--by referring to it with the word "atonement" as the scriptures do.

I'm not saying, "You don't know Christ if you don't define 'atonement' like I do," nor am I implying anything like, "Your testimony of Christ being our Savior is an invalid witness unless you think and speak as I do."

Here is what I see as the main difference between our beliefs:

You view the atonement as including everything Christ did, does or will do to secure our salvation/exaltation.

I view the atonement as the specific shedding of Christ's blood on the cross for our sins.

[Traveler]

You view the atonement as including everything Christ did, does or will do to secure our salvation/exaltation.

I view the atonement as the specific shedding of Christ's blood on the cross for our sins.

But the cross was not the only time and place that the blood of Christ was shed and when he died on the cross and was pierced it was water and not blood that issued.

The Traveler