God ceasing to be God


askandanswer
 Share

Recommended Posts

Alma 42:22  But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentance granted; which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the law, and the law inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God.

My understanding of verse 22 is that if the works of justice were to be destroyed, then God would cease to be God. This understanding might or might not be correct, and this scripture might or might not be true. But if this scripture is true, and if my understanding of it is correct, could we then conclude that a collapse, or a failure, of justice, would violate one of the conditions on which God holds and exercises His power?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Justice cannot be robbed. The wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23) but because Jesus was sinless, and being God, having eternal life, what was unjustly taken from Him was His life, which is eternal and infinite, having no end. And while God’s own justice must reject evil, which has no place in His kingdom, His own sacrifice makes possible His right of mercy.

Alma 34:9 For it is expedient that an atonement should be made; for according to the great plan of the Eternal God there must be an atonement made, or else all mankind must unavoidably perish; yea, all are hardened; yea, all are fallen and are lost, and must perish except it be through the atonement which it is expedient should be made.
10 For it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice; yea, not a sacrifice of man, neither of beast, neither of any manner of fowl; for it shall not be a human sacrifice; but it must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice.
11 Now there is not any man that can sacrifice his own blood which will atone for the sins of another. Now, if a man murdereth, behold will our law, which is just, take the life of his brother? I say unto you, Nay.
12 But the law requireth the life of him who hath murdered; therefore there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world.
13 Therefore, it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice, and then shall there be, or it is expedient there should be, a stop to the shedding of blood; then shall the law of Moses be fulfilled; yea, it shall be all fulfilled, every jot and tittle, and none shall have passed away.

Justice can demand of us death, and rightly so, for the wages of sin is death. But Jesus Christ who is our mediator (1 Timothy 2:5) and our intercessor (Hebrews  7:25) with the Father can, in effect, hold back justice and say to it, “you took from me my life, which is endless and infinite. Therefore, in restoring to myself what is infinite, I can claim ALL life.” Thus justice is necessarily satisfied. This is how God can continue to be God, having satisfied the demands of justice, which has claim on all of us sinners. It was necessary for Him to make such a condescension, with the capacity to die unjustly so that He could take up His life again and in that capacity, which is infinite, rescue the rest of us. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
On 4/20/2019 at 8:57 AM, askandanswer said:

Alma 42:22  But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentance granted; which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the law, and the law inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God.

My understanding of verse 22 is that if the works of justice were to be destroyed, then God would cease to be God. This understanding might or might not be correct, and this scripture might or might not be true. But if this scripture is true, and if my understanding of it is correct, could we then conclude that a collapse, or a failure, of justice, would violate one of the conditions on which God holds and exercises His power?

That's a common misconception.  His Eternal nature will never be taken away nor can it.  And he can never have his works destroyed, for there is no end.  That has nothing to do with the verse in question.

What it is saying is that there is a reason God is God.  And what makes him "Good" is clearly defined.  If that reason weren't there, nor the definition satisfied, then it isn't really God.

The definition of a "good God" (notice the Capital G) is that he will ultimately balance justice and mercy.  Without this ability, or those qualities satisfied, then the person we're talking about isn't really God.  If the person we're talking about DOES balance Justice and Mercy perfectly, then that really is God.

Others try to define "good" by man's standards and man's judgment.  But that is mainly because we don't have a proper understanding of what justice is or what mercy is.  All we understand is the nature of justice that robs mercy and the nature of mercy that robs justice.  But God's way is perfect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/20/2019 at 7:57 AM, askandanswer said:

Alma 42:22  But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentance granted; which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the law, and the law inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God.

My understanding of verse 22 is that if the works of justice were to be destroyed, then God would cease to be God. This understanding might or might not be correct, and this scripture might or might not be true. But if this scripture is true, and if my understanding of it is correct, could we then conclude that a collapse, or a failure, of justice, would violate one of the conditions on which God holds and exercises His power?

It is interesting to me that fat chance and slim chance mean the same thing.  This is sort of the same thing.  G-d ceasing to be G-d has about as much chance as justice disappearing forever.   I have often employed this logic with those that claim to be atheists and asking the question - what proof do they have that justice exist and why do they hold to even a slim (or fat) chance that there is justice and ditch the possibility there is a G-d?

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
25 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

Or.... Alma is engaging in a rhetorical device similar to mathematical proof by contradiction.

I don't speak your fancy military jargon!!!  Have At You!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A long long time ago, on my mission, I was moved into an area with my companion.  There had been sisters there for a few years.  While we were going through all the stuff they left we found an old talk someone had typed up.  It wasn't a General Conference talk, and I don't recall who gave it, but it was a General Authority and it was addressed to mission presidents or stake presidents.  

It talked a lot about this topic.  From what I remember his point was that God is God because of His dependability and reliability.  Intelligences, spirits, and things obey Him because they trust Him, not because they are compelled to.  He has a perfect track record, so to speak.  If God were to rob justice, or anything else that would damage his dependability, he would cease to have that power over other things because of the broken trust.  Other intelligences would no longer obey Him.

I've looked for that talk a number of times since coming home 16 years ago and have never found it again.  It was quite interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, dprh said:

A long long time ago, on my mission, I was moved into an area with my companion.  There had been sisters there for a few years.  While we were going through all the stuff they left we found an old talk someone had typed up.  It wasn't a General Conference talk, and I don't recall who gave it, but it was a General Authority and it was addressed to mission presidents or stake presidents.  

It talked a lot about this topic.  From what I remember his point was that God is God because of His dependability and reliability.  Intelligences, spirits, and things obey Him because they trust Him, not because they are compelled to.  He has a perfect track record, so to speak.  If God were to rob justice, or anything else that would damage his dependability, he would cease to have that power over other things because of the broken trust.  Other intelligences would no longer obey Him.

I've looked for that talk a number of times since coming home 16 years ago and have never found it again.  It was quite interesting.

Welcome!

I ran into a Portuguese copy of what sounds like the same talk on my mission, and it was attributed to Cleon Skousen (though IIRC he claimed to have gotten the core concepts from John A. Widtsoe).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Scott

That's a good question and is hard for mortal minds to understand.

Along the same lines, Hebrews 6:18 says the following:

18 That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:

I still don't think means that God doesn't have free agency.   I take it to mean that it is impossible for God to lie and for him to still remain God, but that God will never break this rules.

Alma 42 is along the same lines , or so it seems to me.  

So God won't break the laws that will make him cease to be God.     

I think that that's as far can be understood with a mortal mind.

Anything beyond that (as far as I know) would merely be mortal speculation.

Although God won't break the laws that are set, what if he ever did?   I don't think we know.   If God cease to be God, would the universe still exist?   What would be our state while in heaven?    Would someone else become God (which would sound blasphemous to many)?    I don't think we can know.

All we can know is that God can't break eternal laws and to remain God, but we also know God will never break those laws, so I guess we never have to worry about that.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

A long long time ago, on my mission

This just sparked an idea in my head.   A missionary is defined by his role, but also by his actions.  If a missionary decides to stop doing the work, stops wearing a suit an tie, abandons his companion and decides to just start living as a regular person, is he still a missionary? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
21 minutes ago, bytebear said:

This just sparked an idea in my head.   A missionary is defined by his role, but also by his actions.  If a missionary decides to stop doing the work, stops wearing a suit an tie, abandons his companion and decides to just start living as a regular person, is he still a missionary? 

You're only asking about a technicality.  The reality is no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Welcome!

I ran into a Portuguese copy of what sounds like the same talk on my mission, and it was attributed to Cleon Skousen (though IIRC he claimed to have gotten the core concepts from John A. Widtsoe).

That was what I was thinking.  It sounded a LOT like a Skousen theory that was spread around.

It is something (along with many other items, many of which can be found in his thousand year books which were very popular back in the day) that I think many of the older Members have read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

That was what I was thinking.  It sounded a LOT like a Skousen theory that was spread around.

It is something (along with many other items, many of which can be found in his thousand year books which were very popular back in the day) that I think many of the older Members have read.

 

4 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Welcome!

I ran into a Portuguese copy of what sounds like the same talk on my mission, and it was attributed to Cleon Skousen (though IIRC he claimed to have gotten the core concepts from John A. Widtsoe).

Ah, Thanks.  That is right.  I found a good summary of it here .  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/20/2019 at 11:57 PM, askandanswer said:

Alma 42:22  But there is a law given, and a punishment affixed, and a repentance granted; which repentance, mercy claimeth; otherwise, justice claimeth the creature and executeth the law, and the law inflicteth the punishment; if not so, the works of justice would be destroyed, and God would cease to be God.

My understanding of verse 22 is that if the works of justice were to be destroyed, then God would cease to be God. This understanding might or might not be correct, and this scripture might or might not be true. But if this scripture is true, and if my understanding of it is correct, could we then conclude that a collapse, or a failure, of justice, would violate one of the conditions on which God holds and exercises His power?

It seems to me that the arrangement referred to by Alma has some similarities to a basic social contract whereby the many give to the one something that the one wants, and which will enable the one to progress the interests of the many, and failure of the one to meet the conditions under which the many gave him whatever it was he desired results in a termination of the position of the one and the end of the contract. This idea is broadly similar to what happens all around the world today whereby political leaders, (the one acting on behalf of the many) when being sworn in to office, take an oath to uphold the law, or something similar (maintaining a system of justice) and a failure to abide by that is grounds for an end to the deal and their removal from office.

Applying this idea to LDS theology, this could mean that the many intelligences gave to the one God whatever power or agency or autonomy they then had, or allowed God to exercise power and make decisions on their behalf which then enabled God to act in their interest, which He did by establishing the Plan of Salvation, which allowed these intelligences to progress. However, if God did not uphold His part of the deal, eg, He failed to maintain a system of justice, ( or perhaps one of many other possibly conditions that we don’t know about) then the intelligences, or spirits, or people or resurrected personages, whatever stage they were up to in their eternal progression, could then withdraw from the deal.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/26/2019 at 3:22 AM, Scott said:

That's a good question and is hard for mortal minds to understand.

Along the same lines, Hebrews 6:18 says the following:

18 That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:

I still don't think means that God doesn't have free agency.   I take it to mean that it is impossible for God to lie and for him to still remain God, but that God will never break this rules.

Alma 42 is along the same lines , or so it seems to me.  

So God won't break the laws that will make him cease to be God.     

I think that that's as far can be understood with a mortal mind.

Anything beyond that (as far as I know) would merely be mortal speculation.

Although God won't break the laws that are set, what if he ever did?   I don't think we know.   If God cease to be God, would the universe still exist?   What would be our state while in heaven?    Would someone else become God (which would sound blasphemous to many)?    I don't think we can know.

All we can know is that God can't break eternal laws and to remain God, but we also know God will never break those laws, so I guess we never have to worry about that.  

These are useful ideas. Thank you. I'm not too worried about God breaking any laws, but I think this line of inquiry could  help us develop a better understand our relationship with Him, our origins, and the rules under which we live, in time and in eternity. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/26/2019 at 6:26 AM, dprh said:

 

Ah, Thanks.  That is right.  I found a good summary of it here .  

A fascinating link, thank you very much. I can see that I'm going to have to start getting a better understanding of some of Skousen's work, his ideas seem to be very similar to my own. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

If a government didn't enforce its laws, would it still be a government? If the Father didn't enforce the law, He would still exist, but He would have no authority, he would cease to be God. 

Alma 42 has extended meaning for me. I grew up with weak parents, and by weak, I mean they literally had no authority in the house. Nothing they said to me carried any weight, nothing would happen if they threatened me with a punishment. And as a consequence, I've had to learn some things in adulthood I should have learned when I was a child. Weakness in authority has negative consequences for "weaker intelligences."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
On 4/21/2019 at 1:33 PM, skalenfehl said:

Justice cannot be robbed. The wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23) but because Jesus was sinless, and being God, having eternal life, what was unjustly taken from Him was His life, which is eternal and infinite, having no end. And while God’s own justice must reject evil, which has no place in His kingdom, His own sacrifice makes possible His right of mercy.

His life was NOT "unjustly taken" from Him.

Quote

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 10:17-18

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Guest Mores
13 hours ago, skalenfehl said:

 The Pharisees unjustly condemned Him to die and the Romans unjustly crucified an innocent man. He was innocent and He allowed it. Innocent men condemned to death, die unjustly. This was His condescension. 

Moving the goal posts.  Nice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Mores
12 hours ago, skalenfehl said:

Ok, Mores, let's have a discussion. I don't disagree with you that Jesus laid down His own life. He also didn't just climb up on the cross and ask someone to nail Him to it. So why bother with the process of allowing wicked men to unjustly accuse Him and unjustly put Him on the cross?

The actions of others is a red herring.  Nothing about your question or its discussion/answer changes the fact that no one TOOK it from Him.  He GAVE it up.  The difference between those two words is HUGE, not only definitionally, but doctrinally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share