two questions re. the Atonement


askandanswer
 Share

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, askandanswer said:

How can a finite amount of suffering, in the Garden of Gethsemane and on the cross of Cavalry, accomplish an infinite atonement?

If we don’t know the answer to this question, what would we need to know in order to be able to answer it?

On the one hand:     Good question.  I don't know.

On the other hand:  How do you know it was a finite amount of suffering?  When I read D&C 19:19, it looks like that which we call "the Atonement" was only a "preparation".  And when I read the words He speaks there, I get the impression that it still hurts Him in some way.

I could be wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, askandanswer said:

How can a finite amount of suffering, in the Garden of Gethsemane and on the cross of Cavalry, accomplish an infinite atonement?

If we don’t know the answer to this question, what would we need to know in order to be able to answer it?

Th suffering you refer to yields an atonement that is "infinite for all mankind" (2 Nephi 25:16), which is numbered unto God but not (Moses 1:35-37); it restores that which cannot be restored by human action (e.g., capital punishment does not bring the murder victim back to life, Alma 34:12); by definition its Godly action is infinite and eternal (Alma 34:10; D&C 20:17 and 28); it covers the span of time before and after mortality (allows birth and resurrection, Alma 34"14).

Also, by "infinite" I believe it cannot be comprehended by the finite mind until one is perfected (D&C 88:48-49).

I think people need to know how to read and apply the scriptures to answer this, which entails a number of points about discipleship and what constitutes "scripture."

I think the bottom line is that "infinite" is used to convey that which only God can comprehend or do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are many people out there that think that Jesus suffered an equal amount of pain required by a heavenly balance sheet to pay for our sins calculating every single sin from every single person.  Essentially, when we sin and repent, we are heaping extra suffering upon Christ.  

I don't aspire to this 'penal substitution' theory.  

We don't understand the eternal torment that Christ experienced during the Atonement.  Nor can we, nor do we wish to experience the tiniest amount.  

See D&C 19:4-20 (with particular emphasis on the words eternal and endless)

The price required to satisfy justice has already been paid.  When we do not repent.  We only hurt ourselves and deprecate the Atonement of Jesus Christ. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, askandanswer said:

How can a finite amount of suffering, in the Garden of Gethsemane and on the cross of Cavalry, accomplish an infinite atonement?

If we don’t know the answer to this question, what would we need to know in order to be able to answer it?

Although there is much we don't know, we do know that Christs Atonement does not work based on Him being punished in our place.  By that I mean to refer to:

Quote

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. (Alma 34:11-12)

From this passage, we can understand that Christ did not suffer a literal legalistic style punishment for our sins.  Therefore His infinite atonement must work upon some other principle.

While I don't know the full answer to the question, "how does Christ's Atonement work?" I do have an insight to share. Because of the way we experience law, punishment, sin and repentance, we are accustomed to thinking that differing and/or more grievous acts require different/greater punishments. However, in reality, there is only one punishment for sin, and that is permanent separation from God and His light.

Does considering Christ's atonement from this perspective and with this added detail in mind help you?

Edited by person0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh the irony! I was writing a response using the exact same scriptures @person0 except coming to a completely opposite conclusion. So I'm interested in comparing the two perspectives. I'll post mine as is first though:

I think these verses point us in the right direction (with some slight modification which I think is appropriate): 

Alma 34:11 Now there is not any man that can sacrifice his own blood which will atone for the sins of another...
            12 But the law requireth the life of him who hath [sinned]; therefore there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world.

"The law requireth the life of him who hath [sinned]." The law requires it. Therefore an "infinite" atonement is one that somehow enables one being (God) to stand in the place of another. To me this use of the word infinite defines the sufferer more than the suffering.

We see the same distinction made in the preceding verse 10: "for it shall not be a human sacrifice; but it must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice." 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, laronius said:

one that somehow enables one being (God) to stand in the place of another

Well, I did some research on the Church website and could find no resources that directly address this passage in an attempt to explain what we are discussing, so I suppose your interpretation is as good as mine until more is revealed.

The most important thing I wanted to share is that when we really get down to it, permanent separation from God and His light is the only eternal punishment for all sin.  We also know that no unclean thing can dwell in the presence of God.  Understanding this we can see that the eternal consequence of stealing a piece of bubble gum is equivalent to the eternal consequence of stealing a car (i.e. separation from God).  Our earthly laws would punish the one much more severely than the other, but to God, both would be immediately ineligible to dwell in His presence until they had truly repented.

On that note, consider how King Lamoni murdered his servants, and yet his repentance process took only a few days.  Alma the younger not only committed many unwritten sins, but he persuaded other to sin also such that he wrote of his effect on others as having 'murdered their souls'; similarly, his repentance took only a few days.  I think that the lack of lengthy punishment and forfeiture of God's Spirit and blessings was the result of the sincerity of their change.  It only takes a long time for some of us to repent because it takes a long time for us to truly decide to change our ways and be dedicated to following God's will in the thing for which we are repenting.

So anyway, that was my main point, that there is only one punishment for sin, and that punishment is permanent separation from God.

Edited by person0
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/17/2022 at 7:29 AM, askandanswer said:

How can a finite amount of suffering, in the Garden of Gethsemane and on the cross of Cavalry, accomplish an infinite atonement?

If we don’t know the answer to this question, what would we need to know in order to be able to answer it?

This is a most interesting concept.  I have pondered and have come to some not completely settled conclusions.  To begin with I believe that all this goes back to our pre-existence when the most noble son of G-d "Jesus or Jehoviah" was anointed to be the Messiah or Christ.   This was the beginning of what is called the atonement.  At this time I would point out that in the initial or first English Bible, and individual named Tyndale, made up the term "atonement" because there was no translation for the ancient Hebrew term.  This making up of terms was one of the reasons Tyndale was condemned to be burned at the stake. 

The next element I consider is that the single greatest issue of the pre-existence was the principle of agency.  I speculate that because G-d (through Jehoviah) granted or gave us agency there is some responsibility for what was done because of agency.  I have come to this conclusion because I cannot logically find any other reason that there is any justice in a person that did not commit a transgression redeeming the price of someone else's transgressions and sins.  (A sin being a transgression of the law).  I speculate that agency and the divine gift of agency plays a part in who is eligible to suffer and redeem sins.

The next element I consider is that Jesus (Jehoviah) must needs to be infinitely innocent - or without sin or transgression.   We often use the term "perfect" but I think that term is a little misleading.  The scripture symbolically calls Christ a sacrificial lamb without spot.  This also introduces another term hard to understand - sacrifice.   But let me try.  Jesus was able to obtain divine G-dhood in the pre-existence.  The notion of a G-d is a being of infinite power and glory.  Or at least beyond our finite understanding.  Therefore, Jesus condescended from being a G-d to become a man.  This condescension was part of what we call the infinite atonement.   Therefore it was necessary that Jesus be born as a man and not as a G-d.  Often the word fully is used - but that makes no sense to me.  But Jesus was not quite a man like the rest of us.  He had power to resurrect himself to immortality. Which also meant that he was capable of death even thought he never transgressed the law (sinned)

This brings us to the final elements which is the suffering of sin (which by eternal definition requires death and pain).  The pain and death suffered by Jesus was greater than that suffered by any other.  This was indeed a sacrifice because no one could take his life - he had to give his life.  I am not sure anyone (most certainly me) can understand how he could give his life by suffering in behalf of others.  But he did.

I would bring one other thought - we often think in terms of money.  Especially when we make payments.  Lucifer sought for the power and glory of G-d.  If we call such power and glory - divine money - then in essence we realize that Jesus made sacrifice of his power and glory (divine money) that was infinite.   Jesus said all the money - power and glory be to the Father.  For Satan (as well as for the rich young man) it is all about money.  Some willing to sacrifice but others not.

I would be most interested and open to comments.

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/17/2022 at 6:29 AM, askandanswer said:

How can a finite amount of suffering, in the Garden of Gethsemane and on the cross of Cavalry, accomplish an infinite atonement?

It cannot.

On 4/17/2022 at 6:29 AM, askandanswer said:

If we don’t know the answer to this question, what would we need to know in order to be able to answer it?

We would need the answer to the question: What is the nature of Christ's atonement?

And then, horrified to tears, we would nevertheless need to accept how our Savior has indeed saved us, if we will but grasp the outstretched hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Vort said:

It cannot.

Depends on how one is applying the word finite.  The duration Christ's suffering in the garden was finite according to our measurement of time.  However, at the same time, even a finite measurement of time can be subdivided into infinite moments, just as in mathematical theory, how line can be subdivided into infinite points.  In other words, something need not be endless in time in order to be infinite in scope.  Not that you weren't aware of this already, but I think it is worth stating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/18/2022 at 8:20 AM, person0 said:

While I don't know the full answer to the question, "how does Christ's Atonement work?" I do have an insight to share. Because of the way we experience law, punishment, sin and repentance, we are accustomed to thinking that differing and/or more grievous acts require different/greater punishments. However, in reality, there is only one punishment for sin, and that is permanent separation from God and His light.

This reply addresses diverts a little from the main topic, but in the case of the final judgement, I think the term consequence might be more appropriate than the term punishment. For those who have lived their life in such a way that they have separated themselves from God, or at least not drawn as close to Him as they could have, to continue to not be close to Him after this life and for the rest of eternity probably will not seem like a punishment to them, but it will certainly be a consequence of how they have lived.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/18/2022 at 8:20 AM, person0 said:

From this passage, we can understand that Christ did not suffer a literal legalistic style punishment for our sins.  Therefore His infinite atonement must work upon some other principle.

It might or might not be correct to say that Christ did not suffer a legalistic style punishment for our sins, but I think it is reasonable to believe that the amount and nature of His suffering for our sins was not random, and that it was according to law. and that if there had been no sin there would be no punishment or suffering. So there is certainly some sort of relationship between sin, suffering, punishment and the atonement and that relationship is certainly defined by law. I accept that this does not necessarily mean that what Christ suffered was a legalistic style of punishment for our sins, but I think it leaves open the possibility that it was.

I think that at some point, the demands of justice meant that an atonement became necessary, and this point was probably when Eve first ate the forbidden fruit. At a second point, those demands were met, probably when Chris said “It is finished” in John 19:30. I’m wondering what it was that defined, or determined, what or where that second point was. I suspect that rather than being randomly located, it was very precisely located, and that where that point was located was probably a function of the operation of eternal law. To suffer either more than was required, or less than what was required would be unjust, and that would be ironic, given that the whole purpose of the atonement was to meet the demands of justice.

So I guess the original question could be re-written as what was it that defined, or determined where the end point of the atonement was and the point where it was no longer necessary for Christ’s suffering to continue, and what would we need to know to answer that question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

This reply addresses diverts a little from the main topic, but in the case of the final judgement, I think the term consequence might be more appropriate than the term punishment. For those who have lived their life in such a way that they have separated themselves from God, or at least not drawn as close to Him as they could have, to continue to not be close to Him after this life and for the rest of eternity probably will not seem like a punishment to them, but it will certainly be a consequence of how they have lived.

A few questions to ponder - that I have pondered much myself.  Is G-d just?  The reason I ask this question - is there anything we can do in this life that justice would demand that we be punished for in eternity?  Next question - Is G-d merciful?  The reason I ask this question - is there any eternal punishment that a merciful being would inflict on anyone for all eternity?

I assume that the reason that G-d would have us draw near to him is only for our eternal benefit.  I also assume that because G-d is merciful, loving and kind that he allows us agency to determine for ourselves through the exercise of our agency - which is given to us by the grace of G-d for our eternal benefit.  It appears to me that Satan intends to punish anyone that abuses agency - mostly by making them "captive" and unable to utilize agency.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would make one very important point that is contrary to our understanding of things.  Because we are mortal being we think of things according to our mortal finite understanding of things and that all finite things have an end.  But we are spirit beings that are infinite.  Thus I suggest that any atonement of sins that involve infinite or eternal beings must - by definition be infinite.

 

The Traveler 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/19/2022 at 1:57 PM, Traveler said:

A few questions to ponder - that I have pondered much myself.  Is G-d just?  The reason I ask this question - is there anything we can do in this life that justice would demand that we be punished for in eternity?  Next question - Is G-d merciful?  The reason I ask this question - is there any eternal punishment that a merciful being would inflict on anyone for all eternity?

The Traveler

I guess it depends on how you are defining punishment. Eventually all, except those of perdition, will be assigned a kingdom of glory. And this, to my understanding, is merely matching up what law someone is willing to obey with the kingdom requiring obedience to that level of law. So to me this isn't punishment but of course this is all contingent on the atonement of Jesus Christ.

If it were not for that, a person who commits a single sin would be condemned for eternity, which does not seem just or merciful. But 2 Nephi chapter 2 appears to be saying that it must be that way in order for the opposite to be true:

10 Wherefore, the ends of the law which the Holy One hath given, unto the inflicting of the punishment which is affixed, which punishment that is affixed is in opposition to that of the happiness which is affixed, to answer the ends of the atonement—

11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things.

So if opposition must exist, does this mean that law cannot exist without atonement? 

Edited by laronius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/17/2022 at 4:50 PM, person0 said:

While I don't know the full answer to the question, "how does Christ's Atonement work?" I do have an insight to share. Because of the way we experience law, punishment, sin and repentance, we are accustomed to thinking that differing and/or more grievous acts require different/greater punishments. However, in reality, there is only one punishment for sin, and that is permanent separation from God and His light.

Sin also causes suffering.  Spiritual death is caused by our sins, but consequences follow actions.  Where this is sin, there will be suffering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/24/2022 at 9:38 AM, laronius said:

I guess it depends on how you are defining punishment. Eventually all, except those of perdition, will be assigned a kingdom of glory. And this, to my understanding, is merely matching up what law someone is willing to obey with the kingdom requiring obedience to that level of law. So to me this isn't punishment but of course this is all contingent on the atonement of Jesus Christ.

If it were not for that, a person who commits a single sin would be condemned for eternity, which does not seem just or merciful. But 2 Nephi chapter 2 appears to be saying that it must be that way in order for the opposite to be true:

10 Wherefore, the ends of the law which the Holy One hath given, unto the inflicting of the punishment which is affixed, which punishment that is affixed is in opposition to that of the happiness which is affixed, to answer the ends of the atonement—

11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things.

So if opposition must exist, does this mean that law cannot exist without atonement? 

I am not of the opinion that anyone is "assigned a kingdom".  According to my understanding we have agency and with that agency we (and only we alone) exercise that agency to determine what we will be and what law or laws we will abide.  Those that abide (by their agency) Celestial law will abide Celestial light and glory.  As I understand there is only one "Kingdom" and only one "Suzerain" of that kingdom.  As I understand there are "Vassals" of that Suzerain with authority (priesthood) or proctors of the laws within the kingdoms to which all are subject - including those sons of opposition.  Please note that anciently the phrase that begins with "sons of" indicate a law and covenant.

As for that law which exist without the covenant of atonement - I believe there is such law which is the law and covenant that opposes atonement.   I believe that the Suzerain of the laws and kingdom has provided "a place" where those that abide the law that opposes atonement can reside according to their agency and choice.  I believe the proctor vassal of that law of opposition is Satan.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/17/2022 at 7:29 AM, askandanswer said:

How can a finite amount of suffering, in the Garden of Gethsemane and on the cross of Cavalry, accomplish an infinite atonement?

If we don’t know the answer to this question, what would we need to know in order to be able to answer it?

 

Several thoughts on this.  First, there was a finite amount of suffering from the Romans and them putting him up on the cross.  The suffering he suffered for us, in the atonement, was eternal torment though.  He suffered in punishment as if he, himself, was a sinner and had broken the eternal laws.

I don't agree with much of what Cleon Skousen wrote, but he had some interesting ideas which I think had a shred of truth to them.  One of them I will change slightly, but which COULD be an answer to HOW and WHY the atonement works.

We all sin.  We all are guilty for whatever punishment comes from breaking the laws of the Lord.  That punishment is just.  The adversary demands this punishment on us and is more than willing to put his deprivations upon us if allowed. 

The Savior did not sin.  He was NOT guilty.  He was still punished.  This was a gross miscarriage of injustice.  The one who demanded this injustice, this miscarriage of injustice, was therefore now the one who was in the wrong.  His entire claim was forfeit to the one he had unjustifiably punished.

Skousen paints it as intelligences of the universe basically demanding justice, and that this injustice shows that they themselves, must allow the Savior to choose and have power to make the choice. 

I don't think it is the intelligences, but more that the law was shown to be injust, and so an allowance had to be made to show justice.  Justice is to make recompense to the one you have wronged, but how do you right someone you have eternally wronged and taken everything?

You must allow them to have everything back, and that the eternal wrong or suffering be relieved in some way.  He suffered for all men, thus all men must be allowed to be claimed by him, because justice demands recompense. 

This lets the Savior lay claim to any and everyone if they will simply accept his offer.

Not that this is correct, but I like this idea that was sort of put forth by Skousen, if not the particulars of his idea. 

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