Our life on earth, Adam and Eve, Agency and More.

[Flat Earth Kyle]

but according to your beliefs, Adam and Eve are still alive as spirits, yes? They are immortal in the spirit world, yes?

Yes I believe spirits are immortal as in they do not cease to exist. I believe spiritual death means to be separated from the presence of God, like Adam and Eve were separated from the presence of God. I believe one can be dead in the spirit and alive in the body as 1 Timothy 5:6 states.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

The Greek Septuagint uses the word hades 70 times, and in 60 of those times it is translating the word sheʼohl′ which means the grave.

Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (1981, Vol. 2, p. 187) says: “HADES . . . It corresponds to ‘Sheol’ in the O.T. [Old Testament]. In the A.V. of the O.T. [Old Testament] and N.T. [New Testament], it has been unhappily rendered ‘Hell.’”

Collier’s Encyclopedia (1986, Vol. 12, p. 28) says concerning “Hell”: “First it stands for the Hebrew Sheol of the Old Testament and the Greek Hades of the Septuagint and New Testament. Since Sheol in Old Testament times referred simply to the abode of the dead and suggested no moral distinctions, the word ‘hell,’ as understood today, is not a happy translation.”

The Encyclopedia Americana (1956, Vol. XIV, p. 81) said: “Much confusion and misunderstanding has been caused through the early translators of the Bible persistently rendering the Hebrew Sheol and the Greek Hades and Gehenna by the word hell. The simple transliteration of these words by the translators of the revised editions of the Bible has not sufficed to appreciably clear up this confusion and misconception.”

Are any one of those a Hebrew Dictionary? I don't think so.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

Pegg,

Okay in summary Green means you agree and Red means you disagree.

6 Wherefore, redemption cometh in and through the Holy Messiah; for he is full of grace and truth.
7 Behold, he offereth himself a sacrifice for sin, to answer the ends of the law, unto all those who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit; and unto none else can the ends of the law be answered.

8 Wherefore, how great the importance to make these things known unto the inhabitants of the earth, that they may know that there is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God, save it be through the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah, who layeth down his life according to the flesh, and taketh it again by the power of the Spirit, that he may bring to pass the resurrection of the dead, being the first that should rise.
Peg Believes Adam and Eve stood in the presence of God’s spirit.

9 Wherefore, he is the firstfruits unto God, inasmuch as he shall make intercession for all the children of men; and they that believe in him shall be saved.

10 And because of the intercession for all, all men come unto God; wherefore, they stand in the presence of him, to be judged of him according to the truth and holiness which is in him. 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. If not so, my firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.

12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.

13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.

14 And now, my sons, I speak unto you these things for your profit and learning; for there is a God, and he hath created all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are, both things to act and things to be acted upon.

15 And to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man, after he had created our first parents, and the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and in fine, all things which are created, it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter.

16 Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other.

17 And I, Lehi, according to the things which I have read, must needs suppose that an angel of God, according to that which is written, had fallen from heaven; wherefore, he became a devil, having sought that which was evil before God.
18 And because he had fallen from heaven, and had become miserable forever, he sought also the misery of all mankind. Wherefore, he said unto Eve, yea, even that old serpent, who is the devil, who is the father of all lies, wherefore he said: Partake of the forbidden fruit, and ye shall not die, but ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil.

19 And after Adam and Eve had partaken of the forbidden fruit they were driven out of the garden of Eden, to till the earth.
20 And they have brought forth children; yea, even the family of all the earth.
21 And the days of the children of men were prolonged, according to the will of God, that they might repent while in the flesh; wherefore, their state became a state of probation, and their time was lengthened,
22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.


23 And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.

24 But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things.

25 Adam fell that men might beand men are, that they might have joy.
26 And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given.
27 Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.
28 And now, my sons, I would that ye should look to the great Mediator, and hearken unto his great commandments; and be faithful unto his words, and choose eternal life, according to the will of his Holy Spirit;
29 And not choose eternal death, according to the will of the flesh and the evil which is therein, which giveth the spirit of the devil power to captivate, to bring you down to hell, that he may reign over you in his own kingdom.

Our Major Disagreements
- 1) You claim God will one day cause Satan to cease to exist
- How can someone cease to exist and still be tormented day and night for ever and ever as Revelation 21:10 states

2)You claim if Satan will one day cease to exist then all opposition will cease to exist.
- If all opposition will cease to exist does God plan on taking away the agency of man?

3) You claim the tree of life in the garden of Eden was a figure of speech
- If the tree of life was a figure of speech signifying living in God’s presence, why did God put cheribims in the east of Eden instead of surrounding Eden. Were they guarding a single spot in Eden or were they guarding all of Eden?

4) You claim Adam and Eve already knew good and evil before they fell, this is why Eve recited the commandment to Satan.
- Can someone recite a commandment and yet not have an active conscience? My 2 year old daughter knows not to draw on her hands and feet, and dogs know it is bad to pee on the carpet and bad to bark at other dogs.

5) You claim if Adam and Eve could have remained in the garden they could have had children.

6) You claim it was never a part God’s intent for Adam and Eve to fall.
- God knows all things from beginning to end. He knew long before Christ’s birth that the people would sin and crucify Christ, with that I. know that God knew Adam and Eve were going to partake of the forbidden fruit. God could have chosen someone else, even Christ and someone else to be the first man and woman on earth, but he didn't he chose Adam and Eve. God does not make mistakes and he is impossible to surprise.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

Pegg, Thank you for reading 2 Nephi Chapter 2 with me. It was nice to read over it with a fresh set of eyes. Through you I was able to catch a lot of new perspectives, before our conversation I had never seen the existence of the the tree of life challenged and it gave me a good reason to really look into the facts around the tree of life and learn a lot from doing so. I also believe it was you who pointed out the Revelation 20:10 scripture to me. It was powerful, so thank you for that, I really enjoy studying with you.

 

[Shiranui117]

I would really love to have a good discussion and pick apart the doctrine found in this brief passage and hear what others have to say about it.
These are some final words of a man named Lehi to his son Jacob at around 600 BCE. Now really don't want to argue about whether or not Lehi actually existed or not, I would really like to discuss the things that he told his son concerning our life on earth, Adam and Eve, Agency and more. I want to hear what you agree with or disagree with and why.

"1 And now, Jacob, I speak unto you: Thou art my firstborn in the days of my tribulation in the wilderness. And behold, in thy childhood thou hast suffered afflictions and much sorrow, because of the rudeness of thy brethren.
2 Nevertheless, Jacob, my firstborn in the wilderness, thou knowest the greatness of God; and he shall consecrate thine afflictions for thy gain.
3 Wherefore, thy soul shall be blessed, and thou shalt dwell safely with thy brother, Nephi; and thy days shall be spent in the service of thy God. Wherefore, I know that thou art redeemed, because of the righteousness of thy Redeemer; for thou hast beheld that in the fulness of time he cometh to bring salvation unto men.
4 And thou hast beheld in thy youth his glory; wherefore, thou art blessed even as they unto whom he shall minister in the flesh; for the Spirit is the same, yesterday, today, and forever. And the way is prepared from the fall of man, and salvation is free.

Agreed with all of this.

5 And men are instructed sufficiently that they know good from evil. And the law is given unto men. And by the law no flesh is justified;

Agreed here.

or, by the law men are cut off. Yea, by the temporal law they were cut off; and also, by the spiritual law they perish from that which is good, and become miserable forever.

I'm not quite sure what this means. Can you clarify, yaddoe?

6 Wherefore, redemption cometh in and through the Holy Messiah; for he is full of grace and truth.

Agreed.

7 Behold, he offereth himself a sacrifice for sin, to answer the ends of the law, unto all those who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit; and unto none else can the ends of the law be answered.

What does it mean, "to answer the ends of the law"? Is this verse saying that Jesus' sacrifice wasn't to redeem ALL people from sin, but only the broken and contrite of heart?

8 Wherefore, how great the importance to make these things known unto the inhabitants of the earth, that they may know that there is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God, save it be through the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah, who layeth down his life according to the flesh, and taketh it again by the power of the Spirit, that he may bring to pass the resurrection of the dead, being the first that should rise.

If by "flesh" this means the fallen human nature, then yes, I would agree. However, if by "flesh" this means the human body in and of itself, then no, I would have to disagree.

9 Wherefore, he is the firstfruits unto God, inasmuch as he shall make intercession for all the children of men; and they that believe in him shall be saved.
10 And because of the intercession for all, all men come unto God; wherefore, they stand in the presence of him, to be judged of him according to the truth and holiness which is in him.

Agreed here.

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—

I don't understand the bolded.

11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.

I'm not quite sure I understand this. Is this basically saying that if there's good, then there must be evil? I don't think I understand this verse at all.

12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.

Another verse that I don't think I understand.

13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.

So, IOW, if there's no sin and no death, if those things are destroyed, then God would also cease to exist? I cannot agree with that, if that's what the text is saying.

14 And now, my sons, I speak unto you these things for your profit and learning; for there is a God, and he hath created all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are, both things to act and things to be acted upon.

I actually understand this one, and no problem here.

15 And to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man, after he had created our first parents, and the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and in fine, all things which are created, it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter.

Pretty much stressing that there HAS to be duality, right? I have a bit of a different take: Evil is simply the absence of good. Death is simply the absence of life. Wickedness is simply the absence of righteousness. Sin is simply the absence of obedience to God. Separation from God is simply the absence of a connection to God.

16 Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other.

My agreement with this passage depends on what "could not act for himself" means. If it means that mankind could only have free will if there was a duality, I would have to disagree; the duality of communion with God vs. separation from God did not always exist. God created the potential for the duality to occur, but it was His own creation (demons and humans) that decided to make the duality an actuality.

(cont)

 

[Shiranui117]

(cont)

17 And I, Lehi, according to the things which I have read, must needs suppose that an angel of God, according to that which is written, had fallen from heaven; wherefore, he became a devil, having sought that which was evil before God.
18 And because he had fallen from heaven, and had become miserable forever, he sought also the misery of all mankind. Wherefore, he said unto Eve, yea, even that old serpent, who is the devil, who is the father of all lies, wherefore he said: Partake of the forbidden fruit, and ye shall not die, but ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil.
19 And after Adam and Eve had partaken of the forbidden fruit they were driven out of the garden of Eden, to till the earth.
20 And they have brought forth children; yea, even the family of all the earth.
21 And the days of the children of men were prolonged, according to the will of God, that they might repent while in the flesh; wherefore, their state became a state of probation, and their time was lengthened, according to the commandments which the Lord God gave unto the children of men. For he gave commandment that all men must repent; for he showed unto all men that they were lost, because of the transgression of their parents.
22 And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

Agreed.

23 And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.

Not necessarily. Adam and Eve could very well have had children had they not fallen; God only told Eve that childbirth would hurt. Sex between a husband and wife is nothing sinful; it could have happened without the Fall.

It seems that this text functions off of the basis of true duality; "evil" is just as real a thing as is "good." It is certainly possible to be miserable without knowing joy, and vice-versa, just as it is possible to know good without knowing evil. Sin is hollow, empty and monotonous; godliness is rich, diverse and fulfilling.

24 But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things.

Agreed.

25 Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy.

My reason for disagreement has already been stated.

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

Define "the law"? Is it the Mosaic Law, or the law of the New Covenant?

27 Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.
28 And now, my sons, I would that ye should look to the great Mediator, and hearken unto his great commandments; and be faithful unto his words, and choose eternal life, according to the will of his Holy Spirit;

Agreed.

29 And not choose eternal death, according to the will of the flesh and the evil which is therein, which giveth the spirit of the devil power to captivate, to bring you down to hell, that he may reign over you in his own kingdom.

I'm not sure how much of this I agree with. On the one hand, Satan, sin and death DID reign over mankind until Christ came. On the other hand, He defeated Satan, sin and death, trampling upon them and fettering them in chains. So it's really debatable how much power Satan even has anymore; sure, there are people who willingly give themselves over to him, but how strong his kingdom is is up for debate. After the Resurrection, however, Satan will have no kingdom, but will be tormented in the lake of fire, and will have no power over anyone anymore.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

(cont)

Wow, you really dove into this one, I wasn't quite expecting you to go over it all in one sitting.

Okay all of the green words are things you said you agree with, the black words are words you are unsure of and the red words are words you disagree with.

"1 And now, Jacob, I speak unto you: Thou art my firstborn in the days of my tribulation in the wilderness. And behold, in thy childhood thou hast suffered afflictions and much sorrow, because of the rudeness of thy brethren.
2 Nevertheless, Jacob, my firstborn in the wilderness, thou knowest the greatness of God; and he shall consecrate thine afflictions for thy gain.
3 Wherefore, thy soul shall be blessed, and thou shalt dwell safely with thy brother, Nephi; and thy days shall be spent in the service of thy God. Wherefore, I know that thou art redeemed, because of the righteousness of thy Redeemer; for thou hast beheld that in the fulness of time he cometh to bring salvation unto men.
4 And thou hast beheld in thy youth his glory; wherefore, thou art blessed even as they unto whom he shall minister in the flesh; for the Spirit is the same, yesterday, today, and forever. And the way is prepared from the fall of man, and salvation is free.
5 And men are instructed sufficiently that they know good from evil. And the law is given unto men. And by the law no flesh is justified;
or, by the law men are cut off. Yea, by the temporal law they were cut off; and also, by the spiritual law they perish from that which is good, and become miserable forever.

Here in 5 what Alma is saying is that the commandment that Adam and Eve were given not to partake of the forbidden fruit had two sides to it. A temporal side and a spiritual side, with a physical consequence and a spiritual consequence for breaking. Physically it meant they would die, and spiritually it meant that they would be separated from God. The law that is being referred to here is the commandment not to partake of the forbidden fruit.
Do you agree with that?

 

[Shiranui117]

Wow, you really dove into this one, I wasn't quite expecting you to go over it all in one sitting.

Lol, I figured that'd be the best way to do it

Okay all of the green words are things you said you agree with, the black words are words you are unsure of and the red words are words you disagree with.


Here in 5 what Alma is saying is that the commandment that Adam and Eve were given not to partake of the forbidden fruit had two sides to it. A temporal side and a spiritual side, with a physical consequence and a spiritual consequence for breaking. Physically it meant they would die, and spiritually it meant that they would be separated from God. The law that is being referred to here is the commandment not to partake of the forbidden fruit.
Do you agree with that?

I would agree with all of that, AND add on that other physical consequences include sickness and suffering.

I would also say that human nature became corrupted, and the image of God within us became distorted and disfigured by sin.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

6 Wherefore, redemption cometh in and through the Holy Messiah; for he is full of grace and truth.
7 Behold, he offereth himself a sacrifice for sin, to answer the ends of the law, unto all those who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit; and unto none else can the ends of the law be answered.

The end of the law is another way of saying the intent of the law (to bring to pass justice, punishment to the lawbreakers and peace and happiness to those who abide by the law.) Justice could not be brought to pass unless the price for breaking the law was paid. Christ paid that price for all those who would choose to follow him and keep the law. So yeah,
this verse is saying that Jesus' sacrifice wasn't to redeem ALL people from sin, but only the broken and contrite of heart. Do you agree with that?

8 Wherefore, how great the importance to make these things known unto the inhabitants of the earth, that they may know that there is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God, save it be through the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah, who layeth down his life according to the flesh, and taketh it again by the power of the Spirit, that he may bring to pass the resurrection of the dead, being the first that should rise.
9 Wherefore, he is the firstfruits unto God, inasmuch as he shall make intercession for all the children of men; and they that believe in him shall be saved.
10 And because of the intercession for all, all men come unto God; wherefore, they stand in the presence of him, to be judged of him according to the truth and holiness which is in him.
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—

This is saying justice has two sides, punishment for the lawbreakers, and happiness for the righteous. the word affixed means "to fasten, join, or attach" Our eternal happiness is attached to the ends of the atonement, meaning the whole purpose of the atonement of Christ was to bring to pass lasting happiness to those who choose to accept it.
Does that make sense?

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

Lol, I figured that'd be the best way to do it


I would agree with all of that, AND add on that other physical consequences include sickness and suffering.

I would also say that human nature became corrupted, and the image of God within us became distorted and disfigured by sin.

I totally agree with you.

 

[Shiranui117]

The end of the law is another way of saying the intent of the law (to bring to pass justice, punishment to the lawbreakers and peace and happiness to those who abide by the law.) Justice could not be brought to pass unless the price for breaking the law was paid. Christ paid that price for all those who would choose to follow him and keep the law. So yeah,
this verse is saying that Jesus' sacrifice wasn't to redeem ALL people from sin, but only the broken and contrite of heart. Do you agree with that?

Aside from the penal substitution in your explanation (the reasons for my disagreement with the theory having already been laid out in numerous threads, but if you'd like, I can explain them again), I do have one disagreement: Christ DID die to reconcile all of mankind to God, and not just the contrite of heart; Jesus died for the non-contrite of heart as well, but they rejected the salvation offered thereby.

This is saying justice has two sides, punishment for the lawbreakers, and happiness for the righteous. the word affixed means "to fasten, join, or attach" Our eternal happiness is attached to the ends of the atonement, meaning the whole purpose of the atonement of Christ was to bring to pass lasting happiness to those who choose to accept it.
Does that make sense?

Yes, I believe so.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

Aside from the penal substitution in your explanation (the reasons for my disagreement with the theory having already been laid out in numerous threads, but if you'd like, I can explain them again), I do have one disagreement: Christ DID die to reconcile all of mankind to God, and not just the contrite of heart; Jesus died for the non-contrite of heart as well, but they rejected the salvation offered thereby.


Yes, I believe so.

Okay, so 10 you agree with, but there are 2 hang ups in 7.

"7 Behold, he offereth himself a sacrifice for sin, to answer the ends of the law, unto all those who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit; and unto none else can the ends of the law be answered."

Hangup number 1, penal substitution....
If you could explain that would be great.

Hangup number 2, "Christ DID die to reconcile all of mankind to God, and not just the contrite of heart; Jesus died for the non-contrite of heart as well, but they rejected the salvation offered thereby."
Actually, I think we agree on that. I believe that because of the atonement of Christ all mankind, both the righteous and the wicked will be resurrected. However there was another part of the atonement of Christ and that was to redeem us from our sins. That is the part that is open to us, but it takes some effort on our part, in that we can only be cleansed if we want to be cleansed.
And we can only be cleansed if we have a broken heart and a contrite spirit.
One can pay the bail and hold the door open for you, but it is up to you to accept it or reject it.

 

[Shiranui117]

Okay, so 10 you agree with, but there are 2 hang ups in 7.

Hangup number 1, penal substitution....
If you could explain that would be great.

"Penal substitution" was a doctrine invented in the 1500's by Martin Luther and John Calvin which states that Jesus died on the Cross to take the wrath and punishment from the Father for our sins. The Father could ONLY forgive us if He punished SOMETHING. Penal substitution teaches that punishing the innocent Jesus satisfied God's demand for justice.

However, there are a couple holes in this logic.
1: If you really think about it, penal substitution essentially states that it's God with the problem, not us. We cannot be saved or reconciled to God because God's peeved at us.

2: How is it justice to punish an innocent man for the crimes of the guilty multitude, and let the multitude off free? On the contrary, penal substitution assumes that two wrongs make a right; punishing an innocent man while letting the guilty go free is doubly UNjust.

The early Christians for the first thousand years all shared the same understanding of why Christ died, and it is a synthesis of several opinions(URL's attached to each name for further information) :

A: The Moral Influence view. This teaches that Christ came, taught and died to help humanity become more moral; His death on the Cross was showing us to what extent the Trinity loves us, and so we should love each other and God with the same love.

B: Christus Victor. This teaches that, when Jesus was crucified on the Cross, He crucified death and sin. He then descended into Hades and smashed the gates open and overthrew the demons, death and sin, freeing humanity, which had been enslaved to these things ever since the Fall. Christ's death was a victory over death, sin and the demons, as was His Resurrection.

C: The Ransom view. On the contrary to what penal substitution teaches, the Ransom view teaches that Jesus died to give Himself as a ransom to DEATH, not to God the Father. This one is VERY closely related to Christus Victor; Jesus paid Himself as a ransom to death. But since death could not hold Him Who is the life of the world, Jesus burst asunder the stranglehold of death over humanity, and thus freed humanity by giving Himself as a ransom.

D: The Recapitulation view. This teaches that Jesus died and rose from the dead in order to reconcile God and man; Jesus became incarnate in order to share in the fullness of our human experience, with all its temptations, darkness, sorrows, pains and trials--and even death and separation from God. He shared in the entirety of our human experience when He died; he did all this to assume our human nature and human experience fully, so that He might unite it to His Divine Nature, thus making Himself into a bridge between God and man. God and man were reconciled at the Cross. And just as Jesus shared in our humanity by dying, so Jesus enabled us to share in God's Life full of blessings, joy, peace, love, light and life when He rose from the dead.

If you'd like, I can provide Scripture for each of these.

Hangup number 2, "Christ DID die to reconcile all of mankind to God, and not just the contrite of heart; Jesus died for the non-contrite of heart as well, but they rejected the salvation offered thereby."
Actually, I think we agree on that. I believe that because of the atonement of Christ all mankind, both the righteous and the wicked will be resurrected. However there was another part of the atonement of Christ and that was to redeem us from our sins. That is the part that is open to us, but it takes some effort on our part, in that we can only be cleansed if we want to be cleansed.
And we can only be cleansed if we have a broken heart and a contrite spirit.
One can pay the bail and hold the door open for you, but it is up to you to accept it or reject it.

Agreed.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

"Penal substitution" was a doctrine invented in the 1500's by Martin Luther and John Calvin which states that Jesus died on the Cross to take the wrath and punishment from the Father for our sins. The Father could ONLY forgive us if He punished SOMETHING. Penal substitution teaches that punishing the innocent Jesus satisfied God's demand for justice.

However, there are a couple holes in this logic.
1: If you really think about it, penal substitution essentially states that it's God with the problem, not us. We cannot be saved or reconciled to God because God's peeved at us.

2: How is it justice to punish an innocent man for the crimes of the guilty multitude, and let the multitude off free? On the contrary, penal substitution assumes that two wrongs make a right; punishing an innocent man while letting the guilty go free is doubly UNjust.

The early Christians for the first thousand years all shared the same understanding of why Christ died, and it is a synthesis of several opinions(URL's attached to each name for further information) :

A: The Moral Influence view. This teaches that Christ came, taught and died to help humanity become more moral; His death on the Cross was showing us to what extent the Trinity loves us, and so we should love each other and God with the same love.

B: Christus Victor. This teaches that, when Jesus was crucified on the Cross, He crucified death and sin. He then descended into Hades and smashed the gates open and overthrew the demons, death and sin, freeing humanity, which had been enslaved to these things ever since the Fall. Christ's death was a victory over death, sin and the demons, as was His Resurrection.

C: The Ransom view. On the contrary to what penal substitution teaches, the Ransom view teaches that Jesus died to give Himself as a ransom to DEATH, not to God the Father. This one is VERY closely related to Christus Victor; Jesus paid Himself as a ransom to death. But since death could not hold Him Who is the life of the world, Jesus burst asunder the stranglehold of death over humanity, and thus freed humanity by giving Himself as a ransom.

D: The Recapitulation view. This teaches that Jesus died and rose from the dead in order to reconcile God and man; Jesus became incarnate in order to share in the fullness of our human experience, with all its temptations, darkness, sorrows, pains and trials--and even death and separation from God. He shared in the entirety of our human experience when He died; he did all this to assume our human nature and human experience fully, so that He might unite it to His Divine Nature, thus making Himself into a bridge between God and man. God and man were reconciled at the Cross. And just as Jesus shared in our humanity by dying, so Jesus enabled us to share in God's Life full of blessings, joy, peace, love, light and life when He rose from the dead.

If you'd like, I can provide Scripture for each of these.

Agreed.

Okay, so your only hang up now on 7 is
"Behold, he offereth himself a sacrifice for sin, to answer the ends of the law"

You believe Christ's death had nothing to do with meeting any demands of law or justice what so ever.
You believe the only reasons Christ died was 1) to break the bands of death and 2) to show the perfect example of non-violence and love. 3) to purchase our souls from the devil. and 4) to serve as a bridge between God and man. Am I correct?

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

Okay, lets talk about 11 -13 now, for I feel these are on a similar topic.

"11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.

This is speaking of the importance of agency, or the ability to choose. It is a key element in being an intelligent living creature. The ability to choose is what separates men from robots, or the living from the dead. Now God wants us to have our agency, but the only way we can have the ability to choose is if we have choices to choose from, and so if we did not have the ability to choose to disobey God (opposition) we would have no ability to choose and we would be as dead robots

It is also saying that you can not define righteousness without the existence of wickedness, and you can not define wickedness without the existence of righteousness, just as you can not define anything as good unless you have something bad to compare it to. Happiness can not exist, unless you know what misery is. Do you agree with that?

12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.

If all things were to be rolled up into one, with no such thing as righteousness and sin. It would be utterly useless and unable to do anything.

"13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away."

Law is the line between good and bad, if you break the law that is bad and if you keep the law that is good. If there was no law, there would be no agency and without agency one is dead. And so if God did not have agency, he would be dead and we would not exist. Does that make sense?

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

Did you quit on me?

 

[Shiranui117]

Did you quit on me?

No, sorry, I just didn't see your latest posts! My bad about that

Okay, so your only hang up now on 7 is
"Behold, he offereth himself a sacrifice for sin, to answer the ends of the law"

You believe Christ's death had nothing to do with meeting any demands of law or justice what so ever.

Yes. Such a teaching only came into being in the 1500's.

You believe the only reasons Christ died was 1) to break the bands of death and 2) to show the perfect example of non-violence and love. 3) to purchase our souls from the devil. and 4) to serve as a bridge between God and man. Am I correct?

Yes, this is the position of the Bible and of the Apostles.

 

[Shiranui117]

Okay, lets talk about 11 -13 now, for I feel these are on a similar topic.

This is speaking of the importance of agency, or the ability to choose. It is a key element in being an intelligent living creature. The ability to choose is what separates men from robots, or the living from the dead. Now God wants us to have our agency, but the only way we can have the ability to choose is if we have choices to choose from, and so if we did not have the ability to choose to disobey God (opposition) we would have no ability to choose and we would be as dead robots

Fair enough, though we are not obliged to choose the wrong option. We aren't obliged to disobey God.

It is also saying that you can not define righteousness without the existence of wickedness, and you can not define wickedness without the existence of righteousness, just as you can not define anything as good unless you have something bad to compare it to. Happiness can not exist, unless you know what misery is. Do you agree with that?

No, I don't. It is perfectly possible to be happy without knowing what misery is, and the reverse is also true. You can define "good" without having to compare it to something else. In order to show you the proper way to do a tornado kick, for example, I don't have to show you all the wrong ways of how to do it; I merely need to show you the correct way to do it, pointing out the things that make it good. It is not needed for me to show you all the wrong ways of doing a tornado kick.

On the other hand, it is only possible to define wickedness when righteousness is present, and it is only possible to define evil when good is present. This is because wickedness is the absence of righteousness, and evil is the absence of good. You would not be able to understand what "wrong" is unless you first understand what "right" is. However, it is perfectly possible to understand what is "right" without knowing what is "wrong."

If all things were to be rolled up into one, with no such thing as righteousness and sin. It would be utterly useless and unable to do anything.

Sin would be destroyed, but righteousness would remain. Sin does not exist in and of itself; sin is by definition the deviation from and absence of righteousness. Righteousness is not the deviation from, or absence of, wickedness. Only righteousness exists by itself without the need of an opposite.

Law is the line between good and bad, if you break the law that is bad and if you keep the law that is good. If there was no law, there would be no agency and without agency one is dead. And so if God did not have agency, he would be dead and we would not exist. Does that make sense?

I understand the first part of your explanation, but I would have to disagree.

The law is not the foundation of agency; the law is a rule of measure to help us understand how we can use our agency.

But, the bolded I don't understand. what does the presence or absence of the law have to do with God's agency?

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

11 For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility.

Are you saying you agree with this or disagree with this?

12 Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God.

Do you believe destroying agency would destroy God's plan for man?

13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away.

Do you believe God has agency, or is God forced to always do what is right?

 

[Shiranui117]

Are you saying you agree with this or disagree with this?

Disagree.

Do you believe destroying agency would destroy God's plan for man?

God's plan for redeeming mankind does sort of hinge on the fact that we misuse our free will, yeah.

Do you believe God has agency, or is God forced to always do what is right?

God has agency, but it is in His nature to do that which is right, and He would never sin, since sin is by definition deviation from God. God cannot deviate from Himself. There is no sin in God, because God is Righteousness. Asking if God does wrong is like asking if 1+1=pumpkin pie.