Our sin or Adam's?

The phrase "Jesus died for our sins" is always thrown around in a very cliche way without any real thought.
He suffered for our sins in the garden, he died to conquer death brought about by the sin of Adam, so...
Is it fair, then, to say "Jesus suffered for our sins, and died for Adam's?"


--J


About 2 months ago I was thinking A LOT about the atonement, specifically about the cross, and Jesus giving up his life and what part that played.  Something my brother said, really got me thinking, because, as far as I know, we are the only church who put any emphasis on the garden, the suffering in the garden (because it's only mentioned in the d&c and bom, it's nowhere really in the bible).

I had always viewed it separately.....my train of thought WAS....

"to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man"

Immortality was taken care of because of what he did on the cross and the 3rd day - he gave up his life, willingly and was resurrected, hence we can.

The eternal life/exhaltation, was taken care of in the garden, the suffering for our sins.

So to me, they were totally separate, the garden being more important than the cross...

BUT, then I got to studying and realized from all the scriptures and quotes I read that BOTH the garden AND the cross was needed.

He IS the eternal sacrificial lamb....the great offering.  Just as with the law of moses, the lamb had to have the sins placed upon him, so did Christ, but then the lamb HAD to be sacrificed, had to be slaughtered.

I don't know how I ever missed it before, but....it was a great epiphany for me a few months back and really helped my testimony grow even that much more about the cross and it's importance (or I should say his death and it's importance, not necessarily that it had to be a cross).

My current thought process is that the atonement is 2 fold:

       1)      In order so that he might be our advocate with the Father, and allow us to repent, Jesus, as the eternal sacrifice, brought about the atonement by taking upon him our sins, suffering all the pain and anguish we would ever know in the garden and by offering himself willingly on the altar (which happened to be a cross)

       2)      In order so that he might bring about the resurrection of each of us, he rose on the 3rd day (lots of science and faith and priesthood involved that you can type in here)J

In regards to your specific question(s):

       1)      He suffered for our sins - YES

       2)      He died to conquer death - PARTLY (he had to die, but in order so he could be resurrected, the resurrection is what actually conquered death)

       3)      "Sin of Adam" - in particular, what sin are you speaking of.....

       4)      If you are saying, "Jesus died for Adam's sins"....I would need more explanation before a verdict


--C


What you said makes sense.  


I know that what he did in the Garden is pointless without the physical sacrifice and the resurrection.  What point is there in having all sins forgiven if you're not resurrected?  A perfect spirit without a perfect body is not perfect; is not complete; is not whole because the soul is body and spirit combined, therefore, man would still be unable to dwell in H.F.'s presence because he would not be perfect.  


As you alluded to the sacrificial lamb, Christ had to complete the sacrifice in whole, so we could be saved in whole.  Unlike the law of Moses, Christ's sacrifice could not just be a physical one, it had to be spiritual as well.  The Law of Moses was a law of works, the outward to effect the inward, which was incomplete.  The Law of God is a higher law that changes the focus to the "inward man," the inward to effect the outward, which, in my mind, adds the spiritual to the physical, thus completing or fulfilling the Law of Moses.

Just read Matt. 5 this morning which reconfirmed to me the fact that Christ taught the Jews, "okay, guys, it's more than the superficial stuff; it goes deeper than the motions of the law itself; it's in the thoughts of the heart and mind" (i.e. the spiritual) and if the Spirit is aligned right, then obedience to the physical commandments fall into place.

The Law of Sacrifice pointed to the fulfillment of the Law of Moses by Christ.  After His sacrifice, the Law of Sacrifice was not done away with, it simply transformed into a spiritual law as opposed to a physical law.  An unfortunate carry over from the law of moses is the law of tithing because we, as a whole, are not ready to live the spiritual law of consecration in it's fullness.

So back to the Atonement, the Cross and the Garden are incomplete without the other, just as faith without works is dead as is the body without the spirit.  Christ willingly experienced physical death AND, in my opinion, spiritual death, overcoming both to fulfill the old law and to establish the new -- making it possible for our "souls" to be complete; a perfect body with a perfect spirit.

My Adam reference was just a superficial thought as I was thinking about that "died for our SINS" phrase.  The disobedience of Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden brought death into the world which is why I said, in relation to the statement of "dying for sins," Christ died for Adam's sin and suffered for ours.

What I mean is there would have been no death to overcome if Adam had obeyed (although we would not have existed either) so there would be no need for a "triumph over death."  Adam's sin brought physical death into the world, so Christ had to overcome that death on the cross.  And because it was Adam's "bad choice", and not ours, the gift of resurrection, immortality, physical salvation is free to ALL regardless of personal worthiness because that is just.  


Men will be punished for their own sins and not for Adam's transgression.  Adam ate the apple, not me.  Christ suffered for each of our own personal bad choices in the Garden, making it possible to achieve eternal life if we repent.  Which is why I say, specifically Christ's relation to our SINS, He suffered for ours and died for Adam's.

Because I still believe he didn't die for MY sins.  He died to save me from the consequences of Adam's transgression, to bring to pass immortality and break the bands of mortality brought about by Adam's sin, not mine.  And that is glorious because we have been freed from that and no matter who I am or what I do, I will be immortal, as were our first parents.  


So, I don't want to sound like I have been downgrading the importance of the death and resurrection.  I'm just being nit picky about whose sin he actually died for... because that phrase just bugs me when tossed around without any thought.

Btw, what did your brother say that got you thinking?

There's a movie on Netflix about the life of Jesus.  It's a British claymation movie and it really underplays the Garden scene.  Bugged me to no end!


--J


This whole conversation has been great - your points that you added are awesome, in particular:

- Christ had to experience physical death (on the cross) and spiritual death (in the garden) in order for the atonement to be complete - that's genius, I don't think I've ever thought about it like that before - but it's so true.

- and I've always felt I had a pretty good knowledge of the law of moses and how it plays into everything, how Christ was the fulfillment of it, got all that, but the way you described it there, how it was transformed from a physical law into a spiritual law - never really heard it like that before either, also profound - and makes sense.

The whole point of what christ does is try to get us to change our natural man, to get us to change, our spirits to change to become like him, to become like the father.  to become spiritual beings.

Awesome.

So about the Adam thing, two questions:

- so you hate it when others say "christ died for my sins" - because basically they don't understand the necessity of the suffering in the garden in relation to the atonenment, is that it?  him sitting on the cross in and of itself doesn't do anything for anyone without the garden - correct?

- do you believe that Adam "sinned"?


--C

I don't "hate" it when people say it, it just bothers me, but I know that they are sincere and I know what they are really saying -- even if they don't.  Because, it's my feeling that Christ didn't pay for our sins on the cross, He paid for them in the Garden.   So, yes, you are correct -- the cross is meaningless without the Garden and vice versa.

Now, before I answer your last question, I need to know how you define sin.  What is your definition of sin.  I don't want to know yet whether or not you believe Adam sinned and why.  I just want to know your definition.

(And when I answer your Adam sinned question, I have another question that's going to hurt your theological brain.  A question that just came to me when thinking about it and I don't know if there even IS an answer!)

--J

Don’t leave me hanging, what’s the question that’s going to hurt my theological brain – I love those questions!!!!!!?????

My definition of sin…hmmm….good question….I’m going to try not to over-think it and just give my first knee-jerk here and then you can pull out the red pen…

Sin – to make a choice to act against a commandment, law, covenant knowing that you are doing so (i.e. you knew what you were doing when you did it)

That would be my Sunday school answer.

So, do I think Adam sinned…no.  Do I think Adam ‘trangressed’…no – but that’s another discussion.

--C

Heavenly Father had to set it up for Adam to make a choice to sin so that mortality could enter the world, thereby putting the Plan into full effect.

According to your definition of sin, yes, I believe Adam sinned.  He knew he was commanded NOT TO PARTAKE, yet he PARTOOK.

Now that leads to my stumper of a question.  Ready?

Is it a sin to break one commandment in order to obey another one?

Adam had to transgress the direct order of the Father and eat the fruit (disobedience) in order to keep the other commandment of multiplying and replenishing.

Catch 22.

Adam was in a position where if he obeyed one commandment, he would have not been able to fulfill the other commandment.  According to the Sunday School answer, Adam knew what he was doing when he did it...BUT he did it to keep another commandment.  So does that absolve him from his choice to act against a commandment?

Can't use the Nephi / Laban example because the Spirit specifically told Nephi to commit murder, whereas in Adam's case, it was Adam's own choice and reasoning given the circumstance. 

Point, counter-point.

Go.

--J

We are geniuses – this is something I have struggled with for YEARS – this makes the most sense!!!!!!

 --C

We should have talked about this years ago then.  What were we thinking?!

So do you still think Adam didn't sin?

--J

If Adam-God is true, Adam didn’t sin, there was no need to….it was a deliberate choice, knowing what had to be done and instead of some of the Adam and Eve story being symbolic, a good portion of it is to help us learn and grow.

If it’s not, then he did, and I’ve known that and never had a problem with it, as we discussed today.

--C

Doesn't Adam-God theory raise more questions than it answers?

--J

Depends on how long you’ve thought about it

--C

Haven't thought about it much, so not so many questions over here.  Wasn't it Brigham Young that first put forth that theory?

--J

At least that’s out there in publication form….if you read his stuff he is basically saying he teaches what Joseph taught, but Joseph never taught anything (publicly) like Brigham taught. 

--C

Hmm, that's interesting 'cause it seems like many of Joseph's teachings, sermons and discourses were recorded on a regular basis.  Unless these teachings occurred privately to the 12.  Joseph did say on several occasions how dense the Saints were and how much he wished he could teach them but to do it would break the church apart.  He also said that he had the whole plan laid out before him.  That everything he had received since the beginning, he eventually was given it all, so I wouldn't be surprised if that is something Joseph taught privately.

--J