Home » Discuss Elliaison Books and Articles » The Atonement of Jesus Christ » Differences between sins and transgressions
Differences between sins and transgressions [message #3846] |
Fri, 12 June 2020 09:34 |
cachemagic
Messages: 1 Registered: January 2019
|
Junior Member |
|
|
The Atonement book makes the point the atonement covers transgressions and not sins. Or at least that we have to take a more active part in overcoming the sins.
Quote:All transgressions, (acts done without knowledge or full understanding), are covered through the Atonement and the Law of Azazel and do not even require a knowledge of Jesus Christ or the atoning sacrifice to have full efficacy.
However, those who actually commit sin must accept and apply His At-One-Ment into their lives by refusing to allow the innocent to suffer for their sins. This then flows forward from them to all people and generations to come and their acts which are truly sins are absolved through their having come to the necessary love and charity for the atonement to be in full force in their lives. And thus, they are truly... Saved. As they save all, so too shall all save them also. And thus the Love of Christ will fill the lives of all.
But today I was reading in Alma 12 and it seems to suggest otherwise, that as long as we repent the atonement provides a remission of their sins.
Quote:33 But God did call on men, in the name of his Son, (this being the plan of redemption which was laid) saying: If ye will repent, and harden not your hearts, then will I have mercy upon you, through mine Only Begotten Son;
34 Therefore, whosoever repenteth, and hardeneth not his heart, he shall have claim on mercy through mine Only Begotten Son, unto a remission of his sins; and these shall enter into my rest.
|
|
|
Re: Differences between sins and transgressions [message #3848 is a reply to message #3846] |
Fri, 12 June 2020 13:21 |
Amonhi
Messages: 237 Registered: June 2010 Location: Las Vegas, NV.
|
Senior Member |
|
|
This is a great question and one that I have never heard addressed in church directly. It seems that most people think that all disobedience to God and His laws is a sin unless you are talking about little children, then they make an exception as if God respected little children more than adults. God treats all men and women equally regardless of age. It's just easy to understand that children don't know anything and so are completely innocent. But there is a principle at work here. It isn't about the age of the person that determines whether or not they're innocent. (That's covered in the book The Probation of Man.) The age of 8 is kind of a rule of thumb that we use and symbolizes the process learning and growth. The Hebrew number 8 represents a new beginning or cycle.
Quote:Eighth Hebrew letter: Chet Numerical value of eight. Pictographic meaning wall, fence, protect, new beginning, separation, sin, outside, olam haba. - https://graceintorah.net/2015/06/15/hebrew-numbers-1-10/
Retarded people might go their entire lives without being accountable for their actions and highly intelligent people might become accountable before they are eight. There isn't a magical thing that happens the moment a person turns eight, we just have to draw a line somewhere and symbolically, 8 is a good place to do it according to God.
When little children do things that God says are bad, they transgress, not sin. An adult might do the exact same thing as a child and because of their knowledge it would be considered a sin. Another adult could do the exact same thing also and because they lack knowledge or will, they also transgress like the little child. Our probation isn't about what we do as much as it is who we are. If it was about what we do, then a wicked person could do the right things and qualify for heaven and having passed the final judgement by works they would be free to BE the wicked person they always were. Who we are is what is important, not what we do. For example, Nephi was a very righteous man, but mourned and lamented greatly for the things he still did that he knew he should not have done, (see 2 Nephi 4:17-19). His righteousness was not determined by his faults and flaws, but by the desires of his heart which were good.
The atonement covers both transgressions and sins, but the two are handled very differently and the requirements for forgiveness are different.
Sins, (committed with both knowledge and will), are only forgiven on condition of repentance as pointed out in the verse you quoted from Alma 12 which clearly shows that repentance is necessary for the remission of our SINS.
Quote:Alma 12:33 But God did call on men, in the name of his Son, (this being the plan of redemption which was laid) saying: If ye will repent, and harden not your hearts, then will I have mercy upon you, through mine Only Begotten Son;
34 Therefore, whosoever repenteth, and hardeneth not his heart, he shall have claim on mercy through mine Only Begotten Son, unto a remission of his sins; and these shall enter into my rest.
Transgressions, (committed without knowledge or will), are forgiven freely without repentance.
Quote:Alma 29:5 Yea, and I know that good and evil have come before all men; he that knoweth not good from evil is blameless; but he that knoweth good and evil, to him it is given according to his desires, whether he desireth good or evil, life or death, joy or remorse of conscience.
Alma 32:19 And now, how much more cursed is he that knoweth the will of God and doeth it not, than he that only believeth, or only hath cause to believe, and falleth into transgression?
Mosiah 3:11-12 For behold, and also his blood atoneth for the sins of those who have fallen by the transgression of Adam, who have died not knowing the will of God concerning them, or who have ignorantly sinned.
12 But wo, wo unto him who knoweth that he rebelleth against God! For salvation cometh to none such except it be through repentance and faith on the Lord Jesus Christ.
D&C 29:49-50 And, again, I say unto you, that whoso having knowledge, have I not commanded to repent?
50 And he that hath no understanding, it remaineth in me to do according as it is written. And now I declare no more unto you at this time. Amen.
Mormon tells us the same thing in Moroni 8. He says that those who are without the law (knowledge) are just like little children and cannot repent. Notice how doesn't say they don't need to repent but rather that it is impossible for them to repent.
Quote:Moroni 8
8 Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me.
...
10 Behold I say unto you that this thing shall ye teach--repentance and baptism unto those who are accountable and capable of committing sin; yea, teach parents that they must repent and be baptized, and humble themselves as their little children, and they shall all be saved with their little children.
11 And their little children need no repentance, neither baptism. Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remission of sins.
12 But little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world; if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a respecter to persons; for how many little children have died without baptism!
...
19 Little children cannot repent; wherefore, it is awful wickedness to deny the pure mercies of God unto them, for they are all alive in him because of his mercy.
...
22 For behold that all little children are alive in Christ, and also all they that are without the law. For the power of redemption cometh on all them that have no law; wherefore, he that is not condemned, or he that is under no condemnation, cannot repent; and unto such baptism availeth nothing.
As is shown in these verses, people who sin (or break God's laws with both Knowledge and will) are accountable for their actions and must repent to receive forgiveness. But those who transgress (or break God's laws without either Knowledge or will) are "blameless", "not condemned or under no condemnation" and "cannot repent".
In some instance the authors of the scriptures, (or more often the translators who don't understand the difference between sin and transgression), use the terms transgression and sin interchangeably. But as shown, they are very different and that difference deals with accountability and responsibility, innocence or guilt. When we read the scriptures, we need to know the difference for ourselves so that we can consider the context of the scripture to determine if the words are used/translated correctly or not.
Two people might do the exact same thing and yet one remains innocent and does not need to repent to be forgiven through the atonement and the other is condemned and needs to repent to be forgiven through the atonement. The ability to forgive in both instances is through the atonement. Without the atonement forgiveness of sins and transgressions is not possible.
An additional thought. The law was given because of transgression. This means that prior to the law given, any error the people did was considered innocent and blameless. After the law was given the same actions became a sin. This is covered in detail in the book The Preparatory Gospel or Law of Moses: Fulfilling the Law
Quote:
Galatians 3:19
19 Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
Romans 3:20
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
Romans 2:12
12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
Romans 5:13
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed, (assigned), when there is no law.
Did that answer your question?
Seek Truth,
Amonhi
|
|
|
Re: Differences between sins and transgressions [message #3852 is a reply to message #3846] |
Fri, 12 June 2020 14:30 |
Elina
Messages: 3 Registered: June 2010
|
Junior Member |
|
|
I didn't read Amonhi's response yet and perhaps he already covered this, but here were my thoughts...
Perhaps it would clarify to note that a contrite spirit is what answers this question.
We are required to have a broken heart and a contrite spirit. The contrite spirit is part of our participation in the at-one-ment. It is the change within us that causes us to refuse to allow the innocence to suffer for our sins. Because contrite means that our hearts are finally softened and turned away from self. We now feel the effects or our actions and the results of our sins on others so much that we we would not let them suffer for us. For us. From us. Or Like us. We protect the innocent, and love even our enemies.
This is our end of the covenant. Without our coming to Christ with a broken heart and contrite spirit, there is no way that Christ and the Atonement can free us from the bondage of our sins.
It's part of the baptismal covenant and the beginning of the New and Everlasting Covenant.
"3 But God did call on men, in the name of his Son, (this being the plan of redemption which was laid) saying: If ye will repent, and harden not your hearts, then will I have mercy upon you, through mine Only Begotten Son;
34 Therefore, whosoever repenteth, and hardeneth not his heart, he shall have claim on mercy through mine Only Begotten Son, unto a remission of his sins; and these shall enter into my rest."
Note that in verse 3 it says "IF ye will repent..." This is part of the repentance process and we do have work that we must do for the atonement to work. We must repent. We must have a broken heart and contrite spirit. This is why this has been set forth as part of the plan. Without this small (yet enormous) piece on our part the atonement cannot be complete and we cannot be saved in/from our sins.
Hope this helps! I can see that I've probably super over simplified it! LOL I'll got check out what Amonhi had to say now...
Love and Light to you!
Elina
~ Elina
|
|
|
Re: Differences between sins and transgressions [message #3854 is a reply to message #3848] |
Sun, 14 June 2020 09:56 |
Contemplator
Messages: 12 Registered: January 2013
|
Junior Member |
|
|
Amonhi’s response if very good, and right on point. There is an implication for the presentation in the book. In a quick search for “sin” and “transgression” I found:
Mosiah 3: 11 For behold, and also his blood atoneth for the sins of those who have fallen by the transgression of Adam, who have died not knowing the will of God concerning them, or who have ignorantly sinned.
This seems to counter the claim made in the book. Amonhi suggests that these two words are not always used precisely by authors/translators of the scripture. Thus, Amonhi’s discussion of the need to infer from context whether it is actually sin or transgression being discussed should probably be in the book.
I know it would be cumbersome, but in the book it might make sense to choose words that would not conflict with the scriptures. For example, use “accountable sin” for those actions where we have sufficient knowledge, etc. to be accountable. Use sin/transgression for the others. Then, you would be completely consistent with scripture.
|
|
|
|
Re: Differences between sins and transgressions [message #3864 is a reply to message #3854] |
Thu, 18 June 2020 22:58 |
Amonhi
Messages: 237 Registered: June 2010 Location: Las Vegas, NV.
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Contemplator wrote on Sun, 14 June 2020 08:56Amonhi’s response if very good, and right on point. There is an implication for the presentation in the book. In a quick search for “sin” and “transgression” I found:
Mosiah 3: 11 For behold, and also his blood atoneth for the sins of those who have fallen by the transgression of Adam, who have died not knowing the will of God concerning them, or who have ignorantly sinned.
This seems to counter the claim made in the book. Amonhi suggests that these two words are not always used precisely by authors/translators of the scripture. Thus, Amonhi’s discussion of the need to infer from context whether it is actually sin or transgression being discussed should probably be in the book.
I know it would be cumbersome, but in the book it might make sense to choose words that would not conflict with the scriptures. For example, use “accountable sin” for those actions where we have sufficient knowledge, etc. to be accountable. Use sin/transgression for the others. Then, you would be completely consistent with scripture.
In that verse, the "sins of those who have fallen by the transgression of Adam" are transgressions because they are sins caused by the fall of Adam, not sins that are caused by rebellion with knowledge. But, they are called sins. In an attempt to help us to understand the concept of transgression, he calls them "ignorant sins". Transgressions are ignorant sins or sins committed in ignorance. The verse actually supports the books definitions, but shows the difficulty experienced in attempting to explain the concepts to people who do not know the terms. Once you know the difference between sins and transgressions and when they apply, it's easy to see what he's saying, and that he agrees with the terms. Transgression is to ignorantly sin. The "sins" of those who have fallen by the transgression of Adam are not sins, because they died without knowing the will of God, so they ignorantly sinned which means transgressed. And, as stated in the book, all ignorant sins or transgressions are covered by the atonement without requirements of repentance as stated in that verse, (pointing out that there are no requirements given for the atonement to cover those ignorant sins.
I think that 95% of the time the scriptures follow those definitions very well. More importantly, they follow the principles and concepts 100%. Part of the problem is that when we repent, sins become transgressions. (New info added to page 95+, in red, currently being reviewed by the contributor's group.)
When I speak to others, I say sin and transgression appropriately.
Seek Truth,
Amonhi
|
|
|
Re: Differences between sins and transgressions [message #3866 is a reply to message #3864] |
Sun, 21 June 2020 09:01 |
Contemplator
Messages: 12 Registered: January 2013
|
Junior Member |
|
|
Amonhi,
Just to be clear, I did not mean to imply a problem with the ideas you are presenting. Sorry if it came across that way. It is the existence of casual use of sin and transgression in scripture and church discussions that makes it harder to communicate the ideas in the book. There are, broadly speaking, two choices:
1. Try to reclaim the words “sin” and “transgression” despite your reader thinking they already know what those words mean.
2. Use language that is less fraught with preconception like “willful sin” and “ignorant transgression.”
This is a choice for the author to make. One is more susceptible to misunderstanding and the other is more cumbersome to write. It may come down to how important it is to the author to reclaim the words “sin” vs “transgression.” Or is the idea behind the words more important.
So, my comment in relation to the book is meant to address the means of communication, the ideas are powerful and I am glad for the discussion of the difference between transgression through tradition or bad information and, on the other hand, willful disobedience.
[Updated on: Sun, 21 June 2020 09:02] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Re: Differences between sins and transgressions [message #3885 is a reply to message #3846] |
Wed, 05 August 2020 14:29 |
Finrock
Messages: 12 Registered: December 2016
|
Junior Member |
|
|
In the book the idea is presented that sin gets transferred through repentance. The distinction between sin and transgression makes sense to me and I agree there is something there as far as truth is concerned. You might have noticed that my declaration of this truth is a bit wavering but not because I disagree. It's wavering because I am accounting for the fact that I probably don't understand everything I'm saying right now fully and so I guess another way of saying it is that as far as I understand things the distinction between sin and transgression that is being made by Elliaison makes sense to me.
So, given the ideas in the book concerning transgression and sin, then how does one sin prior to being baptized by fire and receiving the Holy Ghost?
Would not one be in a state of ignorance or in a state of lacking knowledge? Or they are in a state to be manipulated so their choices are free will choices based on actual knowledge.
What sin can we commit prior to being baptized by fire and receiving the Holy Ghost?
...
-Finrock
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Mon Nov 25 04:30:41 MST 2024
|