Did Christ actually suffer eternal torment on our behalf?

[makesends]

In another thread, @Eleanor said:
"To posit that the purpose of Christ's brutal atoning death included anything else that was less,
that anything less would apply to all without exception, and of no faith,
contrary to the Biblical testimony of the meaning of blood sacrifice as presented in the OT sacrifices and in authoritative NT apostolic teaching,
is to hi-jack Christ's atonement for the sake of serving your personal theology,
altering the terms of his sacrifice, both in meaning (expiation) and application (by belief in him), which is
as grievous a misrepresentation of this sacred reality as were the false charges against him.
To attempt to manipulate such a staggering Christian foundational reality, all for the sake of one's own personal theology,
betrays an insufficient apprehension of the cross."

I'm not sure I'm understanding her right, but it seems she implies that Christ's physical death is all that was required as payment for our sin. I have heard that before —in fact, I will never forget the look on my own mother's face when she said, "...are you saying that Christ went to [everlasting torment] in our place???"

Yes, I think he did. Did he actually die spiritually in our place? In a sense, yes, in that he did pay our penalty of 'everlasting' death, which to my mind is both temporally physical, and eternally physical and spiritual. But God cannot be killed. Being eternal/infinite, Christ was not defeated there. Note that it says that God raised him from the dead (Acts 2:24, Romans 8:11), and not that he raised himself, though he was himself God. (This is part of my reasoning why I suppose the "eternal" punishment may best be understood by us to be a matter of infinity of degree, rather than an eternal extension of time —well, that, and the notion I carry, for other reasons, that it will be happening outside this temporal envelope we inhabit.) (This is also why I insist, not only in his resurrection, but on his payment of our sin, that he HAD to be God himself. No creature can bear that penalty and 'survive'.) Here also, I think we see beautiful demonstration, of the unity of the Godhead and relationship of the persons of the Trinity, and of God's power —able to go to, or even beyond, the edge of disaster, and that, intentionally, but come out of it the victor.

There are many examples of others that have suffered worse physically, and died more (physically) horribly. I don't think that any suffered more psychologically/emotionally/mentally —but to the limits of their endurance, or even beyond, yes. But, regardless, the protests I have heard against it being more than his physical death, to me, truncate the meaning of Adam's disobedience and the curse, in both what has been imputed to us, and what we deserve in our rebellion. Our debt is not paid off in our physical death.

To me, it seems an awful stretch to say that his physical death alone was what saves us. But that is me, and something I have pretty much always assumed, and as far as I know, has not been proven wrong. I think he went to Hell/'Death'/Lake of Fire and suffered every bit the intensity of the punishment we owe —death— time irrelevant. But I admit to much of my view being by my reasoning from Scripture, and am open to better thinking.

Thoughts?

 

[Eleanor]

Thoughts?

Gotta' run. . .will get back to you before too long.

 

[ReverendRV]

Thoughts?

I always say, "When an Eternal Being suffers the Wrath of God, the Eternal requirement has been Mete"...

For instance, Jesus could have experienced the Wrath of God for a few hours on the Cross; and it felt like an Eternity, because he is Eternal...

When we go to Hell, it takes an Eternity for us to meet the Eternal requirement of Punishment. Obviously, the Eternal requirement for Punishment had to be satisfied somehow; or Jesus would still be there. The Eternal aspect of Punishment can't be waved off; it must be Mete. If Jesus didn't have to meet the requirement, there is room for people to argue that we do not have to endure Eternal Punishment either...

 

[ChristB4us]

I would say that Jesus Christ did not suffer eternal torment on our behalf when He conquered hell and death by His death on the cross and by His resurrection.

Revelation 1:17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: 18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

Jesus did suffer a separation from God the Father for three hours as that was shown in creation when the light from the sun and the full moon went out as only the stars could be seen. That is a horrible experience to go through when taking our sins upon Himself.

Is There Historical Evidence for the Darkness & Earthquake at the Crucifixion?

Matthew 27:45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour. 46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

Mark 15:33 And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour. 34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

 

[Eleanor]

In another thread, @Eleanor said:
"To posit that the purpose of Christ's brutal atoning death included anything else that was less,
that anything less would apply to all without exception, and of no faith,
contrary to the Biblical testimony of the meaning of blood sacrifice as presented in the OT sacrifices and in authoritative NT apostolic teaching,
is to hi-jack Christ's atonement for the sake of serving your personal theology,
altering the terms of his sacrifice, both in meaning (expiation) and application (by belief in him), which is
as grievous a misrepresentation of this sacred reality as were the false charges against him.
To attempt to manipulate such a staggering Christian foundational reality, all for the sake of one's own personal theology,
betrays an insufficient apprehension of the cross."

I'm not sure I'm understanding her right, but it seems she implies that Christ's physical death is all that was required as payment for our sin. I have heard that before —in fact, I will never forget the look on my own mother's face when she said, "...are you saying that Christ went to [everlasting torment] in our place???"

Yes, I think he did. Did he actually die spiritually in our place? In a sense, yes, in that he did pay our penalty of 'everlasting' death, which to my mind is both temporally physical, and eternally physical and spiritual.

Spiritual death is loss of eternal/divine life within the immortal human spirit.

Do the two natures in Christ of human and divine also mean two immortal spirits, human and divine?
(Yes, the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the divine Father and the divine Son, and is the Spirit of both the divine Father and the divine Son, so yes the )

Eternal life being divine life of God within the immortal human spirit, would Christ have eternal divine life within his immortal human spirit?
By dying spiritually, are you saying Christ lost eternal divine life within his immortal human spirit?
Then when was he born again, restoring this eternal divine life within his immortal human spirit?

But God cannot be killed. Being eternal/infinite, Christ was not defeated there. Note that it says that God raised him from the dead (Acts 2:24, Romans 8:11), and not that he raised himself, though he was himself God.

I also see indication that God gave Jesus authority to raise himself from the dead, Jn 10:18, 2:19-21.
Was it not the power to raise himself from the dead which is the power to raise us from the dead (1 Th 4:16, loud command).

(This is part of my reasoning why I suppose the "eternal" punishment may best be understood by us to be a matter of infinity of degree, rather than an eternal extension of time —well, that, and the notion I carry, for other reasons, that it will be happening outside this temporal envelope we inhabit.) (This is also why I insist, not only in his resurrection, but on his payment of our sin, that he HAD to be God himself. No creature can bear that penalty and 'survive'.) Here also, I think we see beautiful demonstration, of the unity of the Godhead and relationship of the persons of the Trinity, and of God's power —able to go to, or even beyond, the edge of disaster, and that, intentionally, but come out of it the victor.

There are many examples of others that have suffered worse physically, and died more (physically) horribly. I don't think that any suffered more psychologically/emotionally/mentally —but to the limits of their endurance, or even beyond, yes. But, regardless, the protests I have heard against it being more than his physical death, to me, truncate the meaning of Adam's disobedience and the curse, in both what has been imputed to us, and what we deserve in our rebellion. Our debt is not paid off in our physical death.

To me, it seems an awful stretch to say that his physical death alone was what saves us. But that is me, and something I have pretty much always assumed, and as far as I know, has not been proven wrong. I think he went to Hell/'Death'/Lake of Fire and suffered every bit the intensity of the punishment we owe —death— time irrelevant. But I admit to much of my view being by my reasoning from Scripture, and am open to better thinking.

Thoughts?

Spiritual death; i.e., absence of eternal divine life within his human spirit could be possible, I guess.
It might have been the source of, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"
But then there is the issue of when the return of divine eternal life to his human spirit in the new birth.

 

[Eleanor]

Again, the above post is supposed to be an erase.

In another thread, @Eleanor said:
"To posit that the purpose of Christ's brutal atoning death included anything else that was less,
that anything less would apply to all without exception, and of no faith,
contrary to the Biblical testimony of the meaning of blood sacrifice as presented in the OT sacrifices and in authoritative NT apostolic teaching,
is to hi-jack Christ's atonement for the sake of serving your personal theology,
altering the terms of his sacrifice, both in meaning (expiation) and application (by belief in him), which is
as grievous a misrepresentation of this sacred reality as were the false charges against him.
To attempt to manipulate such a staggering Christian foundational reality, all for the sake of one's own personal theology,
betrays an insufficient apprehension of the cross."

I'm not sure I'm understanding her right, but it seems she implies that Christ's physical death is all that was required as payment for our sin.

Then that's where I am messing up.

I am saying in the above that in addition to ransoming from sin by faith, Christ did not suffer and die to accomplish a secondary purpose for all unbelieving mankind; i.e., dual ransoms.

I have heard that before —in fact, I will never forget the look on my own mother's face when she said, "...are you saying that Christ went to [everlasting torment] in our place???"
Yes, I think he did. Did he actually die spiritually in our place? In a sense, yes, in that he did pay our penalty of 'everlasting' death, which to my mind is both temporally physical, and eternally physical and spiritual.

The wages of sin is death (Ro 6:23), both spiritual and physical.
Spiritual death is loss of eternal/divine life within the immortal human spirit.

Do the two natures in Christ of human and divine also mean two immortal spirits, human and divine?
(That could be a yes, for the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the divine Father and the divine Son, and is the Spirit of both the divine Father and the divine Son, so the Holy Spirit was both the Spirit of his divine nature as in the Godhead, and the eternal divine life within his immortal human spirit.)

Eternal life being divine life of God within the immortal human spirit, would Jesus' human nature have eternal divine life within his immortal human spirit?
By dying spiritually, are you saying Christ lost eternal divine life within his immortal human spirit, which is the meaning of spiritual death?
Then when was he born again, restoring this eternal divine life within his immortal human spirit?

But God cannot be killed. Being eternal/infinite, Christ was not defeated there. Note that it says that God raised him from the dead (Acts 2:24, Romans 8:11), and not that he raised himself, though he was himself God.

I also see indication that God gave Jesus authority (power) to raise himself from the dead, Jn 10:18, 2:19-21.
Is it not the power to raise himself from the dead which is the power to raise us from the dead (1 Th 4:16, loud command).

(This is part of my reasoning why I suppose the "eternal" punishment may best be understood by us to be a matter of infinity of degree, rather than an eternal extension of time —well, that, and the notion I carry, for other reasons, that it will be happening outside this temporal envelope we inhabit.) (This is also why I insist, not only in his resurrection, but on his payment of our sin, that he HAD to be God himself. No creature can bear that penalty and 'survive'.) Here also, I think we see beautiful demonstration, of the unity of the Godhead and relationship of the persons of the Trinity, and of God's power —able to go to, or even beyond, the edge of disaster, and that, intentionally, but come out of it the victor.

There are many examples of others that have suffered worse physically, and died more (physically) horribly. I don't think that any suffered more psychologically/emotionally/mentally —but to the limits of their endurance, or even beyond, yes. But, regardless, the protests I have heard against it being more than his physical death, to me, truncate the meaning of Adam's disobedience and the curse, in both what has been imputed to us, and what we deserve in our rebellion. Our debt is not paid off in our physical death.

To me, it seems an awful stretch to say that his physical death alone was what saves us. But that is me, and something I have pretty much always assumed, and as far as I know, has not been proven wrong. I think he went to Hell/'Death'/Lake of Fire and suffered every bit the intensity of the punishment we owe —death— time irrelevant. But I admit to much of my view being by my reasoning from Scripture, and am open to better thinking.

Thoughts?

Spiritual death; i.e., absence of eternal divine life within his immortal human spirit could be possible, since it is the wages of sin (Ge 2:17:
"Dying (spiritually), you shall die (physically)."
It might have been the source of, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"
But then there is the issue of when the return of divine eternal life to his human spirit in the new birth.

 

[Arial]

But then there is the issue of when the return of divine eternal life to his human spirit in the new birth.

I take issue with the statement that Jesus underwent a new birth. The new birth is for men who are in bondage to sin and therefore see God as their enemy. They have a natural ability to come to Him but no moral ability, in that we cannot stop sinning, and do not want to. The new birth is for the sinner that He might be able to believe and put their faith in the person and work of Jesus. They have His righteousness counted as their own, as our sins were counted as His, and bear the fruit of righteousness. The new birth is an inward change.

Jesus was never in bondage to sin, had no sin in Him, and had no necessity of being reborn. He was raised to life again because there was nothing in Him that allowed death to hold Him.

 

[Eleanor]

I take issue with the statement that Jesus underwent a new birth.

The new birth is from the spiritual death in which we are born.
Spiritual death is the loss/absence of divine eternal life within our immortal human spirits, thanks to Adam.
Jesus' spiritual death would he the loss of that divine eternal life within his immortal human spirit.
We get it back only in the new birth; i.e., the sovereign re-impartation by the Holy Spirit of God's eternal divine life within our immortal human spirit.
So how, when would Jesus get it back within his immortal human spirit?

The new birth is for men who are in bondage to sin and therefore see God as their enemy. They have a natural ability to come to Him but no moral ability, in that we cannot stop sinning, and do not want to. The new birth is for the sinner that He might be able to believe and put their faith in the person and work of Jesus. They have His righteousness counted as their own, as our sins were counted as His, and bear the fruit of righteousness. The new birth is an inward change.

Jesus was never in bondage to sin, had no sin in Him, and had no necessity of being reborn. He was raised to life again because there was nothing in Him that allowed death to hold Him.

 

[fastfredy0]

To me, it seems an awful stretch to say that his physical death alone was what saves us. But that is me, and something I have pretty much always assumed, and as far as I know, has not been proven wrong. I think he went to Hell/'Death'/Lake of Fire and suffered every bit the intensity of the punishment we owe —death— time irrelevant. But I admit to much of my view being by my reasoning from Scripture, and am open to better thinking.

I can't claim to "better thinking" and you presented many deep, interesting thoughts ... as to my 2 cents worth ...

I think he went to Hell/'Death'/Lake of Fire and suffered every bit the intensity of the punishment we owe —death— time irrelevant

Premise 1: God has to suffer in the same way and amount we deserved to be punished (to get justice I suppose)
Premise 2: .. that God is capable of suffering. I would argue that God cannot suffer as a being that suffers cannot be a perfect being. If the divine nature suffers it would have to do so eternally and immutably.
So IMO if God must suffer it must be His human native that suffers.... back to premise 1: but I don't see how one human nature can suffer in the same way and amount for all the sin of billions of people. It would take forever. So, can God (the human nature) suffer in the same amount? Possibly if you consider that the object is Christ and therefore the value is infinite and thus the least amount to suffering to an infinite being more than compensates for the sins of billions of people made from dust that have no value unless God determines that some have value that He placed there (the elect).

Then there's the issue of His thoughts are not our thoughts and His ways are not our ways which make any theories suspect at best. Romans 9:19-21 seems to suggest the consideration of the topic is ridiculous.

Then there's the thought that God wanted/planned for all this to happen. How does that work into justice?

Then there's the aseity of God to consider .... Job 35:7 “If you are righteous, what do you give God, Or what does He receive from your hand? 8 “Your wickedness affects only a man such as you, And your righteousness affects only a son of man [but it cannot affect God, who is sovereign]” .... our sin has no affect on God that He should demand justice on His part... maybe justice would be demanded on human level I suppose.

So, that my thoughts and probable evidence that I don't have a clue; but interesting to contemplate.

 

[Eleanor]

I can't claim to "better thinking" and you presented many deep, interesting thoughts ... as to my 2 cents worth ...

Premise 1: God has to suffer in the same way and amount we deserved to be punished (to get justice I suppose)
Premise 2: .. that God is capable of suffering. I would argue that God cannot suffer as a being that suffers cannot be a perfect being. If the divine nature suffers it would have to do so eternally and immutably.
So IMO if God must suffer it must be His human native that suffers.... back to premise 1: but I don't see how one human nature can suffer in the same way and amount for all the sin of billions of people. It would take forever. So, can God (the human nature) suffer in the same amount? Possibly if you consider that the object is Christ and therefore the value is infinite and thus the least amount to suffering to an infinite being more than compensates for the sins of billions of people made from dust that have no value unless God determines that some have value that He placed there (the elect).

Then there's the issue of His thoughts are not our thoughts and His ways are not our ways which make any theories suspect at best. Romans 9:19-21 seems to suggest the consideration of the topic is ridiculous.

Then there's the thought that God wanted/planned for all this to happen. How does that work into justice?

He is not the cause of sin.
That's how it works into justice.

Then there's the aseity of God to consider .... Job 35:7 “If you are righteous, what do you give God, Or what does He receive from your hand? 8 “Your wickedness affects only a man such as you, And your righteousness affects only a son of man [but it cannot affect God, who is sovereign]” .... our sin has no affect on God that He should demand justice on His part... maybe justice would be demanded on human level I suppose.

So, that my thoughts and probable evidence that I don't have a clue; but interesting to contemplate.

 

[Arial]

The new birth is from the spiritual death in which we are born.
Spiritual death is the loss/absence of divine eternal life within our immortal human spirits, thanks to Adam.
Jesus' spiritual death would he the loss of that divine eternal life within his immortal human spirit.
We get it back only in the new birth; i.e., the sovereign re-impartation by the Holy Spirit of God's eternal divine life within our immortal human spirit.
So how, when would Jesus get it back within his immortal human spirit?

I see a lot of presuppositions there but no sound theological basis for them presented.
For example: where does the Bible say that we are born in spiritual death? Where does it say that spiritual death is the loss of divine eternal life within us or that we ever have divine eternal life? In fact, what is divine eternal life?
Where does it say that our spirit is immortal or that Jesus had an divine eternal life and an immortal human spirit.
Where does it say that the new birth is receiving back through re-impartation by the Holy Spirit this divine eternal life within our immortal human spirit? Or that Jesus received it back within His human spirit or that he ever lost it?

Maybe scripture does say all those things but where? And maybe it says some of those things or none of those things.

And that post too ends with a quote of the rest of my post and no response to it. Have you figured out why? It is just a bit disconcerting as I think you have quoted something I said because you are going to respond to it and I look forward to your response. But then there isn't one.

 

[Eleanor]

I see a lot of presuppositions there but no sound theological basis for them presented.

Theology is not my basis for anything. Scripture is my only basis, as in Sola Scriptura.

For example: where does the Bible say that we are born in spiritual death?

Let's start here and see how we do.

Ge 2:17: "Dying (spiritually), you shall die (physically)." (Hebrew translation of Ge 2:17)
We are by nature objects of wrath (Eph 2:3). We are born with our fallen nature.
All men sinned in Adam and are born guilty of his sin (Ro 5:12-14), born in spiritual death, no God's eternal life in their immortal human spirit.
"Let the (spiritually) dead bury their (physically) dead." (Mt 8:22)

What are we born a second time into? The first birth was physical life. What is the second birth?

 

[makesends]

I see a lot of presuppositions there but no sound theological basis for them presented.
For example: where does the Bible say that we are born in spiritual death? Where does it say that spiritual death is the loss of divine eternal life within us or that we ever have divine eternal life? In fact, what is divine eternal life?
Where does it say that our spirit is immortal or that Jesus had an divine eternal life and an immortal human spirit.
Where does it say that the new birth is receiving back through re-impartation by the Holy Spirit this divine eternal life within our immortal human spirit? Or that Jesus received it back within His human spirit or that he ever lost it?

Maybe scripture does say all those things but where? And maybe it says some of those things or none of those things.

And that post too ends with a quote of the rest of my post and no response to it. Have you figured out why? It is just a bit disconcerting as I think you have quoted something I said because you are going to respond to it and I look forward to your response. But then there isn't one.

Many of those things are assumed by Eleanor as agreed to by most on this site, I'm pretty sure. To prove them all, or for that matter, to even provide one salient passage to back each one up can be a pretty daunting read.

I often speak for @Eleanor without knowing for sure, but I'll do it again here: She does not want to be represented as misrepresenting others. Many times, I am quoted by people who pick one sentence or phrase out of a larger context, and post that phrase as if that was all I said, and false accusations ensue. Maybe she only means to to avoid that, so she posts what she doesn't intend to answer directly.

Well, that, and, if she is like me, she is satisfied with something she wrote and forgot that there was more to answer to.

 

[makesends]

He is not the cause of sin.
That's how it works into justice.

He is the first cause of all fact. I can find no recourse to think differently on it. Thus, he does (did) cause that sin be, or, it can even be said, that he caused sin. But that does not imply the words. "He is THE cause of sin" are valid.

Frankly, I don't see that we can even blame Satan. Our sin is our own. WE choose it, regardless of whatever other causes bear on the fact the we choose it.

 

[ReverendRV]

He is the first cause of all fact. I can find no recourse to think differently on it. Thus, he does (did) cause that sin be, or, it can even be said, that he caused sin. But that does not imply the words. "He is THE cause of sin" are valid.

Frankly, I don't see that we can even blame Satan. Our sin is our own. WE choose it, regardless of whatever other causes bear on the fact the we choose it.

In a way, it's splitting 'Fine Fairs'...

God is Providential, but he doesn't Author Sin. One day we will come across a hair so fine, we can't split it. We won't understand how both Providence and God's non-Participation are true. But we'll believe both...

 

[fastfredy0]

Frankly, I don't see that we can even blame Satan. Our sin is our own. WE choose it, regardless of whatever other causes bear on the fact the we choose it.

We choose to sin freely; we did not freely choose to have a sin nature which is the cause of our choosing freely to sin.
In other words, we are not the first cause of our sin nature. (For that matter, man is not the first cause of anything ... the first cause is always from an eternal source).
Aside: Hey, if the Mormons are correct then we all have an eternal soul and then we could be our First Cause (bit of a rabbit trail).

 

[Arial]

Many of those things are assumed by Eleanor as agreed to by most on this site, I'm pretty sure. To prove them all, or for that matter, to even provide one salient passage to back each one up can be a pretty daunting read.

I often speak for @Eleanor without knowing for sure, but I'll do it again here: She does not want to be represented as misrepresenting others. Many times, I am quoted by people who pick one sentence or phrase out of a larger context, and post that phrase as if that was all I said, and false accusations ensue. Maybe she only means to to avoid that, so she posts what she doesn't intend to answer directly.

Well, that, and, if she is like me, she is satisfied with something she wrote and forgot that there was more to answer to.

Well----not everyone is the same.

Rather than have someone speak for me I will speak for myself. I ask questions such as the ones I ask in order to bring into the conversation something besides what we believe for whatever reason, to causing us to check our beliefs against scripture. Are we just repeating them because it sounds right to us? Simply because we have always believed it or have for a long time? Because that is what we heard and believed but never actually checked?This is something we are all prone to do and not even realize it. Then when asked about it we begin to ask ourselves, "Hmm. Why do I believe that?" We may even discover that we have no idea why that is what we believe. Can we actually find support for what we say?

It is called growing and grounding. Apologetics. Critical thinking.

 

[ReverendRV]

We choose to sin freely; we did not freely choose to have a sin nature which is the cause of our choosing freely to sin.
In other words, we are not the first cause of our sin nature. (For that matter, man is not the first cause of anything ... the first cause is always from an eternal source).
Aside: Hey, if the Mormons are correct then we all have an eternal soul and then we could be our First Cause (bit of a rabbit trail).

Our heart is more deceitful than anything (even the devil), and desperately Wicked; who can know it?

 

[ReverendRV]

Well----not everyone is the same.

Rather than have someone speak for me I will speak for myself. I ask questions such as the ones I ask in order to bring into the conversation something besides what we believe for whatever reason, to causing us to check our beliefs against scripture. Are we just repeating them because it sounds right to us? Simply because we have always believed it or have for a long time? Because that is what we heard and believed but never actually checked?This is something we are all prone to do and not even realize it. Then when asked about it we begin to ask ourselves, "Hmm. Why do I believe that?" We may even discover that we have no idea why that is what we believe. Can we actually find support for what we say?

It is called growing and grounding. Apologetics. Critical thinking.

A perfect Post...

When we think we've arrived, eventually we find out we're only at a Rest Stop. If you ain't growing, something's wrong...

 

[fastfredy0]

Our heart is more deceitful than anything (even the devil), and desperately Wicked; who can know it?

Hey, isn't that against forum rules to say my heart is more deceitful than all things. If it wasn't true I would report you.
*giggle*