Did Christ actually suffer eternal torment on our behalf?

[ReverendRV]

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*

Well, your Heart isn't deceitful more than anything; any longer

 

[fastfredy0]

Well, your Heart isn't deceitful more than anything; any longer

Apology for telling the truth accepted ... good clean up on aisle 7

 

[Arial]

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

I agree that it is sola scriptura. I think what may be happening here in our back and forth is that I am speaking of sound theology that formed the doctrines of the traditional, historic, orthodox, protestant church. And you may be looking at the term theology in a broader sense as being whatever someone determines is a correct interpretation. Which unfortunately the term has come to mean but it is not the way in which it was used historically. Many of our words have become so broadened in meaning as to be meaningless when used, unless the person specifies.

Historically it meant to accurately and systematically study the whole counsel of God, letting scripture interpret scripture, keeping all of scripture consistent with itself. Therefore this form of theology is sola scriptura. It is within the scripture that the historic church finds its doctrines.

To simply say that scripture is one's only basis without also justifying any given scripture against/within the whole through a consistent theology is what leads to all sorts of false doctrines in the church. I am not saying that is the case with you. I find your thought processes, though unique to many, to be sincere and diligent is seeking after truth.

But an example of what I mean would be a preacher choosing as the scripture for his sermon "If you ask for anything in My name you will receive it." And then having the meat of the message being in effect, "Ask in Jesus' name (tack it on the end of your prayer) for that new luxury car; that you would get the promotion and not the other person; that God would give your a private jet; or whatever." It is what the scripture says at face value, but is it consistent with Jesus' assuring us that we will suffer as Christians, be persecuted. Is it even remotely consistent with the whole counsel of God, or even close to what the scripture is saying?

 

[Arial]

Ge 2:17: "Dying (spiritually), you shall die (physically)." (Hebrew translation of Ge 2:17)

When you say Hebrew translation what are you referring to? Going from Hebrew to English I find none that say dying you shall die and certainly none that add an interpretation to the text as you have done. So that in no way shows me where the Bible tells us that we died spiritually and would die physically.

It is common even in Reformed writing for it to be said we have undergone a spiritual death and I am beginning to rethink that----though I fully understand what it is being said and agree with it. But is our terminology completely accurate, and does its lack of precision leave the door open for arriving at teachings that are also skewed. Not that all are, but they can be, and then cloud the depth of other scriptures.

I will have to continue addressing the other scriptures you present in a bit. Need a coffee break.

 

[Eleanor]

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...

Jesus died for sin.

I've arrived.

Justfication/righteusnss is imputed.

I'v arrived.

Whoever does not believe in the Son stands condemned already.

I've arrived.

Etc., etc.. etc.

 

[Eleanor]

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.

@makesends sometimes speaks for me because he is my "official editor," and he does it for free! And I am grateful for it.

 

[Eleanor]

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...

Jesus died for sin.

I've arrived.

Justification/righteousness is imputed.

I've arrived.

Whoever does not believe in the Son is condemned already.

I have arrived.

Etc., etc., etc.

 

[Eleanor]

I agree that it is sola scriptura. I think what may be happening here in our back and forth is that I am speaking of sound theology that formed the doctrines of the traditional, historic, orthodox, protestant church. And you may be looking at the term theology in a broader sense as being whatever someone determines is a correct interpretation. Which unfortunately the term has come to mean but it is not the way in which it was used historically. Many of our words have become so broadened in meaning as to be meaningless when used, unless the person specifies.

Historically it meant to accurately and systematically study the whole counsel of God, letting scripture interpret scripture, keeping all of scripture consistent with itself. Therefore this form of theology is sola scriptura. It is within the scripture that the historic church finds its doctrines.

To simply say that scripture is one's only basis without also justifying any given scripture against/within the whole through a consistent theology is what leads to all sorts of false doctrines in the church. I am not saying that is the case with you. I find your thought processes, though unique to many, to be sincere and diligent is seeking after truth.

But an example of what I mean would be a preacher choosing as the scripture for his sermon "If you ask for anything in My name you will receive it." And then having the meat of the message being in effect, "Ask in Jesus' name (tack it on the end of your prayer) for that new luxury car; that you would get the promotion and not the other person; that God would give your a private jet; or whatever." It is what the scripture says at face value, but is it consistent with Jesus' assuring us that we will suffer as Christians, be persecuted. Is it even remotely consistent with the whole counsel of God, or even close to what the scripture is saying?

Agreed.

Someday we may talk about the "thought processes."

 

[Arial]

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.

"We are dead in our trespasses and sins." The penalty of sin is physical death and facing the wrath of God with no further chance at redemption. We cannot live in the presence of God or dwell in His house unless someone pays that debt, our sins meet their just punishment, in someone else who has no sin.

There is no mention of spiritual death in those passages or anywhere in the Bible. I am beginning to suspect here that it is not a spiritual death but a moral death. And because of this moral death of course our spirit is corrupted right along with our morals. This falls right back into covenant and covenant relationship. The Godhead is covenantal itself and we see that in the complete unity of purpose and action of the three person's in redemption. They are in agreement with one another. God is covenantle in His very being. It is a relationship.

As created in His image and likeness we are meant to be covenantal beings as He is. IOW we are relational with one another. In the covenantal relationship we have with Him, all our relationships with each other and creation are to mirror Him, morally. Thus the call to righteousness.

Adam broke that covenant moraly when He disobeyed God. It is this nature of morality with which we were created and intended, becoming a nature of immorality that changed every person ever born. It is this broken and dead morality that we are dead in. It makes us unable to discern spiritual truths until by the grace of God we are reborn of God, by the Holy Spirit, quickened to life by and in Christ, the perfectly righteous who paid the penalty for our sins, and have the Holy Spirit indwelling us and sanctifying us and bringing light to the things of the spirit. Our spirits are indeed made alive to righteousness where as before we were dead to it. But it is our immorality (sins) that are paid for, not our spiritual deadness.

To all who read this, I am thinking it through as I go and if flaws are seen tell me and also show me. I am asking for help where it is needed and guidance back on track if I have gone off.

 

[Arial]

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?

We are not born guilty of Adam's sin. We are born with a nature to sin because Adam as our federal head sinned. We are pronounced guilty by God for our own sins.

It is not correct to add words to a passage that are not there and then proclaim that is what the passage means. Unless we can demonstrate from other scriptures that what we say applies. There is nothing in the Matt quote that indicates Jesus is speaking of letting the spiritually dead bury the physically dead. It is in the context of people wanting to follow Him but not being willing to meet the demands of doing so. One wanted to wait until after his father died. Only those who who follow Him will have life.

We are born into death and our sins meeting God's justice against them. We are born in Adam---yes a physical birth. The second birth is born in Christ by God, instead of Adam by the will of the flesh. Adam is the federal head of all mankind, Jesus is the federal head of all those born in Him. We are born of Adam into a morally corrupt nature. We are reborn in Christ in His righteousness. It is righteousness----His righteousness, and our sins meeting justice in Him, that gives us eternal life in the House of God.

 

[ReverendRV]

There is no mention of spiritual death in those passages or anywhere in the Bible. I am beginning to suspect here that it is not a spiritual death but a moral death.

To all who read this, I am thinking it through as I go and if flaws are seen tell me and also show me. I am asking for help where it is needed and guidance back on track if I have gone off.

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins - Ephesians 2:1 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians2:1&version=ESV

It's true that Spiritual Death is not in the Verses, and there's no Verbatim Verse elsewhere in the Bible...

But this is why Systematic Theology is Crucial. All Scripture is Good for Doctrine. The validity of Theology seems to be the most prominent Debate, or Argument, on CCAM Forums these days. Spiritual Death is a Sound Doctrine of the Church. The Argument may be that Spiritual Death is a Doctrine of the Bible instead of the Evangelical Church, so when Liberal Christians challenge the validity of Spiritual Death; Solo Scripturists will defend the Doctrine of Spiritual Death too...

But if they will defend the Doctrine of Spiritual Death; where is the Verbatim Verse for it?

 

[Eleanor]

When you say Hebrew translation what are you referring to? Going from Hebrew to English I find none that say dying you shall die and certainly none that add an interpretation to the text as you have done.

If you know a Hebrew scholar, ask him about interpretation of that text.

So that in no way shows me where the Bible tells us that we died spiritually and would die physically.

"Spiritually" and "physically" were my parentheticals to that Hebrew interpretation demonstrating its meaning, as well as the parentheticals in Mt 8:22.

It is common even in Reformed writing for it to be said we have undergone a spiritual death and I am beginning to rethink that----though I fully understand what it is being said and agree with it. But is our terminology completely accurate, and does its lack of precision leave the door open for arriving at teachings that are also skewed. Not that all are, but they can be, and then cloud the depth of other scriptures.

I have stated it precisely so that no door is left open for arriving at teachings that are also skewed.
Do you see any openings in my statement that would allow for arriving at skewed teachings?

It being presented in Scripture in:

1. Ge 2:17: "Dying (spiritually), you shall die (physically)." (Hebrew translation of Ge 2:17)
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)

2) as well as in sovereign new birth, into eternal life (Jn 10:28), which is spiritual (of the Holy Spirit),

what do you find unsatisfactory about my statement of it?

 

[Eleanor]

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins - Ephesians 2:1 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians2:1&version=ESV

It's true that Spiritual Death is not in the Verses, and there's no Verbatim Verse elsewhere in the Bible...

But this is why Systematic Theology is Crucial. All Scripture is Good for Doctrine. The validity of Theology seems to be the most prominent Debate, or Argument, on CCAM Forums these days. Spiritual Death is a Sound Doctrine of the Church. The Argument may be that Spiritual Death is a Doctrine of the Bible instead of the Evangelical Church, so when Liberal Christians challenge the validity of Spiritual Death; Solo Scripturists will defend the Doctrine of Spiritual Death too...

But if they will defend the Doctrine of Spiritual Death; where is the Verbatim Verse for it?

About two pages after the verbatim verse for the Trinity, and about our pages before the verbatim verse for God's sovereignty.

 

[makesends]

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.

With that, I agree completely.

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.)

That's where it is a little hard to say. Not being privy to God's relationship within the trinity, nor even to precise definitions as to just what is Human spirit, soul, person and body now, nor certainly just what is glorified person, body, soul and spirit in Heaven, or what that means for those paying their own penalty in Hell/LOF, all I can say is that that Christ being possessing in some way of two immortal spirits seems to make sense.

It seems evident that Christ, possessing of two natures, in putting aside his divine power had to have in some sense put aside his divine nature, though it was not separable except in use. Thus, the Spirit of God, being the divine spirit in The Son of God, Christ, was in some way a separate entity from Jesus' human spirit. —Or so I reason. (An aside: This may have implications into what it means to be one with Christ and the Father.)

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?

No. I only see him paying with his human immortal spirit, but as he was God himself, therefore overcame the power of death and was raised again (I'm not sure you meant to say, "born again", there.) It seems unreasonable to say that his divine spirit died, as in fact that divine spirit is THE Spirit of God, who cannot die.

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).

To me, it seems inseparable concerning this question, that God's command equals Christ's authority/ power.

I tend to think in terms of his human spirit being shed in death, or even, "swallowed up", by his divine spirit. Part of my thinking here follows the fact that, as long as he was temporally bound, he did what he did, no differently than we can do —not by 'his' divine, nor, certainly by his human power, but by God's. But once his human body died, all that temporal compulsion is rendered irrelevant, so I don't know what restrictions remained —who did what, the Father or the Son, or the Spirit— I don't know.

The words bring to mind however, John 1:12, "...to them gave he power to become the sons of God. Even to them that believe on his name." I don't see that as us being given the ability within ourselves to of ourselves become the sons of God. It is still the power of God and not of us. But Christ is God.

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.

I suppose you mean to reference there with that last sentence, the return to (what I call) use of his divine nature. I am puzzled as to your repeated mention of "new birth" concerning Christ. Earlier, you said, "born again", concerning Christ. I see no need to consider him as having actual sin requiring remediation. I don't even know of any indication, other than the fact that he was a member of the human race, that there was sin imputed to him, as is done to the rest of us. I don't see him being a recipient of his own sacrifice, nor needing redemption in any way.

 

[Arial]

Agreed.

Someday we may talk about the "thought processes."

Thought processes and their variation within individuals are a fascinating and wonderful thing. There is such potential for being given a view, or lens through which to see a truth (as long as it remains truth according to scripture) through a perspective that we otherwise would have missed.

The problem of course is getting us off our own high horse long enough to actually listen and catch the beautiful turning of the kaleidoscope. One of my favorite statements about God is the scriptures in Eph 3:8-10 in which the NAS translates verse 10 as "so the multifaceted wisdom of God might now be made known through the church to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenly places."

 

[makesends]

I have stated it precisely so that no door is left open for arriving at teachings that are also skewed.
Do you see any openings in my statement that would allow for arriving at skewed teachings?

I expect you mean something along the lines of, "I have stated it precisely in order that no door is left open for arriving at skewed teachings.", as opposed to what you wrote: "...so that no door is left open..." From my experience, precision attempted involves a lot of words, mostly to say what a thing is not, and can never stated in such a way that there can be no misuse of what is said. In fact, at some point, "the more the words, the less the meaning."

Scripture does not lack for precision, except to our biased and uneducated intellects, yet even it invites misinterpretation.

 

[makesends]

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?

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.

Good thoughts! Thanks!

As to your, "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." I don't know that we can say that a being that suffers cannot be perfect. But I agree that it is reasonable to think, that, "If the divine nature suffers it would have to do so eternally and immutably." (Note: so this may be revealing of at least one valid way to see God's use of this temporal "envelope" and its relationship with the eternal, and also of the unsearchable nature of God.)

A person could counter your use of 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.", with, David's prayer after his adultery and his murder of Uriah and so many other consequent sins, "Against you only have I sinned."
In its most basic analysis, in fact, sin is only against God, and in its weakest analysis, I think, it is still infinitely more against God than against the supposed victim. Thus, I would have to say, as far as aseity and related philosophical attributes of God, "affected" needs definition and discussion.

One of my speculations is that indeed God has been 'damaged' by sin —the only thing that can damage him. And that, by his own design, for the sake of his plans concerning us. The "bruised heel" of Genesis 3 comes to mind. Christ's sacrifice, to include his payment in the 'afterlife', is in some way, I think, never 'over with'. CS Lewis' space trilogy deals with this allegorically. In the second book, the protagonist, cleverly named, "Ransom", is bitten on the heel by the demon-possessed antagonist. In the last book, Ransom appears to be what can only be called 'glorified', yet still in pain with the wound that never heals up.

Theoretically, God being First Cause, the philosophical principle of Aseity declares that he cannot be acted upon by outside forces. True that! Yet we know he answers prayer, and his heart seems to be moved —he would have destroyed the Children of Israel, had not Moses, his servant, stood in the gap between them. But we know he put Moses there, having prepared Moses for that very purpose (among other purposes)! So it is logically permissible for him to be damaged, if the damage was decreed —that is, in some real way, caused, by him.

But certainly, or so it seems to me, here we find things that are so nearly unsearchable that to have any comprehension of explanation it will be by notions that happen upon us, and not by our design to find out! And it is way too easy to engage in what seems reasonable at the expense of truth.

 

[makesends]

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...

Agreed. —and, paradoxically, the day we can't split it rationally, is still temporal. When we see him as he is, the polarity between the two sides of that erstwhile hairsbreadth of difference will reveal a great wide gulf. It is we who must trust words to lead us —words such as "Cause of" vs, "Author of"

 

[Arial]

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins - Ephesians 2:1 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians2:1&version=ESV

It's true that Spiritual Death is not in the Verses, and there's no Verbatim Verse elsewhere in the Bible...

But this is why Systematic Theology is Crucial. All Scripture is Good for Doctrine. The validity of Theology seems to be the most prominent Debate, or Argument, on CCAM Forums these days. Spiritual Death is a Sound Doctrine of the Church. The Argument may be that Spiritual Death is a Doctrine of the Bible instead of the Evangelical Church, so when Liberal Christians challenge the validity of Spiritual Death; Solo Scripturists will defend the Doctrine of Spiritual Death too...

But if they will defend the Doctrine of Spiritual Death; where is the Verbatim Verse for it?

To me it is beginning to beg the question: What does spiritual death mean and what does any given person mean when they use the term?

I think we have probably all heard that term if not from the beginning of our journey at least early on. Has it ever been explained? Or given actual validity within the Bible? It sounds good. It sounds right. And I don't suppose on the surface it causes any harm as there is an element of truthfulness to it at least. But is that element the result of the first---morally dead as I proposed---or vice versa? Or is there really no difference?

Where I see the potential hazard is in @Eleanor suggestion that Jesus had to be reborn was reborn in His resurrection. Though that may just be my understanding of what she was saying by the phrasing. It suggests that on the cross and in His death Jesus and even in His life, He was born in Adam as we are and had actual need of being reborn from being spiritually dead. That His resurrection was Him being reborn in what----Himself? For when we are reborn it is in Christ. To me, that takes the substitution of Himself for us on the cross out of the equation. It becomes in a sense, this death and resurrection of our Savior, an example of being spiritually dead in sins and being raised to life through being spiritually reborn.

And in seeing the death to be a moral death instead of a spiritual death, I see another place where we may miss something. I will do my best to explain it.

I have noticed it to be an issue in my discourse with Armenniaists in particular the not recognizing how far we have fallen, how radical is that fall, and why it is so. A failure to see the vast, uncrossable distance between us and the holiness of God. We think we just need to be raised to spiritual life through faith in Jesus without ever recognizing how deeply needy we are, therefore, not missing salvation, but missing a mighty depth of the majesty and glory and yes, love, that is contained within this redemption that Jesus purchased on the cross.

If we begin to see it as a moral death, if that is what it is, would it bring all our thoughts, and motives, as well as our actions into the picture of ourselves before God and cause us to cry out for sanctification in those places that live within our fallen nature? To not just want visible sin removed from our lives but the very things in us that feed it, that we might glorify Him and live each day worthy of our calling.

The morality or moral code of God being perfect, just, righteous, ---all His character attributes----all the time and in all ways. Perfect. The image we were created to be an analogy of---all the time and in all our ways.

 

[makesends]

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).

Correct.

Bit of a Rabbit trail indeed! If we are without beginning, then God is not first cause. The Mormons, it seems to me, neglect certain necessary logical distinctions, that declare God as not only more powerful but of a different kind of thing, from his creation, to include humanity.