Did Christ actually suffer eternal torment on our behalf?

[makesends]

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.

Yet, here, it seems to me, you demand others do as you do, and see things as you see them. Is that not the very thing you mean to criticize in @Eleanor ?

 

[Eleanor]

With that, I agree completely.

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.)

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.

Agreed.
All spirits are immortal--divine, angelic and human.
The divine (Holy) Spirit of Christ's divine (as distinct from his human) nature did not, and cannot, die.
Rather, spiritual death is the absence of God's divine eternal life within the immortal human spirit, which eternal life Adam possessed and lost for us.
Spiritual death is not death of the immortal human spirit.
While the re-birth is the re-impartation by the Holy Spirit of God's divine eternal life within the immortal human spirit.

For the "lurkers," the map looks like this:
Adam was born with eternal (God's own divine) life within his immortal human spirit.
Adam lost that eternal life within his immortal spirit, which is the meaning of spiritual death.
Spiritual death does not mean death of the immortal human spirit, it means loss of God's divine eternal life within the immortal human spirit.
This is where the confusion lies.
All Adam's descendants are now born in spiritual death; i.e., absence of eternal life within their immortal human spirit.
That spiritual (God's divine eternal) life is re-imparted in the sovereign re-birth by the Holy Spirit.
So the map is:

sin--->loss of eternal life in immortal human spirit--->spiritual death--->be-birth--->faith--->remedy for sin

Christ has two natures, human and divine.
Therefore, Christ has two immortal spirits, human and divine.
As in the human believer, the Holy Spirit dwells within the immortal human spirit of Christ,
whereas in Christ's divine nature, the Holy Spirit is his spirit, as the Holy Spirit is the Father's spirit.

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.

His human spirit would have been shed in death in the sense that our human spirit is shed in death, where the human spirit of the believer goes to be with Christ/God when it is separated from its body.
So would not his human spirit at the death of his body be with God, keeping its identity as his human spirit, while his divine nature and (Holy) spirit is not altered by the death of his body with its separation from his human spirit?
For spirits are immortal, they cannot die.

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.

The word (exousia) there also means right (as in 2 Th 3:9) the right (authority) to become sons of God.

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.

We run into again, the confusion caused by the meaning of spiritual death as simply loss of eternal life within the immortal human spirit.

Actually, new birth is remediation of the loss of God's divine eternal life within the immortal human spirit, which loss was caused by sin.
So re-birth into eternal life again is remediation of spiritual death (loss of eternal life), as distinct from sin.
While faith is remediation of the sin which caused the loss of God's divine eternal life within the immortal human spirit.
Born again is not about remediation of sin, but about remediation of loss of eternal life which was caused by sin.

So if we posit "spiritual death" for Christ, which cannot be death of his immortal spirit (and which is not its meaning),
but rather is loss of eternal life within his immortal human spirit, and which loss of eternal life is remedied in the new birth,
then what is the remedy for the posited spiritual death (loss of eternal life) of Christ's immortal human spirit?

 

[makesends]

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.

There is an awful lot we don't know. I've heard several different takes on the relationship of body, soul, spirit, mind, consciousness, conscience, etc, in a human, but never in complete agreement with the others. We just don't know. I'm not saying that we know nothing, but how can we know how God's judgement of us works, and how things will be concerning these, when our eyes are opened and our bodies glorified, our very selves changed? And more remotely, how can we know what, exactly, it is, that goes to Hell? How do we know quite what death is, that is thrown into the LOF? What are the implications of Death and Hell being thrown into the LOF? We don't know much. It's easier to say what we think it is not, than what it is.

I often find myself realizing @Eleanor is onto something, but unable to present it comprehensively, or sometimes even compellingly. So far, I agree with you, concerning the regeneration of Christ, and my objections to what she said are not resolved. But she alone, of all those responding to this thread, has introduced a notion I had never considered: yet may be relevant, though poorly stated: It may well be that "Regeneration" is a more literally thing than we have understood —more closely related to resurrection than to our temporal existence, perhaps, yet still with a difference from the glorification of (at least) our bodies, when we see him as he is, (just as Jesus demonstrated immediately after his resurrection).

I don't think she is talking about him temporally (i.e. while a man on earth) being in need of regeneration. I'm guessing (and hoping) she is thinking in terms of the fact that our sin literally became his; HE was blamed for what we did, our guilt was laid on him —it even says he became sin— and he paid the penalty and had to be raised from that legal death. —No doubt there are better words to say what she means, and certainly there are to say what I mean.

 

[makesends]

Agreed.
All spirits are immortal--divine, angelic and human. The divine (Holy) Spirit of Christ's divine (as distinct from his human) nature did not, and cannot, die.
Spiritual death is the absence of God's divine eternal life within the immortal human spirit, which eternal life Adam possessed and lost for us.
Spiritual death is not death of the immortal human spirit.
While the re-birth is the re-impartation by the Holy Spirit of God's divine eternal life within the immortal human spirit.

For the "lurkers," the map looks like this:
Adam was born with eternal (God's own divine) life within his immortal human spirit.
Adam lost that eternal life within his immortal spirit, which is the meaning of spiritual death.
Spiritual death does not mean death of the immortal human spirit, it means loss of God's divine eternal life within the immortal human spirit.
This is where the confusion lies.
All Adam's descendants are now born in spiritual death; i.e., absence of eternal life within their immortal human spirit.
That spiritual (God's divine eternal) life is re-imparted in the sovereign re-birth by the Holy Spirit.
So the map is:

sin--->loss of eternal life in immortal human spirit--->spiritual death--->be-birth--->faith--->remedy for sin

Christ has two natures, human and divine.
Therefore, Christ has two immortal spirits, human and divine.
As in the human believer, the Holy Spirit dwells within the immortal human spirit of Christ,
whereas in Christ's divine nature, the Holy Spirit is his spirit, as the Holy Spirit is the Father's spirit.

His human spirit would have been shed in death in the sense that our human spirit is shed in death, where the human spirit of the believer goes to be with Christ/God when it is separated from its body.
So would not his human spirit at the death of his body be with God, keeping its identity as his human spirit, while his divine nature and (Holy) spirit is not altered by the death of his body with its separation from his human spirit?
For spirits are immortal, they cannot die.

The word (exousia) there also means right (as in 2 Th 3:9) the right (authority) to become sons of God.

We run into again, the confusion caused by the meaning of spiritual death as simply loss of eternal life within the immortal human spirit.

Actually, new birth is remediation of the loss of God's divine eternal life within the immortal human spirit, which loss was caused by sin.
So re-birth into eternal life again is remediation of spiritual death (loss of eternal life), as distinct from sin.
While faith is remediation of the sin which caused the loss of God's divine eternal life within the immortal human spirit.
Born again is not about remediation of sin, but about remediation of loss of eternal life which was caused by sin.

So if we posit "spiritual death" for Christ, which cannot be death of his immortal spirit (and which is not its meaning), but rather is loss of eternal life within his immortal human spirit, and which loss of eternal life is remedied in the new birth,
then what is the remedy for the posited spiritual death of Christ's immortal human spirit?

I think there are things I want to respond to here, but they will take quite of bit of cogitation. I don't have the time available to dedicate to it justice right now, but THANKS for the great discussion.

 

[makesends]

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.

Already, and not yet.

 

[Eleanor]

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.

Thanks. You know I'm sort of a bottom-liner.

So for me it's not so much about theory as it is about reality.
So I prefer an example of such possible imprecision rather than the possibility of it.
(And you would be the perfect person to come up with half a dozen that I probably couldn't understand.)
Takes all the speculation out of the issue.

But for my sake, don't let anything slip by.

 

[Eleanor]

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.

Oh, no!

Eleanor is not proposing any change in the human spirit of Jesus.
She is outside the box responding to suggestions presented regarding the spirit of Jesus and the consequences of such suggestions.
Eleanor is 100% Sola Scriptura, but it seems here it would be appropriate to add and all of Scriptura, which seems to be more of an issue.

You can count on the fact that if it is not presented in Scripture, she will not be presenting it as Biblical truth.
In any part of the post to which you were referring, which was speculation in response to speculation, anything stated in agreement with Scripture was not a matter of her speculation.

 

[Arial]

There is an awful lot we don't know. I've heard several different takes on the relationship of body, soul, spirit, mind, consciousness, conscience, etc, in a human, but never in complete agreement with the others. We just don't know. I'm not saying that we know nothing, but how can we know how God's judgement of us works, and how things will be concerning these, when our eyes are opened and our bodies glorified, our very selves changed? And more remotely, how can we know what, exactly, it is, that goes to Hell? How do we know quite what death is, that is thrown into the LOF? What are the implications of Death and Hell being thrown into the LOF? We don't know much. It's easier to say what we think it is not, than what it is.

Oh I agree. At the same time, when we are being doctrinal, I think we need to be careful how we view things, or at least how we say them. Which is itself a bit of a conundrum because who knows what a person is thinking in their head by the words they use, or how the other person hears them? We can only do the best that we can do.

Some things are just too big, too far outside of anything in which we have to compare it, for us. Nevertheless we need to also do due diligence in learning and understanding what we are given by Him. One of the things my hope rests on in the anguish over my smallness and limitations is this: Now we see through a glass darkly, but then face to face. Then we will know even as we are known. Then finally, finally, I will be able to worship Him in the way in which He truly deserves, without all the self serving, self deceiving, corruption of thought and motive, of the old man that still resides in us though is powerless, poking like thorns at every hallelujah.

It may well be that "Regeneration" is a more literally thing than we have understood —more closely related to resurrection than to our temporal existence, perhaps, yet still with a difference from the glorification of (at least) our bodies, when we see him as he is, (just as Jesus demonstrated immediately after his resurrection).

Oh the regeneration is very literal and as scripture says it is the same power that raised Jesus from the dead. It is the very hand of God if you will, reaching into us and replacing our bad heart with a good heart. It is an actual event. And though that can only be said in figurative language, it is very literal. But I do not think that that is the same thing that occurred with Jesus in the resurrection. It is just that same power. The same Holy Spirit. (We often if not always see the Holy Spirit doing/applying the power of God.)

I don't think she is talking about him temporally (i.e. while a man on earth) being in need of regeneration. I'm guessing (and hoping) she is thinking in terms of the fact that our sin literally became his; HE was blamed for what we did, our guilt was laid on him —it even says he became sin— and he paid the penalty and had to be raised from that legal death. —No doubt there are better words to say what she means, and certainly there are to say what I mean.

It was imputed sin imo, just as we are not actually righteous in all we do but are counted as righteous because Christ's righteousness is imputed to us. He bore the penalty for our sins. He had none. He was not blamed for what we did. He took our punishment for us in our place. He died as Son of man, one of us, because that is the just penalty for our sins. He was raised to life because there was no sin in Him, and therefore death could not hold Him. In this way He defeated the power of sin and death over His people. Sin can no longer condemn us to death and the wrath of God. Jesus has satisfied God's justice against those sins.

 

[Arial]

Yet, here, it seems to me, you demand others do as you do, and see things as you see them. Is that not the very thing you mean to criticize in @Eleanor ?

You are mistaken and ought not make such an accusation. I was not even criticising anyone. And I certainly was not demanding anything of anyone.

 

[Eleanor]

There is an awful lot we don't know. I've heard several different takes on the relationship of body, soul, spirit, mind, consciousness, conscience, etc, in a human, but never in complete agreement with the others. We just don't know. I'm not saying that we know nothing, but how can we know how God's judgement of us works, and how things will be concerning these, when our eyes are opened and our bodies glorified, our very selves changed? And more remotely, how can we know what, exactly, it is, that goes to Hell? How do we know quite what death is, that is thrown into the LOF? What are the implications of Death and Hell being thrown into the LOF? We don't know much. It's easier to say what we think it is not, than what it is.

I often find myself realizing @Eleanor is onto something, but unable to present it comprehensively, or sometimes even compellingly. So far, I agree with you, concerning the regeneration of Christ, and my objections to what she said are not resolved. But she alone, of all those responding to this thread, has introduced a notion I had never considered: yet may be relevant, though poorly stated: It may well be that "Regeneration" is a more literally thing than we have understood —more closely related to resurrection than to our temporal existence, perhaps, yet still with a difference from the glorification of (at least) our bodies, when we see him as he is, (just as Jesus demonstrated immediately after his resurrection).

I don't think she is talking about him temporally (i.e. while a man on earth) being in need of regeneration. I'm guessing (and hoping) she is thinking in terms of the fact that our sin literally became his; HE was blamed for what we did, our guilt was laid on him —it even says he became sin— and he paid the penalty and had to be raised from that legal death. —No doubt there are better words to say what she means, and certainly there are to say what I mean.N, now everyone should be able to see why I have prevailed upon him to be my editor.

Everyone should be able to understand now why I have prevailed upon him to be my editor.

First of all, let me emphasize that my discussion with @makesends here is speculative, showing what would in my view be the conclusion of his speculative notions.

Do not confuse that speculative conversation with him as a statement of my beliefs. Far from it! He is trafficking outside my Biblical understanding in his thoroughness of examination, and I am giving him conclusions of those speculations, which is not a claim to the Biblical reality of them.

 

[fastfredy0]

You have a lot of deep thoughts and solid foundational knowledge IMO. I think I'm in agreement with you....a couple times you wrote what I would have. I.E. I like Job 35:7-8 to go to.

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.

God is immutable so I don't see how His heart could be "moved" which I am assuming means He changed. Similarly, to damage God would involve change. Now, I suppose God could be eternally, immutably "moved" by His plan to get Moses to do "X" or "Y", but the source of His unchanging eternal "being moved" would be Himself and knowledge of what He had/is/will do. (Aside: God needs to give me a bigger brain so I can guess better as to what His essence entails)
Love the idea that God "put Moses there". I like to think that when God answers prayer to be granted for "X" it is because He caused us to pray for "X"... of course God could cause us to ask for "X" knowing He won't answer in the affirmative.

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.

Excellent summary. Fun to guess. Hope God doesn't get too 'ticked' as we usually get it wrong, like Job.

 

[Eleanor]

it is way too easy to engage in what seems reasonable at the expense of truth.

"Atta' boy!"

 

[Eleanor]

I think there are things I want to respond to here, but they will take quite of bit of cogitation. I don't have the time available to dedicate to it justice right now, but THANKS for the great discussion.

There is an awful lot we don't know. I've heard several different takes on the relationship of body, soul, spirit, mind, consciousness, conscience, etc, in a human, but never in complete agreement with the others. We just don't know. I'm not saying that we know nothing, but how can we know how God's judgement of us works, and how things will be concerning these, when our eyes are opened and our bodies glorified, our very selves changed? And more remotely, how can we know what, exactly, it is, that goes to Hell? How do we know quite what death is, that is thrown into the LOF? What are the implications of Death and Hell being thrown into the LOF? We don't know much. It's easier to say what we think it is not, than what it is.

I often find myself realizing @Eleanor is onto something, but unable to present it comprehensively, or sometimes even compellingly. So far, I agree with you, concerning the regeneration of Christ, and my objections to what she said are not resolved. But she alone, of all those responding to this thread, has introduced a notion I had never considered: yet may be relevant, though poorly stated: It may well be that "Regeneration" is a more literally thing than we have understood —more closely related to resurrection than to our temporal existence,

Birth is introduction of life.

Rebirth is the "resurrection" (re-impartation) of eternal life within our immortal human spirit.

I suggest it is the meaning of the "first resurrection" in Rev 20:4-6.

Maybe when I mention a concept not clear to you, you should stop me then and there and have me explain it, because all this stuff is so familiar to me, I do not realize it is not the same to everyone else.

I'm beginning to appreciate more and more my grounding in orthodox theology.

perhaps, yet still with a difference from the glorification of (at least) our bodies, when we see him as he is, (just as Jesus demonstrated immediately after his resurrection).

I don't think she is talking about him temporally (i.e. while a man on earth) being in need of regeneration. I'm guessing (and hoping) she is thinking in terms of the fact that our sin literally became his; HE was blamed for what we did, our guilt was laid on him —it even says he became sin— and he paid the penalty and had to be raised from that legal death. —No doubt there are better words to say what she means, and certainly there are to say what I mean.

 

[Eleanor]

There is an awful lot we don't know. I've heard several different takes on the relationship of body, soul, spirit, mind, consciousness, conscience, etc, in a human, but never in complete agreement with the others. We just don't know. I'm not saying that we know nothing, but how can we know how God's judgement of us works, and how things will be concerning these, when our eyes are opened and our bodies glorified, our very selves changed? And more remotely, how can we know what, exactly, it is, that goes to Hell? How do we know quite what death is, that is thrown into the LOF? What are the implications of Death and Hell being thrown into the LOF? We don't know much. It's easier to say what we think it is not, than what it is.

I often find myself realizing @Eleanor is onto something, but unable to present it comprehensively, or sometimes even compellingly. So far, I agree with you, concerning the regeneration of Christ, and my objections to what she said are not resolved.

I am dying to know to what you are referring here.

But she alone, of all those responding to this thread, has introduced a notion I had never considered: yet may be relevant, though poorly stated: It may well be that "Regeneration" is a more literally thing than we have understood —more closely related to resurrection than to our temporal existence,

Regeneration (re-birth) is, if you will, the "resurrection" of eternal life within our immortal human spirit, which Adam lost for us.
I see Rev 20:4-6 referring to exactly that.

"perhaps, yet still with a difference from the glorification of (at least) our bodies, when we see him as he is, (just as Jesus demonstrated immediately after his resurrection).

I don't think she is talking about him temporally (i.e. while a man on earth) being in need of regeneration. I'm guessing (and hoping) she is thinking in terms of the fact that our sin literally became his; HE was blamed for what we did, our guilt was laid on him —it even says he became sin— and he paid the penalty and had to be raised from that legal death. —No doubt there are better words to say what she means, and certainly there are to say what I mean.

Actually, her bottom line here is that Jesus did not suffer spiritual death (loss of eternal life within his immortal human spirit) on the cross.

Because when you parse it out, it concludes in the absurdity that then Jesus would also require redemption.
Because it is only by redemption that the eternal life which Adam lost is, by the new birth, again restored to our immortal human spirits.

 

[makesends]

Oh I agree. At the same time, when we are being doctrinal, I think we need to be careful how we view things, or at least how we say them. Which is itself a bit of a conundrum because who knows what a person is thinking in their head by the words they use, or how the other person hears them? We can only do the best that we can do.

Some things are just too big, too far outside of anything in which we have to compare it, for us. Nevertheless we need to also do due diligence in learning and understanding what we are given by Him. One of the things my hope rests on in the anguish over my smallness and limitations is this: Now we see through a glass darkly, but then face to face. Then we will know even as we are known. Then finally, finally, I will be able to worship Him in the way in which He truly deserves, without all the self serving, self deceiving, corruption of thought and motive, of the old man that still resides in us though is powerless, poking like thorns at every hallelujah.

yep

Oh the regeneration is very literal and as scripture says it is the same power that raised Jesus from the dead. It is the very hand of God if you will, reaching into us and replacing our bad heart with a good heart. It is an actual event. And though that can only be said in figurative language, it is very literal. But I do not think that that is the same thing that occurred with Jesus in the resurrection. It is just that same power. The same Holy Spirit. (We often if not always see the Holy Spirit doing/applying the power of God.)

Agreed. But in the human use of "event" we tend to think of "begun and done" time passage. While I agree it is indeed an event, the time passage is irrelevant. It is causal, both in the work of God to do it, and in the necessary effects resulting, which to us we still see as time-sequence as if that gives it definition. I'm not so sure that 'time' is at all relevant, but causal sequence is. But, what's the brain to do with that thought, now?

It was imputed sin imo, just as we are not actually righteous in all we do but are counted as righteous because Christ's righteousness is imputed to us. He bore the penalty for our sins. He had none. He was not blamed for what we did. He took our punishment for us in our place. He died as Son of man, one of us, because that is the just penalty for our sins. He was raised to life because there was no sin in Him, and therefore death could not hold Him. In this way He defeated the power of sin and death over His people. Sin can no longer condemn us to death and the wrath of God. Jesus has satisfied God's justice against those sins.

Amen that!

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
There is an awful lot we don't know. I've heard several different takes on the relationship of body, soul, spirit, mind, consciousness, conscience, etc, in a human, but never in complete agreement with the others. We just don't know. I'm not saying that we know nothing, but how can we know how God's judgement of us works, and how things will be concerning these, when our eyes are opened and our bodies glorified, our very selves changed? And more remotely, how can we know what, exactly, it is, that goes to Hell? How do we know quite what death is, that is thrown into the LOF? What are the implications of Death and Hell being thrown into the LOF? We don't know much. It's easier to say what we think it is not, than what it is.

I often find myself realizing @Eleanor is onto something, but unable to present it comprehensively, or sometimes even compellingly. So far, I agree with you, concerning the regeneration of Christ, and my objections to what she said are not resolved.

I am dying to know to what you are referring here.

I'm not sure which you are asking about —the first paragraph above, or the second, in particular, what objections I have that are not resolved?

I was thinking of the fact I hadn't gotten your answer yet to my questions concerning what you said, that sounded like Jesus needed redemption, which you do resolve for me below, and that, in beautiful fashion. I love it.

Regeneration (re-birth) is, if you will, the "resurrection" of eternal life within our immortal human spirit, which Adam lost for us.
I see Rev 20:4-6 referring to exactly that.

Actually, her bottom line here is that Jesus did not suffer spiritual death (loss of eternal life within his immortal human spirit) on the cross.

Because when you parse it out, it concludes in the absurdity that then Jesus would also require redemption.
Because it is only by redemption that the eternal life which Adam lost is, by the new birth, again restored to our immortal human spirits.

Your logic is impeccable here, though I find it necessary to point out to anyone reading, that when you say, "Jesus did not suffer spiritual death (loss of life within his immortal human spirit) on the cross", it does not mean that he did not pay our penalty in hell. I think, at least, that I do not hear you saying that his physical death alone was the payment.

 

[makesends]

Oh the regeneration is very literal and as scripture says it is the same power that raised Jesus from the dead. It is the very hand of God if you will, reaching into us and replacing our bad heart with a good heart. It is an actual event. And though that can only be said in figurative language, it is very literal. But I do not think that that is the same thing that occurred with Jesus in the resurrection. It is just that same power. The same Holy Spirit. (We often if not always see the Holy Spirit doing/applying the power of God.)

Very well put. Thank you.

It was imputed sin imo, just as we are not actually righteous in all we do but are counted as righteous because Christ's righteousness is imputed to us. He bore the penalty for our sins. He had none. He was not blamed for what we did. He took our punishment for us in our place. He died as Son of man, one of us, because that is the just penalty for our sins. He was raised to life because there was no sin in Him, and therefore death could not hold Him. In this way He defeated the power of sin and death over His people. Sin can no longer condemn us to death and the wrath of God. Jesus has satisfied God's justice against those sins.

So does the fact it was imputed sin (and I agree with that), deny or define what it means by saying, "He became sin..."?

 

[makesends]

You are mistaken and ought not make such an accusation. I was not even criticising anyone. And I certainly was not demanding anything of anyone.

My bad then. Maybe I'm overly protective of @Eleanor

 

[makesends]

You have a lot of deep thoughts and solid foundational knowledge IMO. I think I'm in agreement with you....a couple times you wrote what I would have. I.E. I like Job 35:7-8 to go to.

God is immutable so I don't see how His heart could be "moved" which I am assuming means He changed. Similarly, to damage God would involve change. Now, I suppose God could be eternally, immutably "moved" by His plan to get Moses to do "X" or "Y", but the source of His unchanging eternal "being moved" would be Himself and knowledge of what He had/is/will do. (Aside: God needs to give me a bigger brain so I can guess better as to what His essence entails)
Love the idea that God "put Moses there". I like to think that when God answers prayer to be granted for "X" it is because He caused us to pray for "X"... of course God could cause us to ask for "X" knowing He won't answer in the affirmative.

I can't begin to describe the notion that comes to mind, that involves the very nature of God. I've read some try to glibly express it, and not only do they fall short, but they raise up the bile in me that they should think their descriptions adequate:

One way to put it would go something like this: That God's very nature is so "literal" that his love implies self-sacrifice. (One might even get that idea (and several other themes), from the physical principle of entropy.) This notion fits very well with many other ideas, such as in the Simplicity of God, that he does not have to consider or even decide, but instead, that for him, to be is to act. For me, it also renders many Scripture passages more than simply conceptual or abstract.

Excellent summary. Fun to guess. Hope God doesn't get too 'ticked' as we usually get it wrong, like Job.

It is one of my happy thoughts, though painful with the irony, that God "from eternity past", knowing the horror and pain, not only allowed for it but planned it in every unhappy detail —he CAUSED it, for the joy that was before him. (AND, this is one of my many reasons to discard Arminianistic constructions and speak against their mindsets. For eg, no matter whether I have wasted time, even years, in unGodly pursuits, the time "lost" is not wasted time; God has not wasted it —he used it and I am precisely where he had planned all along for me to be at this moment.)

 

[Arial]

My bad then. Maybe I'm overly protective of @Eleanor

I am sure there is a reason for that and a good one. Just be careful not to jump all over someone else for being themselves, doing things in their way or disagreeing with her, in the process. It tends to stir up hard feelings and discord, people being what they are.

Thanks for the apology. No hard feelings on my side.