Did Christ actually suffer eternal torment on our behalf?

[makesends]

It does not mean that he "became "sin, for that would have disqualified him as the perfect sacrifice.

God dealt with him as he must deal with sin, and Christ fulfilled the meaning of the OT guilt offering.

To me it was WHEN he became the perfect sacrifice that sin was imputed to him; if it had been earlier, then, yes, disqualified, but once already "in it", so to speak, I don't see why not.

 

[Eleanor]

Righteousness and justification are not the same thing.

See Ge 15:6 and Ro 4:3.

If you read the scriptures I gave and maybe address them, since that is where the answer to this question is (sola scriptura) you will see that. They say we ARE justified NOW. But obviously we are not perfectly righteous NOW.

It is forensic. God declares us justified.
It is personal. Romans 8:30 Those He predestined, He also called; those He called, He also justified;
Romans 5:1 Therefore, having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Do we have peace with God now? You bet. Does it say those who will be justified? Nope. It says have been

Are you deliberately misrepresenting, or did you misunderstand "personal"?

I am not using "personal" as distinct from "impersonal."
I am using personal as my actual person (character).
Imputed righteousness (justification, Ro 4:3, Ge 15:6)) is a credited, accounted, reckoned righteousness, not an actual righteousness of the person as in sanctification, holiness.

Justification is a forensic righteousness, not an actual righteousness of our person.
That is the meaning of the word dikaiosis.

Ro 8:30, 5:31 do not pertain to our actual righteousness (sanctification), they refer to our imputed , righteousness (justification, dikaiosis),
they pertain to having a clean record with God's justice, he no longer has anything against us, we are at peace with him, no longer under judgment, etc.
Ro 8:30, 5:21 pertain to those whom God has justified; i.e., imputed righteousness, credited with righteousness, accounted as righteous, reckoned as righteous; i.e., in good standing with the court, clean record, no charges pending--forensic righteousness.

.You know, for someone who is constantly saying they go by sola scriptura I don't think you have ever put forth any scripture related to anything you have said. Or addressed any that are given.

Scripture does tell us that righteousness is imputed. It never tells us that justification is imputed.

The imputed righteousness to Abraham (Ge 15:6) is justification (Ro 4;3).

 

[makesends]

Sorry... you will have to go slower for me ... giggle ... perhaps with specifics.

Well, I can hardly get out what I did there, nevermind to explain it! Anyhow, it is speculative language drawn from my use of Scripture, and is not itself Scripture.

But I will try to get the main point stated from another direction. The Simplicity of God implies that God need not do anything but be, in order to do —that for him, they are not separate things. It also implies that his nature is his attributes, not one of them without the others, but all of them descriptions of him (not, as we can't help thinking, "about him"). So, if he suffered, it in is his nature to do so, since it is his nature to love, but worthy objects of his love can only come by way of his suffering. (But again, that is only reasoning, not doctrine, and far from a comprehensive narrative.)

Complete agreement.


Agreed. We 99% of the time we look at thing from our perspective; how does it affect ME; it's all about ME. That's not what it's all about. It's about God; about His pleasure. Hopefully, my pleasure from my perspective is a side affect of His pleasure. Being In Christ would satisfy that wish.
Arminians see about everything from man's point of view; us Reformed guys probably got it down to 95% (giggle)

Amen! Good conversation. Thanks.

 

[Arial]

See Ge 15:6 and Ro 4:3.

Are you deliberately misrepresenting, or did you misunderstand "personal"?

I am not using "personal" as distinct from "impersonal."
I am using personal as my actual person (character).
Imputed righteousness (justification, Ro 4:3, Ge 15:6)) is a credited, accounted, reckoned righteousness, not an actual righteousness of the person as in sanctification, holiness.

Justification is a forensic righteousness, not an actual righteousness of our person.
That is the meaning of the word dikaiosis.

Ro 8:30, 5:31 do not pertain to our actual righteousness (sanctification), they refer to our imputed , righteousness (justification, dikaiosis),
they pertain to having a clean record with God's justice, he no longer has anything against us, we are at peace with him, no longer under judgment, etc.
Ro 8:30, 5:21 pertain to those whom God has justified; i.e., imputed righteousness, credited with righteousness, accounted as righteous, reckoned as righteous; i.e., in good standing with the court, clean record, no charges pending--forensic righteousness.

The imputed righteousness to Abraham (Ge 15:6) is justification (Ro 4;3).

righteousness and justification are not the same thing. It does not matter how many Greek words, or its various meanings you use, they are not the same thing. You give me scriptures pertaining to righteousness not justification. I gave you scriptures pertaining to justification not righteousness. We are not actually righteous but we are actually declared justified. God accepted the penalty Jesus paid for our sins---wiping them out. Those were our sins. The justice of God against them has been satisfied. We are Justified, declared just by the Just Judge. We owe nothing. The wages of our sins has been paid.

 

[Arial]

We all are too glib. I didn't mean it to criticize you, but to explain my reticence.

I'm not so sure it is only a figure of speech, that "he became sin".

Yes, we do know that death could not hold him. I wasn't arguing about that. But you said that if he was actually (not just as a figure of speech) become sin, death could have held him. I don't think we can know that, and infer then that he did not actually become sin for us.

Does death hold sinners that have rejected Christ? It was the power of sin and death that Jesus defeated on the cross. If He actually became sin death would never have let Him go, no one would be redeemed. We certainly can know that. It is the very power of the cross.

 

[makesends]

Does death hold sinners that have rejected Christ? It was the power of sin and death that Jesus defeated on the cross. If He actually became sin death would never have let Him go, no one would be redeemed. We certainly can know that. It is the very power of the cross.

But we don't know what it was (or in your mind, "would be") for Christ to [actually] become sin. There is way too much we don't know to be making such statements. But just for starters, you seem (to me) to suppose him, in this narrative, to become sin first, then to defeat sin, mathematically, then, defeating himself. That's not what it means.

I can't prove it to be actual, and I don't really think it is actual, except perhaps in some undefined sense. But there's a reason it is written that way, and it makes me curious. But FWIW, if you had taken the tack that it IS actual, I would've been pumping you for information, and holding you to the Word for explanation. I'm just saying I don't think you can prove it is NOT actual.

 

[Runningman]

How so?

He bore our sins, but didn't suffer eternal conscious torment for them. Conversely, traditionally, when someone bears their own sins they allegedly suffer eternal conscious torment for them.

 

[ReverendRV]

He bore our sins, but didn't suffer eternal conscious torment for them. Conversely, traditionally, when someone bears their own sins they allegedly suffer eternal conscious torment for them.

I have a Saying, "When an Eternal Being suffers the Punishment of God, the Eternal requirement of Punishment has been Mete"...

 

[makesends]

He bore our sins, but didn't suffer eternal conscious torment for them. Conversely, traditionally, when someone bears their own sins they allegedly suffer eternal conscious torment for them.

How do you know this?


Or maybe I should ask, What is your notion of 'Eternal', after time has ended?

 

[Arial]

But we don't know what it was (or in your mind, "would be") for Christ to [actually] become sin. There is way too much we don't know to be making such statements. But just for starters, you seem (to me) to suppose him, in this narrative, to become sin first, then to defeat sin, mathematically, then, defeating himself. That's not what it means.

So if someone asked you if Jesus was actually sin on the cross you would say maybe, I don't know? The Bible answers that question. It is not a philosophical issue. A person can't be sin without also being sinful. Our sins were placed on Him and He bore the punishment our sins deserve. It was our sins on Him not His own on or in Him.

And the "logic" you lay out which you call mathematical, and attribute it to something I said is nowhere close to anything I put forth. So that is a non starter.

Here is an example of a similar figure of speech. "In his terror at the car falling on Jack, he became Superman and lifted it off." Would that require deep philosophical pondering to figure out what it meant? Would it be impossible to know what it really meant when it said he became Superman? Would we wonder if it were possible that for a moment he really was Superman?

 

[ReverendRV]

So if someone asked you if Jesus was actually sin on the cross you would say maybe, I don't know? The Bible answers that question. It is not a philosophical issue. A person can't be sin without also being sinful. Our sins were placed on Him and He bore the punishment our sins deserve. It was our sins on Him not His own on or in Him.

And the "logic" you lay out which you call mathematical, and attribute it to something I said is nowhere close to anything I put forth. So that is a non starter.

Here is an example of a similar figure of speech. "In his terror at the car falling on Jack, he became Superman and lifted it off." Would that require deep philosophical pondering to figure out what it meant? Would it be impossible to know what it really meant when it said he became Superman? Would we wonder if it were possible that for a moment he really was Superman?

Jesus is the Lamb of God. Jesus became Sin on our behalf. We become the Righteousness of God...

All these are true; as Literary devices...

I have no problem with Believers who think Jesus became Sin in some real sense that doesn't change his Essence. Changing his Essence is the root of the problem, right? Our becoming the Righteousness of God doesn't change our Essence; it's more a change of Status...

Jesus became Sin bearer on our behalf...

 

[Runningman]

How do you know this?


Or maybe I should ask, What is your notion of 'Eternal', after time has ended?

I'm just referring to what the doctrine of eternal conscious torment (ECT) requires. It normally says that people who bear their own sins have live forever in torment in hell. I know this didn't happen to Christ because the Bible provides his present location as being at the right hand of God.

 

[Deleted member 5]

I'm just referring to what the doctrine of eternal conscious torment (ECT) requires. It normally says that people who bear their own sins have live forever in torment in hell.

One must be careful in placing finite criteria on God and His ways. All who are lost will endure an eternal torment beyond human comprehension. And God is just in doing so.

I know this didn't happen to Christ because the Bible provides his present location as being at the right hand of God.

That's apples and oranges.

 

[Wordsmith]

Luke 23:43
And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.

Jesus bore our sin on the cross but He had no sin of His own. The passage above tells us where He when when He died on the cross.

 

[Eleanor]

righteousness and justification are not the same thing. It does not matter how many Greek words, or its various meanings you use, they are not the same thing. You give me scriptures pertaining to righteousness not justification. I gave you scriptures pertaining to justification not righteousness. We are not actually righteous but we are actually declared justified. God accepted the penalty Jesus paid for our sins---wiping them out. Those were our sins. The justice of God against them has been satisfied. We are Justified, declared just by the Just Judge. We owe nothing. The wages of our sins has been paid.

Ro 4:2-3:
"If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works (in Ge 15:6, where righteousness was imputed to Abraham),
he had something to boast about--but not before God.
But what does the Scripture say? (note the standard for truth) 'Abraham believed God and it was credited (imputed) to him as righteousness.' "

The justified (pronounced free from guilt) of Ro 4:2 is the forensic righteousness (sentence of acquittal) of Ro 4:3. They are the same thing.
Forensic righteousness is not actual personal righteousness, it is simply a clean record with the Court--no longer guilty, debt paid, time served, no penalty owing, at peace with God.
Actual righteousness is imparted through obedience in the Holy Spirit, which leads to righteousness leading to holiness (Ro 6:16-19).

 

[Arial]

Jesus is the Lamb of God. Jesus became Sin on our behalf. We become the Righteousness of God...

All these are true; as Literary devices...

I have no problem with Believers who think Jesus became Sin in some real sense that doesn't change his Essence. Changing his Essence is the root of the problem, right? Our becoming the Righteousness of God doesn't change our Essence; it's more a change of Status...

Jesus became Sin bearer on our behalf...

True but he seems to be pondering the question as to whether or not Jesus became sin means He actually was sin, which does change His essence. Jesus bore our sins in the same sense as the scapegoat did or the sacrificial lamb. Without spot or blemish. The sins of the people were not actually in them. He bore them away from us except as the final sacrifice, and the blood of the new covenant, He took the full actual penalty for our sins upon His flesh, flesh like ours. Our sins were on Him, not in Him.

 

[ReverendRV]

True but he seems to be pondering the question as to whether or not Jesus became sin means He actually was sin, which does change His essence. Jesus bore our sins in the same sense as the scapegoat did or the sacrificial lamb. Without spot or blemish. The sins of the people were not actually in them. He bore them away from us except as the final sacrifice, and the blood of the new covenant, He took the full actual penalty for our sins upon His flesh, flesh like ours. Our sins were on Him, not in Him.

I get it...

That's why I'm glad I am a Fundamentalist. God cannot Change, therefore we're not destroyed. This means Jesus HAD to change in a way that doesn't change his Essence. Monophysitism says Christ's body Changed God's Essence; therefore Monophysitism has to be wrong...

We should All be Fundamentalists; but in a good way...


Don't love the thought that Jesus became Sin to the point Sin became his Essence, that causes you to stop believing God does not Change...

 

[ReverendRV]

True but he seems to be pondering the question as to whether or not Jesus became sin means He actually was sin, which does change His essence. Jesus bore our sins in the same sense as the scapegoat did or the sacrificial lamb. Without spot or blemish. The sins of the people were not actually in them. He bore them away from us except as the final sacrifice, and the blood of the new covenant, He took the full actual penalty for our sins upon His flesh, flesh like ours. Our sins were on Him, not in Him.

Arial, it's like how God became Flesh; God can become something without Essentially BECOMING it...

 

[Arial]

Ro 4:2-3:
"If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works (in Ge 15:6, where righteousness was imputed to Abraham),
he had something to boast about--but not before God.
But what does the Scripture say? (note the standard for truth) 'Abraham believed God and it was credited (imputed) to him as righteousness.' "

The justified (pronounced free from guilt) of Ro 4:2 is the forensic righteousness (sentence of acquittal) of Ro 4:3. They are the same thing.
Forensic righteousness is not actual personal righteousness, it is simply a clean record with the Court--no longer guilty, debt paid, time served, no penalty owing, at peace with God.
Actual righteousness is imparted through obedience in the Holy Spirit, which leads to righteousness leading to holiness (Ro 6:16-19).

It takes righteousness to be justified. The righteousness we have is not ours but Christ's, counted as ours through faith.
Because of this righteousness of Christ that went to the cross and bore our sins our unrighteousness no longer brings condemnation before the judgment seat of God.
The righteousness is imputed but the conditions of justification---made just before God---are completed by Jesus taking their just judgement for us, therefore we are justified (reconciled to) before God now. We are sanctified (gradually putting sin to death in us) as to actual righteousness but we are not sanctified (a gradual process) to justification. If we were not justified by God's decree now, sin could still condemn us. Our justification is not simply being pronounced justified, in Christ we are free from guilt. Jesus paid that debt. If God makes a forensic (legal) declaration of justified it means He is satisfied, not with what we do but with what Jesus did for us.

Imputed righteousness is not obedience to the Holy Spirit (that is sanctification.) Imputed righteousness is Jesus' righteousness counted as though it is our own, which is the very things that brings about actual justification.

 

[Arial]

Arial, it's like how God became Flesh; God can become something without Essentially BECOMING it...

I know. I'm not the one questioning the whole thing.