• **Notifications**: Notifications can be dismissed by clicking on the "x" on the righthand side of the notice.
  • **New Style**: You can now change style options. Click on the paintbrush at the bottom of this page.
  • **Donations**: If the Lord leads you please consider helping with monthly costs and up keep on our Forum. Click on the Donate link In the top menu bar. Thanks
  • **New Blog section**: There is now a blog section. Check it out near the Private Debates forum or click on the Blog link in the top menu bar.
  • Welcome Visitors! Join us and be blessed while fellowshipping and celebrating our Glorious Salvation In Christ Jesus.

Did Christ actually suffer eternal torment on our behalf?

Don't love the thought that Jesus became Sin to the point Sin became his Essence, that you stop believing God does not Change...
I would never do such a thing! I am not even pondering the issue, simply addressing it since it came up.
 
I would never do such a thing! I am not even pondering the issue, simply addressing it since it came up.
I don't mean to make you feel accused; please forgive me. It's the way I talk. I meant that for any other Poster who believes Monophysitism; or anything else like it which Changes God; they should Fundamentally reject it...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
How can it not change his essence?
Did it not change Adam's essence, from perfect creation whom God's Spirit indwelled, to corrupt defiled creation from which God's Spirit had to depart (spiritual death)?
It would likewise change the essence of the man Jesus, disqualifying him as the perfect sacrifice.

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...
It changes the essence of our human spirit, from simply the origin/principle of human life (without which there is no human life) to also the principle of God's divine life, imparted in the new birth (without which there is no spiritual--of the Holy Spirit--life), it changes from the essence of sinner and enemy of God to the essence of righteous and adopted son of God.
 
I don't mean to make you feel accused; please forgive me. It's the way I talk. I meant that for any other Poster who believes Monophysitism; or anything else like it which Changes God; they should Fundamentally reject it...
Actually I didn't feel accused and forgive me for wording it as though I did. I too was just clarifying for the readers that I didn't have a question about it. I think we are both familiar enough with the work of the other, that you would not think I was confused on the issue.
 
Actually I didn't feel accused and forgive me for wording it as though I did. I too was just clarifying for the readers that I didn't have a question about it. I think we are both familiar enough with the work of the other, that you would not think I was confused on the issue.
As for Elanor (I can't bring myself to talk to her, but I can answer her through talking to you), I would say that Jesus became Sin by coming as close as he could; without actually Changing Essence. Such as, getting as close as a Hair's Breadth of crossing the line; without crossing the threshold. This is what happened when God became Flesh; he did so without crossing the threshold of Change...

Due to the Doctrine of the Hypostatic Union, the two become One without mixing. This is how God was made Flesh; by Cleaving so close to Christ's Humanity, they may as well have been one. Since God can become Flesh without Changing Essence, the foot is in the door; God can become Sin without BECOMING Sin...

Also, there is the Communicatio Idiomatum to consider; IE the Communication of Properties. The Properties of God are Communicated to Jesus the son of Mary, as if they are the Properties of his Humanity. This is why we can say Jesus is Omnipresent; though it blows the Mind. We may be able to say that our Sin was Communicated to Jesus; as if he were now the Sinner...

These are ways Jesus can be close to being Sin; without Crossing the Line...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It changes the essence of our human spirit, from simply the origin/principle of human life (without which there is no human life) to also the principle of God's divine life, imparted in the new birth (without which there is no spiritual--of the Holy Spirit--life), it changes from the essence of sinner and enemy of God to the essence of righteous and adopted son of God.
I may be wrong but it seems as though as much or more of secular philosophy enters into what you posit as sola scriptura than actual sola scriptura Now some of us have a mind or thought processes that are bent towards philosophizing. I myself do. In part I supposed because I grew up that way with a philosopher father. It is almost obsessively analytical.

But when it over rides or eliminates what the Bible is telling us we come up with all these terms such as one finds in the religions of things like Christian Science, Divine Science, the esoteric, eclectic systems of religion. They are difficult to pinpoint as to the meaning as they mean whatever the one using them gives them, and they veer off the truth.

There is nothing in scripture that actually tells us we ever had a divine spirit or that we lost it, or that the new birth gives it back to us. There is nothing in scripture that tells us we were created with divine life or that such was imparted in Eden, or that God's divine life is a principle. There is nothing in scripture that tells us our essence is ever changed.

Scripture does tell us that God is the source and giver of all life. It tells us we were created without sin or knowledge of evil, but were capable of transgressing the commands of God (sin) and we did. It tells us that as the first man was the federal head of all mankind, (the first and as Adam goes so go all the rest. It is obvious from scripture that this is so. All men sin. We are born in Adam.) It tells us that that being the case, sin (the knowledge of good and evil) dwells in our very nature. We will not sin all the time, but we will sin. God became our enemy and we became the enemy of God. He is holy. We are not.

The Bible shows us that the only way out of this bondage is to have one like us but without sin and without that nature to sin, but also the ability to sin, take the judgement for our sin upon Himself. We are joined to Him through faith in His person and work to save us from our condition. That does not change our essence or our nature, it changes our heart. It does not impart divine life, (that would suggest that we become gods) it places us in Christ who is Life and the Light of the world. It is not until the consummation at the end of the age that the old man we still have is killed.
 
Actually I didn't feel accused and forgive me for wording it as though I did. I too was just clarifying for the readers that I didn't have a question about it. I think we are both familiar enough with the work of the other, that you would not think I was confused on the issue.
Hypostatic Union ~ by ReverendRV * May 20

John 1:1+14 KJV
; In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

This is the account of how Jesus Christ came into being. The Apostle John tells us Jesus is the ‘Word’ of God, and because of this, Jesus is God. There was a moment in time where the God of Creation condescended and entered into his Creation to become a Creature; the Man Jesus of Nazareth. You ask, “But how is that possible? The Bible tells us that God does NOT change!” ~ You are correct; so since God became flesh, this had to be accomplished in such a way that it wouldn’t cause God to Change. There is a Doctrine in Theology called Monophysitism which says that God did change his Essence when he became Flesh; but because God does not change, we know that this Doctrine is wrong. The correct Doctrine is called the Hypostatic Union. This means that God became a Man through a ‘Union’, but this doesn’t cause a change in the Nature of God. ~ Here is an example of a Hypostatic Union, that’s found within the pages of the Bible…

People have been Marrying since the beginning. Because of this, we don’t have a problem understanding that ‘the two become One’. The Bible says, “For this reason a Man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his Wife, and the two shall become One flesh; the Husband will cleave to his Wife'. The Man and Woman do not become a new amalgamation, but their spirits do cleave to the point they become one in a mingling, which is so extensive that their Souls cannot be unwound. Even if you unite yourself with a Harlot, the two have become One. ~ I watched an episode of the television show ‘Mythbusters’. They put the Myth to the test that if you interlace each page of two large telephone books together, you can’t pull them apart. When applying a pulling force, the pages will Cleave to one another through Friction. The Mythbusters played tug-of-war and could not pull them apart. They tied the phone books between two trucks and could not pull them apart. Finally, they tore them asunder between two tanks. This is an example of a Hypostatic Union. The two phone books were essentially ‘one’ because of their cleaving to each other, even though neither phone book became the other phone book. An Atlanta phone number did not become a phone number in a Dallas phone book because of this Union; no change of Essence took place. ~ Jesus is the Godman because of a Hypostatic Union…

Have you kept the Ten Commandments? If you’ve committed Adultery and become united with a Harlot, then you can find Forgiveness for your Sins. Go to God the Father through the Godman Jesus Christ! He is our Advocate; there is no one more suited to mend the broken relationship between Man and God than the Godman himself! Jesus died on the Cross for our Sins so that we will not have to die for our Sins in an Eternal Hell; what a ‘middle man’! Have Faith in the risen Christ as your Savior and you will never be put to shame, you will be Saved from Sin and Hell and you will dwell in the paradise of Heaven. Repent of your Sins, Confess Jesus Christ as your Lord God and read your Bible. ~ But there’s a sad irony; there’re some who call themselves Christians who do not believe that God became flesh. They try to separate the Man from God, or God from the Man; but Separation from God is Death. We Cleave to Jesus Christ through Faith in him…

Matthew 19:6 NKJV; "So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."
 
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.
Well done.

Faith was imputed as the righteousness which justified Abraham.

Therefore, all references to justification necessarily imply imputed righteousness as its cause. (Ro 5:18)

And references to imputed righteousness necessarily imply justification, as in
Ro 1:17, 3:22, 4:3, 6, 13, 5:19, 8:10, 9:30, 10:3, 1 Co 1:30, 2 Co 5:21, Gal 3:6, Php 3:9.

Thanks.
 
Well done.

Faith was imputed as the righteousness which justified Abraham.

Therefore, all references to justification necessarily imply imputed righteousness as its cause. (Ro 5:18)

And references to imputed righteousness necessarily imply justification, as in
Ro 1:17, 3:22, 4:3, 6, 13, 5:19, 8:10, 9:30, 10:3, 1 Co 1:30, 2 Co 5:21, Gal 3:6, Php 3:9.

Thanks.
Thanks for your approval.

It is what I have been saying all along and you keep arguing with me that righteousness and justification are both imputed. Righteousness is imputed. Justification is actual.
 
I may be wrong but it seems as though as much or more of secular philosophy enters into what you posit as sola scriptura than actual sola scriptura
It is from the NT presentation as such that I derive my understanding of the relation of body to human spirit (2 Co 5:1-9),
where the human spirit is presented as the principle of human life, and
the Holy Spirit as both indwelling and the principle of eternal (God's) life within.

I am not inclined to philosophy, you will lose me quickly there.
I am inclined to orthodox Christian theology, where needed by me.
Now some of us have a mind or thought processes that are bent towards philosophizing. I myself do. In part I supposed because I grew up that way with a philosopher father. It is almost obsessively analytical.

But when it over rides or eliminates what the Bible is telling us we come up with all these terms such as one finds in the religions of things like Christian Science, Divine Science, the esoteric, eclectic systems of religion. They are difficult to pinpoint as to the meaning as they mean whatever the one using them gives them, and they veer off the truth.

There is nothing in scripture that actually tells us we ever had a divine spirit or that we lost it, or that the new birth gives it back to us.
No, our immortal spirit is human, not divine, but being a spirit, it is the correspondence with the divine Holy Spirit (Ro 8:16).
Our immortal spirit being the principle of human life (2 Co 5:1-9) gives me to see the locus of the Holy Spirit, who is the principle of eternal life,
to be within my immortal spirit, for the NT presents him as "indwelling," and a "deposit" (2 Co 5:5).
There is nothing in scripture that tells us we were created with divine life or that such was imparted in Eden,
Eternal life is God's life. Jesus gives us eternal life, which is God's life.
Adam lost it in the garden: "Dying, you shall die." Two deaths, spiritual and physical.
Eternal life, God's life, is not located in our bodies, it is located in our immortal spirit, it is our spiritual life (Jn 5:21, Ro 8:9-13, Col 2:13, 1 Jn 4:9, etc.), as distinct from our physical life. Being our spiritual life, I locate it in the human principle of life, the immortal human spirit.
Adam lost it, and we are born without it. It is re-imparted in the new birth (of divine life) within our spirit.
or that God's divine life is a principle.
Principle is origin. God's divine life is the origin of divine life within our immortal human spirit.
There is nothing in scripture that tells us our essence is ever changed.
Because Scripture does not speak of "essence."
Essence is our terminology, which meaning we use in our applications of Scripture.
And I say fallen is a substancial (essential) change in our human nature, altering everything, both physical and spiritual.
Scripture does tell us that God is the source and giver of all life. It tells us we were created without sin or knowledge of evil, but were capable of transgressing the commands of God (sin) and we did.
Scripture tells us that we were born condemned by the imputed sin of Adam (Ro 5:12-14, 28), that we are by nature, objects of wrath (Eph 2:3).
We are born with our nature and objects of wrath..
It tells us that as the first man was the federal head of all mankind, [
"Federal head" is not in my Bible, "First Adam," in contrast to the "Second (Last) Adam," is in my Bible.
The imputation of the sin of the First Adam is the pattern (Ro 5:14) of the imputation of the righteousness of the Second Adam (Ro 5:19), is in my Bible.
 
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.
It doesn't say, "he was sin". It says, "he became sin". I agree it was not his own sins on or in him.
I would never do such a thing! I am not even pondering the issue, simply addressing it since it came up.
Agreed.
 
It is from the NT presentation as such, that I derive my understanding of the relation of body to human spirit (2 Co 5:1-9),
where the human spirit is presented as the principle of human life, and
the Holy Spirit as both indwelling and the principle of eternal (God's) life within.
I am not inclined to philosophy, you will lose me quickly there.
I am inclined to orthodox Christian theology, where needed by me.
The human spirit is not presented as the principle of human life in those passages. They do not present the Holy Spirit as the principle of eternal life within.Those passages are about us awaiting our glorified body that is promised at the consummation. Our hope dwell secure because we have the Holy Spirit who has sealed us in Christ. We bear the stamp (seal) of our King and cannot be separated from His love.

And you are philosophizing when you use that type of language and apply it to what isn't remotely there. Read anything, even just one paragraph of any thing written by a Christian Scientist, Divines Scientist, Buddhist etc and you will find that same language of principle, within and the like.

And what do you mean by "inclined to orthodox Christian theology, where NEEDED by you?" Are you one who just borrows from Christianity and presents as a Christian, but really has your own or some other religion? That is not an accusation it is a question that I think needs to be answered. Full disclosure and all that, so others here no what we are being presented with.
 
No, our immortal spirit is human, not divine, but being a spirit, it is the correspondence with the divine Holy Spirit (Ro 8:16).
Our immortal spirit being the principle of human life (2 Co 5:1-9) gives me to see the locus of the Holy Spirit, who is the principle of eternal life,
to be within my immortal spirit, for the NT presents him as "indwelling," and a "deposit" (2 Co 5:5).
Not a Christian concept or belief, quoted scripture notwithstanding. You overlay your own ideas into the scripture but they are not there.
Eternal life is God's life. Jesus gives us eternal life, which is God's life.
Adam lost it in the garden: "Dying, you shall die." Two deaths, spiritual and physical.
Eternal life, God's life, is not located in our bodies, it is located in our immortal spirit, it is our spiritual life (Jn 5:21, Ro 8:9-13, Col 2:13, 1 Jn 4:9, etc.), as distinct from our physical life. Being our spiritual life, I locate it in the human principle of life, the immortal human spirit.
God doesn't have life, He is life.
Adam did not lost eternal life. Scripture does not say dying you shall die and even if it did it does not mean two deaths. It says nothing about a spiritual death. There is a reason why man had to die once he knew both good and evil, along with everything else in creation had to die. You thing the world is bad now, just think what it would be like if everyone and everything lived forever.

Our spirit life is not distinct from our physical life it is part of us. Where you locate our "spiritual life" (a redundancy) is completely irrelevant to scripture. There is no "principle" of life. Define it.
Principle is origin. God's divine life is the origin of divine life within our immortal human spirit.
God's life doesn't have an origin. He is self existent, undrived, eternal. We do not have that in us ever.He gives us life. It is an analogy of the life that is Him but it is not His life.
Because Scripture does not speak of "essence."
Essence is our terminology, which meaning we use in our applications of Scripture.
And I say fallen is a substancial (essential) change in our human nature, altering everything, both physical and spiritual.
Essence is not the issue.
The fall changed our nature from being able to never sin to not being able to never sin. It did not change our essence it corrupted our desires. We are still the same essence of human beings, full of sinful desires that we act on.
Scripture tells us that we were born condemned by the imputed sin of Adam (Ro 5:12-14, 28), that we are by nature, objects of wrath (Eph 2:3).
We are born with our nature and objects of wrath..
Rom 5 does not tell us that Adam's sin is imputed to us. It tells us that through him sin came into the world and death to all because all sinned. Our will is no longer neutral, it does what it most desires and it desires the sin that is in the world.
"Federal head" is not in my Bible, "First Adam," in contrast to the "Second (Last) Adam," is in my Bible.
The imputation of the sin of the First Adam is the pattern (Ro 5:14) of the imputation of the righteousness of the Second Adam (Ro 5:19), is in my Bible.
But do you know what a federal head is? If you do or if you find out, then you will see that that is what Adam is over all of humanity and then you will see that Jesus is the federal head of all who are in Him. Then maybe you can better understand Romans---

which does not teach that Adam's sin is imputed to us. We each have our very own sin and it is actual. There is a reason why Christ's righteousness must be imputed. I will leave you to figure that out. Our sin was imputed to Him on the cross.
 
It doesn't say, "he was sin". It says, "he became sin". I agree it was not his own sins on or in him.
Which is was from our perspective.
 
The human spirit is not presented as the principle of human life in those passages.
That the human body has no life without its immortal human spirit (2 Co 5:1-9) is all the proof I need that the immortal human spirit is the principle of life for the human body.

I indicated that my understanding of "spiritual life" was predicated on the above Biblical presentation of human life.
They do not present the Holy Spirit as the principle of eternal life within.Those passages are about us awaiting our glorified body that is promised at the consummation. Our hope dwell secure because we have the Holy Spirit who has sealed us in Christ. We bear the stamp (seal) of our King and cannot be separated from His love.

And you are philosophizing when you use that type of language and apply it to what isn't remotely there. Read anything, even just one paragraph of any thing written by a Christian Scientist, Divines Scientist, Buddhist etc and you will find that same language of principle, within and the like.

And what do you mean by "inclined to orthodox Christian theology, where NEEDED by you?"
Actually, I am theologizing.
There is more than one Christian theology out there. I am grounded in orthodox (historical) Christian theology.
Orthodox theology not only explains Scripture, but sometimes presents in non-Scriptural terms what is not explicitly stated in Scripture; e.g., the human spirit as the principle of human life, which is shown in 2 Co 5:1-9, but not explicitly stated in those terms.
It's been longer than I care to mention since I have had recourse to orthodox theology, and would be just fine if it were longer than that again.
The power for me is all in the word of God written, and I have been Sola Scriptura since my rebirth.
Are you one who just borrows from Christianity and presents as a Christian, but really has your own or some other religion? That is not an accusation it is a question that I think needs to be answered. Full disclosure and all that, so others here no what we are being presented with.
Well, the fact of the matter is I was born again 39 years ago by the powerful, breath-taking, mind transforming, in-filling of the Holy Spirit's testimony to me of Scripture as the authoritative word of God.
After studying the Scriptures, I was more than delighted to eventually discover the WCF, for it agreed with my understanding of Scripture.
So I figured that made me a Reformed Christian, and I do love the Reformation.

So you will find my understanding to be pretty much the Reformed understanding of the original WCF, except on divorce.

So with that in mind, no need for us to hammer out Reformed doctrine.
If you do not subscribe to it in any situation, just say so, and we can move on.
 
Last edited:
Not a Christian concept or belief, quoted scripture notwithstanding. You overlay your own ideas into the scripture but they are not there.
Don't we all? Not saying that it is a good thing that we do so, but it is, it seems to me, unavoidable to some degree, in trying to understand Scripture, nevermind in trying to arrange it into something communicable to others.
 
Which is was from our perspective.
True that. Do you mean to say that to imply something I'm probably not seeing?
 
That the human body has no life without its immortal human spirit (2 Co 5:1-9) is all the proof I need that the immortal human spirit is the principle of life for the human body.

I indicated that my understanding of "spiritual life" was predicated on the above Biblical presentation of human life.
There is no scriptural reason to do so. It says what it says in a very straightforward way. You arrive at what you do because you apply words that are not accurate and don't need to be there or anywhere. Such as principle of life for the human body. The scripture isn't even talking about some "principle of life." It is talking about about our hope of what is to come. What does it say in 2 Cor 4 that leads to his saying what he said in 2 Cor 5. He describes the trials and sufferings and persecutions we face and how they are nothing compared to the coming resurrection of all in Christ, and the fact the longer He tarries the more people are reached. And the he begins chapter 5 with "For we know----" and says what he says about our life here and that it is temporary because of the promised coming resurrection.

If all you need to "prove" your hypothesis that the "immortal human spirit is the principle of life for our body" is one scripture isolated from all others, that isn't even talking about any such thing, it might be best to drop the sola scriptura claim.
 
There is no scriptural reason to do so. It says what it says in a very straightforward way. You arrive at what you do because you apply words that are not accurate and don't need to be there or anywhere. Such as principle of life for the human body. The scripture isn't even talking about some "principle of life." It is talking about about our hope of what is to come
As demonstration of my Biblical error, you need to to present a point-by-point explanation of 2 Co 5:1-9, being true to its content and import, to Biblically demonstrate, instead of just assert, my error.

Scripture isn't even talking about two different human bodies in 1 Co 15:35-41.
Scripture isn't even talking about faith in Lk 8:5-8.
Scripture isn't even talking about physical life and death in 2 Co 5:1-9.
 
Back
Top