• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Did Jesus Actually Go To hell, as per The Creeds?

Aaron

Member
Site Supporter
Not at all what I am saying.
Maybe not intentionally, but you can't escape that conclusion. Which death is it from which we are saved? Obviously not physical death.

Which judgment was it that He bore? Obviously not the earthly judgments. Whatever is sown is what is reaped.

The death from which we are saved is the Second Death, and the judgment from which we are saved is the eternal judgment.

That is what is signified by Paul's use of the phrase "the Cross." It's metonymy. He doesn't mean there is anything about the location or wooden tree. He is referring to the concept signified by it, which is the curse and punishment reserved for sinners.
 

percho

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
There serious problems raised by those who insist that Christ had to do anything beyond the Cross. It goes counter to Scripture. This is excerpted from my article. I took out the parts that are not as relevant for this thread.

WHAT HAPPENED AT THE CROSS?
A closer look at 1st Peter 3:18

"For Christ also has once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:"

Notice these details from the verse:
1. Against those who say He suffered twice (since he "died" twice), the verse teaches Christ "suffered once for sins".

2. His suffering for sin was substitutionary ("the just for the unjust"). As an aside: This proves against the Word of Faith teachers (not the focus of this article) that there was no saving suffering of Christ in Hell.

3. His death (singular) is pointedly said to be "in the flesh", not "in the spirit". If Christ did indeed die spiritually, this verse would seem to have said something at this point. It doesn't. The argument of theirs is an argument from silence.

It is not surprising that we have often recourse to Peter's letter, and to Colossians, in combating this issue. Those letters were written to correct gnostic heresies, and the error facing us here is also a gnostic one. The teaching that Christ died spiritually (or that He died twice) is essentially Gnostic because it isn't part of explicit doctrine, it is (say some) implied. By contrast, all the verses that teach of the Lord Christ's death for us, use outward and visible concepts: Blood, stripes, cross, tree, etc.

5. CHRIST'S SAVING DEATH A PHYSICAL DEATH WITH SPIRITUAL IMPACT

" O foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ has been evidently set forth, crucified among you? This only would I learn of you, did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?"

Apparently, only the image of Christ's physical death (as preached by Paul) was all the Galatians needed to anchor their faith on. It was from this "hearing of faith" that they received the Spirit. I really believe the basis for our faith is as simple as this. We are the ones that complicate it by obscuring details and convoluted speculations. God purposely set forth a simple means, a humbling means, of forgiveness and entrance into life eternal, the simple and shameful cross of Christ.

There are many other verses that could be studied to show the importance of Christ’s physical death, and the saving benefits to the saints that came to us through that death. Another example is Eph. 2:15

“Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of two one new man, so making peace;”

Notice: Jews and Gentiles were alienated from each other (this is one of two estrangements spoken of in this passage, the other being man’s alienation from God). Where were Jew and Gentile brought together? In the spirit of Christ? No, “in His flesh”.

As stated earlier, He is our perfect, but not our total, substitute: He fulfilled all righteousness (Matt. 3:15), but did not partake of all sin. "He tasted death for every man" (Heb. 2:9), but did not sin unto death. Yet that is what merits the penalty of spiritual death! (James 1: 15)

All Christ had to do was die. I will let the rest of you qualify die for I do not believe that is necessary. Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
Course I could list many. He also had to be given life again by being raised or the dead in Christ would be without hope just like all others.

For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep (dead) in Christ are perished.

Why, because if Christ is not raised he also is perished. (Death the wages of sin)

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The Word was made flesh. But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, This is he that came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. who, being in the form of God, thought [it] not robbery to be equal to God, but did empty himself.

The form of a servant having taken, in the likeness of men having been made, and in fashion having been found as a man, he humbled himself, having become obedient unto death -- death even of a cross,

The sinless one Christ died for our sins.
 

Aaron

Member
Site Supporter
having become obedient unto death -- death even of a cross
"Even the death of the cross."

Ignominy of the Cross was not its physical torture, torturous as it was. The ignominy was its curse. No, Christ did not simply have to die. A death by stoning would not carry with it the curse. He had to die the death of the Cross.
 

percho

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
"Even the death of the cross."

Ignominy of the Cross was not its physical torture, torturous as it was. The ignominy was its curse. No, Christ did not simply have to die. A death by stoning would not carry with it the curse. He had to die the death of the Cross.

The word even in Philippians 2:8 carries much significance, even the death of the cross. Called the shame of the cross in Hebrews 12:2.

I totally agree with you.
 

percho

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Being Christ died for our sins.

Being this also is the word of God: And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

Does this judgement take place at death or some future time?
I charge therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;

And Peter said David was speaking of the dead Christ here. that his soul was not left in hell,(Hades, the realm of the dead. Could be the grave, the sea, cremated, outer space if there have been astronauts lost that way, where the dead are Hades)

Have the dead been already judged to the degree that the named person has received his ultimate reward good or bad?

There would be no purpose for the resurrection if it is the body rather than the person that is being resurrected because the person, Larry, Curly or Mo is going to have: For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: Larry, Curly and Mo will be resurrected and given a body.

It was the soul Jesus that was raised from Hades and neither did his flesh see corruption, yet why did Mary not know who he was? Why did the two on the road not know him? Did his house look different?
 
Top