Spiritual Death II

[Yeshua1]

No, eternal judgment is the white throne judgment and the subsequent lake of fire. There is wrath to come that will be meted out on an unbelieving world. But God wasn't angry with His Son. He was well pleased with His Son. He delights in His Son. Christ took on himself the wages of sin, death. And then God raised Him from the dead to prove His obedience was acceptable. The innocent Lamb of God took on death to be the succourer and giver of Eternal Life. He was punished for our disobedience but not by taking on the wrath of God, but by taking on death.

God was angry at the Sin that Jesus became for our sake, so the Father did "see" while taking our sins upon that Cross Jesus as being sin for us, for our behalf, yet all the while always staying the sinless Son of God!

 

[Yeshua1]

Well, there was something that Christ feared, and it wasn't the fact that He was pleasing to His Father. Was He unable to not fear them who could kill the body, like He commanded His disciples? It wasn't physical death and suffering that He feared, and from which He was raised. It was the pains of death. Acts of the Apostles 2:24 .

He feared facing for those 3 hours the same eternal separation that all of the lost will from presence and person of God for all eternity!

 

[Yeshua1]

Wasn't all of this addressed in a previous thread?
1) Did Jesus suffer spiritual death ( separation from God )?

"I and [my] Father are one." ( John 10:30 )

" And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him." ( John 8:29 ).

" If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love." ( John 15:10 )


Here I see that, unlike men, Christ was never separated from the love of His Father.
He always did those things that are pleasing in His sight.
He was never alone.
I know of no Scripture that declares that the Father turned His back on the Son...not one.


2) Did He suffer God's wrath?

If so, then please present Scripture that declares that Christ suffered the wrath of God in the believer's place.




Gentlemen, if something is not declared as so, should you be arguing the "finer points" of that which is not declared?

Jesus was forsaken by God, as He who knew no sin became sin for our behalf, and He tasted the very Hell all of the lost will in their final judgment!

 

[Yeshua1]

"My God, my God, why have you forsaken Me?" How much clearer do you want it?

THAT is what He was trying to avoid if possible while in the garden!

 

[Yeshua1]

I am glad to see you inching towards Covenant Theology. However, there is one major difference between the covenant between God and Adam, and the Sinaitic Covenant. The latter had an elaborate system of sacrifices which allowed God to pass over the sins of the Israelites until the one perfect sacrifice of Christ.

However, there was no arrangement to deal with the sin of Adam. '.....for in the day that you eat of it, you shall surely die.' that's it; no arrangement to take away sin. In Genesis 2:25 we read, 'And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.' What does this mean and why does the Holy Spirit bother to tell us? Because we are to understand it theologically. Adam and Eve had no covering. There was no arrangement to cover sin. But that didn't matter because there was no sin. The couple came sinless from the hand of God who made them and pronounced what He had made 'very good.'

But as soon as they fell into sin, Adam and Eve were troubled by their nakedness. They knew that they had no covering, so they tried to make one themselves. But a man-made covering is worthless to hide one's sins (Isaiah 64:6) -- no more than a fig leaf. God saw right through it. The only covering for sin that satisfies the righteousness of God is the righteousness which He provides in Christ (c.f. Isaiah 61:10).

But the point is that Adam and Eve needed no covering before the fall simply because they were sinless. They were also spiritually alive because they were created by Christ (John 1:3) and so they walked with God..

Adam and Eve experience 'some change" in their spiritual state before God due to the fall, as they now knew were in sin, and needed God to do something to atone for them!

 

[Yeshua1]

There is no 'implication.' It's as clear as daylight. "My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?" Either the Father forsook the Son during the three hours of darkness or the Scriptures are false. It's there in black and white. What we have to do is not to deny one set of Scriptures in order to accept another set, but to accept them all and harmonize them.

Jon C has another thread here about Gnostic Christianity, would not one denying the simple truth of jesus meaning was forsaken fall under that hidden knowledge, seeing something else?

 

[37818]

Adam and Eve experience 'some change" in their spiritual state before God due to the fall, as they now knew were in sin, and needed God to do something to atone for them!

Adam and Eve did not know that (Genesis 3:8).

 

[Yeshua1]

In Deuteronomy Israel actually pronounces the person cursed.

Stay focused.

You stated ignorance in terms you did not grasp how there could be more than two ways of viewing Christ's death - it was either God showing favor to Christ or God showing wrath to Christ.

Personally I am a bit surprised that you think God showing favor was an option, but whatever.

My point is that your limiting it to those possibilities is ignorant of several other theories that view the Cross as God's will but man (not God) as the perpetrator.

I am not suggesting you need to go to a bible college or seminary before engaging these types of posts. But you should at least educate yourself prior to making asinine assumptions that can be disproven by a simple search of opposing views of Atonement.

There is a popular level book, The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views that may help illustrate other ideas you apparently do not know exist. These are not new views, but may be outside of your tradition.

Good luck. Prepare yourself, learn a bit more outside your tradition, and then lets have a good conversation.

JonC

While there are indeed various theories on the Atonement, the one that is the most biblically consistent would be the Pst one...

 

[Yeshua1]

I never said that Adam was a divine being. I said that Adam did not posses by nature what the Bible calls spiritual Life ("Christ living in us").

Our disagreement is that simple. No need to wring out things that do not exist.

If you believe there is spiritual life outside of Christ then perhaps you should give the topic more thought.

If you believe Adam was created with "Christ living in him" and later "dying in him" (dying spiritually) then you may want to give the matter more thought.

If you believe this Life temporary then perhaps you have not thought it through (even if you believe you have).

Adam was created by God with spiritual life already contained with him, as a morally uncorrupted and sinless being though!

 

[37818]

Adam was created by God with spiritual life already contained with him, as a morally uncorrupted and sinless being though!

Yet Adam disobeyed.

 

[Yeshua1]

Adam and Eve did not know that (Genesis 3:8).

They now knew good and evil, and knew they were in sin!

 

[JonC]

I think maybe you need to sort out what you do believe..

You actually believe those statements are saying the same thing (that I am at once denying and affirming), don't you?

When you read "it pleased God to crush him" you do not find a correlation between this passage and Peter's sermon in Acts but instead honestly believe it reads that God Himself "crushed Him".

I do not know why I did not catch your error sooner (with your translation of Mt. 27:46 demanding the interpretion God departed/ separated from Christ I should have).

But that is what you see, regardless of the actual words used in the text, isn't it?

This is what I mean my tradition. You can not grasp how the text itself (for right or wrong) could mean something different. You are trapped in a box and are not being deceptive (as I once thought) when you do not see a difference in those statements.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yet Adam disobeyed.

Yes, and then became spiritual dead!

 

[Yeshua1]

You actually believe those statements are saying the same thing (that I am at once denying and affirming), don't you?

When you read "it pleased God to crush him" you do not find a correlation between this passage and Peter's sermon in Acts but instead honestly believe it reads that God Himself "crushed Him".

I do not know why I did not catch your error sooner (with your translation of Mt. 27:46 demanding the interpretion God departed/ separated from Christ I should have).

But that is what you see, regardless of the actual words used in the text, isn't it?

This is what I mean my tradition. You can not grasp how the text itself (for right or wrong) could mean something different. You are trapped in a box and are not being deceptive (as I once thought) when you do not see a difference in those statements.

God the Father in the ultimate sense nailed Jesus upon that Cross, and Jesus was in full agreement with it!

 

[37818]

They now knew good and evil, and knew they were in sin!

They did not yet know God would redeem them (Genesis 3:8),

 

[percho]

JonC continues;


2]Did Adam not have a soul?

Yes, Adam had a soul. (see Deuteronomy 4, Psalm 61, Jeremiah 6; Joshua 23; and 1 Corinthians 15)
Good we agree Adam had a soul

3] If Adam had a spirit, pre-fall was it a dead spirit?

JonC answers Not applicable.


....It is only central to the discussion

In the closed Moral nature thread Biblicist showed exactly why this is applicable in post 10;

Did Adam, the anthropos, have a soul or did he, that which God made out of the dust of the ground, with spirit lives breathed into it/him become soul, living?

Or is there no difference?

 

[MB]

Adam was created by God with spiritual life already contained with him, as a morally uncorrupted and sinless being though!

Not so or scripture would say so and it does not
MB

 

[MB]

Yes, and then became spiritual dead!

Scripture does not say this any where.
MB

 

[Martin Marprelate]

You actually believe those statements are saying the same thing (that I am at once denying and affirming), don't you?

It appears that you do believe that God bruised or crushed him but not that He struck Him. I don't know what you mean; I only know what you write.

When you read "it pleased God to crush him" you do not find a correlation between this passage and Peter's sermon in Acts but instead honestly believe it reads that God Himself "crushed Him".

You are, I suppose, referring to Acts 2:23 which says that Christ was put to death 'by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God,' just as Acts 4:27-28 confirms. No, I don't believe that God actually stretched out His hand and struck Christ, but it was the will of the Triune God for Christ to be stricken, so much so that the Lord Jesus Himself says that is what will happen. 'I will strike the Shepherd.'

I do not know why I did not catch your error sooner (with your translation of Mt. 27:46 demanding the interpretation God departed/ separated from Christ I should have).

But that is what you see, regardless of the actual words used in the text, isn't it?

What I see is what the text says: that 'God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son' to be stricken and crushed and tortured and killed to make propitiation for our sins. 'He who did not spare His own Son.....' How it must have wrung the Father's heart and how we should rejoice and praise God for His wonderful grace!

 

[The Biblicist]

I never said that Adam was a divine being. I said that Adam did not posses by nature what the Bible calls spiritual Life ("Christ living in us").

Our disagreement is that simple. No need to wring out things that do not exist.

If you believe there is spiritual life outside of Christ then perhaps you should give the topic more thought.

If you believe Adam was created with "Christ living in him" and later "dying in him" (dying spiritually) then you may want to give the matter more thought.

If you believe this Life temporary then perhaps you have not thought it through (even if you believe you have).

Do you believe that man is at least composed of material and immaterial substance? Do you believe the immaterial substance is "spirit" and thus "spiritual" in nature?