| Author | Message | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 12706 Registered: 12-2003  |
I keep coming back to the fact that I have to believe every word of Scripture, even if I can't explain "how" it works. Colossians 1:17 says
That says that Jesus' appointed role was to act as the agent of creation and also the One in whom all things hold together. That has to mean even during His death. He became sin, and He became a curse (Gal 3:13)...how? I've no idea. What did this mean for hell? Again, I don't know exactly what happened. Yet we know His atonement was complete, that He nailed the curse of the law to the cross, that he broke the power of sin and death. We know that God forsook Him...but exactly what that means in a "scientific" way, we just aren't told. But we have to know that He knew no sin, He became sin, He became a curse, the Father crushed Him and gave Him as a propitiation in His blood...every horrific thing the Bible says about the wages of sin..Jesus took those wages and paid the price for us. I really believe that we have to be content to live with a bit of mystery. When we try too hard to nail down the HOW of these biblical facts, we sorta crush the life out of them! At the same time, I never want to ignore details that make Jesus, his nature, his work, his death and resurrection less than they are. I just don't think we can completely explain exactly what happened to Jesus, the God-Man, when He died. We know God cannot die; we know Jesus died; we know He was separated from the Father; we know the universe hung together in Him during those three days...but How?...we aren't told... Colleen | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 615 Registered: 7-2005 |
Since Ric mentioned Sproul, I recommend the following message at Together for the Gospel Conference 2008: The Curse Motif of the Atonement The language of presence/absence of God and the corollary "forsaken" expression are not to be taken in the spatial manner, but in the sense of God's presence in blessing and his presence in curse. This fact explains the apparent contradictions between Revelation 14:10 and 2 Thess 1:9 he also will drink the wine of God's wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. Revelation 14:10 They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might 2 Thess 1:9 God will be present in hell, He's omnipresent, He will not be absent, but his presence will be the presence in his awful majesty that curses sin and sinners, not in blessings. Sproul explains very well the way in which the Jews understood the blessing as being manifested in God's shining face, "May God's face shine upon you". Hope it helps. Gabriel | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3695 Registered: 10-2004  |
Rick, I am not saying that Jesus spoke an untruth from the Cross--please don't misrepresent what I'm saying. I am saying that He was not "forsaken" in the sense/meaning of "separated." I read Calvin's commentary on this verse earlier today and he does not go anywhere close to this modern idea of Jesus being "separated" from the Father. He would never put up with such a teaching. Here is one paragraph from Calvin's commentary on this verse:
Did you read the post I linked to from a couple of years ago?: http://www.formeradventist.com/discus/messages/11/8603.html#POST113696 How am I undermining "key elements of the Gospel"? You call the Nestorianism argument a straw man, but the very definition of Nestorianism is to separate Christ's divine and human natures. And the very definition of polytheism would be to separate the divinity of the Son from the divinity of the Father. As for R.C. Sproul, I have not checked out the message that Gabriel linked to yet, but I did come across this quote from a book by Sproul that disturbed me:
The book is entitled Sproul's Guide to the Bible: Your Irreverant Handbook to Forbidden Fruit, Burning Bushes, Possessed Pigs, and Broken People Like You and Me. Perhaps the "irreverent" part is not an understatement! Are you really comfortable with language such as the above quote? If I didn't know any better, I would think I was reading a quote from Benny Hinn or Kenneth Hagin! However, even Sproul's website has an article which states:
...and a devotional that says:
As an aside, I am surprised that you would appeal to Sproul, when he is on the opposite side from you when it comes to the debate about logic and reason, etc. Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on June 27, 2011) | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3696 Registered: 10-2004 |
I didn't say that WOF invented it. I said that it's been creeping into parts of the Church for the last couple of centuries. Interestingly, the Catholic Church has never accepted such a teaching, but certainly parts of Evangelicalism have, unfortunately. What I said was that WOF invented the idea that Jesus literally "became sin" (and died spiritually, had to be born again in Hell, had the nature of Satan on the Cross, etc., etc.!). Jeremy | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3697 Registered: 10-2004 |
Rick, So Calvin basically says that Jesus felt forsaken but knew that He wasn't. And yet you say that I am accusing Jesus of speaking an untruth if I say that "forsaken" means something other than "separated"?? Jeremy | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3698 Registered: 10-2004 |
For an insightful discussion on the ideas of Jesus experiencing a spiritual death and becoming sin, please read chapter 13 ("Re-Creation On The Cross") of Hank Hanegraaff's book Christianity in Crisis: The 21st Century, starting on page 171, here: http://books.google.com/books?id=nIZqm-1gQgYC&printsec=frontcover If Jesus' spirit was separated from God, then that means that His spirit died and He needed to be born again (which is exactly the conclusion that the Word of Faith teaches arrive at!). The very definition of spiritual death and needing to be born again is that our spirit is separated from God! Jeremy | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3699 Registered: 10-2004 |
Rick, Regarding St. Augustine, here is what he says:
And in his commentary on the Psalms, Augustine said:
And on Mark 13:32, Augustine wrote:
I don't see how these quotes support any of your arguments, Rick. Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on June 28, 2011) | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1162 Registered: 7-2004  |
Jeremy, It isn't surprising that the Catholic church doesn't accept concepts so firmly rooted in Protestant theology. If you search with the same vigor to find statements from Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and Sproul supporting that Jesus was forsaken and that He became sin, you can post those as well. Yes, Sproul and Calvin rely heavily on logic, too much so in my opinion. Despite this, they have outstanding teaching on the Gospel. My appeal was not to their authority, but to their historical nature (Calvin) and their mainstream standing. It sounds as if you are arguing that Jesus could fully experience separation without being separated. Aren't you falling into the traps of your own logic where your solution also in unlogical? | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 616 Registered: 7-2005 |
The "Great Exchange" of the gospel is constituted by the fact that we become God's righteousness as Jesus becomes our sin. This becoming was understood to take place through imputation, not through internal transformation. We don't become righteous in ourselves (even if we are transformed by regeneration, but this is far from making us righteous according to God's perfect holy standard) and Jesus didn't become sin in Himself. Rather, the change was in status before God, from justified to condemned and the other way around. This means that the words used pertain to the judicial categories, court language, not ontological categories. Ontological categories are those related to essence or the nature of being. Jesus did not become sin in His essence or in His nature. I guess that this heresy is what Jeremy had in mind when he raised the question of Jesus being "forsaken" by God. If "forsaken" is taken as an ontological assertion, it's indeed heresy. But if "forsaken" is taken as a judicial affirmation, it fits very well with the jewish understanding of the curse/blessing imagery which is formulated in the Old Testament, related to the sanctuary. That's what Sproul explains in his T4G speech. Those who were under God's blessings were those in the camp, where the Sanctuary was, but those who were accursed were symbolically taken outside the camp. Jesus fulfilled the type of the scapegoat and suffered outside the camp (Hebrews 13:12), outside the gate, the place where God was not present. When Mary, Moses sister, suffered God's punishment, she was banned to spend time outside the camp. This is the imagery of curse, of judicial penalties. The fate of the wicked is described in 2 Thess. 1:9, and the terms used are the same imagery of being "away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might". The fact that suffering "away" is related with the curse and pertains to judicial categories is proved by the fact that it's associated with being away from God's "glory". Being close to God's glory is related with God's blessing in the language of His presence:
The manifestation of God's glory through his face shining is the equivalent of blessing, the opposite of cursing. This manifestation of God's glory shining in blessings will be what the wicked will experience at the end. As Revelation 14:10 attests, God will be present in hell, no doubt about it. This shows that when the Bible employs the categories of being away from God, forsaken, becoming sin, these affirmations belong to judicial categories, not ontological, not related to the essence or nature of being. When Jesus became sin, He became through imputation, when He was forsaken by God, He became forsaken by imputation, He suffered God's curse, and this suffering is communicated through the categories with which the Jews were already familiar. God wanted to give a clear message, that Jesus suffered a real curse, and this is why Jesus died on a cross, hanged on a tree, which all Jews understood very clearly to be a clear proof that the person dying was under God's curse. Jesus' cry proves that He indeed suffered the curse, and drank God's cup of wrath to the end. Gabriel | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1163 Registered: 7-2004 |
Excellent description Gabriel. One that avoids going too far, as I believe the links Jeremy provided did go so far that they were trampling on this "Great Exchange". This accepts the plain words of Scripture as true. | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1164 Registered: 7-2004 |
Colleen, Your explanation mirrors my understanding. Jeremy, I appreciate your passion for exploring all areas that would minimize the Deity of Christ or the nature of the Trinity. I can't agree Biblically with all of the conclusion in the article you linked, but it led to a great discussion of the issues. | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1165 Registered: 7-2004 |
These are the types of theological logic that I believe get us into trouble at times. I'm not sure that we can go safely beyond what Scripture actually describes. I think these questions may be useful in challenging us to look deeper and broader at Scripture but to insist that the conclusion must be true because we think they are true may be straying too far from Scripture Alone as our source. | ||
| Seekinglight Registered user Username: Seekinglight Post Number: 541 Registered: 3-2009 |
Thus, understanding the difference between contradiction and paradox has saved us once again.  | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3700 Registered: 10-2004 |
Rick,
Where did I say that? I have said only the exact opposite--that Jesus was not separated from God. Period.
When I told you that 2 Corinthians 5:21 and "becoming sin" was imputational and that this interpretation was the whole basis of the Protestant Reformation, you told me that I am denying the Protestant Gospel and the words of Scripture. But when Gabriel tells you the same thing, you say that it is "excellent"? I am very confused. Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on June 28, 2011) | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3701 Registered: 10-2004 |
Rick,
I did search with "vigor" and could not find any statements saying that Jesus was separated from the Father, or that His humanity was separated from His divinity--only denials of such heresy. If you know of such quotes, why not post them yourself? Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on June 28, 2011) | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3702 Registered: 10-2004 |
And the teaching that Jesus was separated from God does go beyond what Scripture actually says. It's also important to remember that Matthew 27:46 is not a didactic verse, but a narrative verse. Nowhere does Scripture teach that Jesus died spiritually, but rather that it was His physical death that paid for our sins. If Jesus was separated from the Father, then someone needs to answer these questions: 1. Does "my God" refer only to the Father? On what basis? 2. Was Jesus separated from the Holy Spirit, as well? 3. If Jesus is God, does He Himself not have wrath against sin? 4. Did Jesus only experience the wrath of the Father, and not the wrath of the Holy Spirit or His own wrath? 5. Could Jesus be separated from the Father without being separated from the Holy Spirit, since they are one God? 6. Could Jesus be separated from the Father without being separated from the Son, since they are one God? And there are probably more questions I am not thinking of right now... I think where some Reformed (and other) theologians go astray is that they seem to think that only the Father has wrath and "cannot look upon sin," but seem to be forgetting that Jesus Himself is fully God and has the same attributes as the Father and is the same God. "...God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself..." (2 Corinthians 5:19 NASB). Jeremy | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3703 Registered: 10-2004 |
Colleen,
"appointed role"? "to act as the agent"? Appointed by whom??? I always thought the verse was simply saying that Jesus is fully God!
God cannot "die" as in cease to exist, but He can become a man and lay down His life and die a physical human death and raise Himself to life three days later. That doesn't mean that He ceased to exist in any way, or that His divine nature changed in any way. I don't understand why you're trying to make that into a contradiction?
How do we know this? Where does the Bible say this?
"How"? Why would it have been any differently than at any other time? God is outside of time. He is immutable. The divine nature cannot and does not change. The universe held together in Him during those three days the same as it always had--because He is God. There was no change whatsoever to His eternal divinity. God is outside of time and space. By the way, I am not saying that we can comprehend everything--I am saying that these are not logical contradictions or causes for speculative theories about Jesus being separated from God or His divine nature changing. Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on June 28, 2011) | ||
| Ric_b Registered user Username: Ric_b Post Number: 1166 Registered: 7-2004 |
Jeremy, i found quotes with no problem. im traveling and using my iPad rather than a computer and it is hard to copy and source materials and jump between things like I can on my laptop. however, you appear to have purposefully limited the search to the end point conclusions, not to the teachings you discuss of whether Jesus was actually forsaken and whether He truly became sin. You are biasing your results by assuming that if they reach a conclusion that agrees with yours that they are agreeing with all of the steps that went into that conclusions. You are usually a much more diligent researcher than that. And i agree that we shouldn't speculate that Jesus nature changed, that would be way outside what Scripture says. you resist, and perhaps correctly so, the idea that Jesus was in any way separated from the Father. But in doing so you deny that He experiencedd being forsaken, you fail to explain how He became a curse or how He was cursed, | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3704 Registered: 10-2004 |
Rick, I am not assuming that they agree with all of the steps that went into the conclusion. There are many different specific interpretations of what exactly is meant by Matthew 27:46. My main concern on this thread was that of avoiding the heretical teaching that Jesus was separated from the Father or that His humanity was separated from His divinity. My original statement was: "If 'the plain words of Scripture' teach that Jesus was separated from the Father, why did the Church never teach this, until this heresy started creeping into parts of the Church within the last couple of centuries?" Then you replied and told me to look at Augustine, Luther, and Calvin. I did and I found nothing that contradicted my above quote. That doesn't mean that I agree with everything they wrote about it. I can't, since they contradict each other (for example, Augustine appears to say that Jesus was not forsaken in any sense at all). Another concern that I have is that those who say that Jesus paid for our sins by suffering spiritual separation, seem to be devaluing the blood of Jesus, saying that His blood was not enough to pay for our sins, that He also had to suffer spiritual separation/death. Jeremy | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 3705 Registered: 10-2004 |
Gabriel, I watched Sproul's message. He starts off by talking about imputation, but then he starts saying things that sound like the Word of Faith teachers and that sound blasphemous. For example, calling Jesus "the biggest concentration of evil" and that "the One who was pure was pure no more." If God, because of His holiness, "cannot look upon sin" then that would mean that not only the Father, but also the Son would have to have turned His face away from Jesus. Or was Jesus no longer holy, so He was able to look upon Himself and did not have to forsake Himself? Do you see how this seems to separate the Father and the Son? But another problem with the idea that the Father "turned His face" from Jesus is that it totally contradicts Psalm 22:24: "For He has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; Nor has He hidden His face from him; But when he cried to Him for help, He heard." (NASB.) I would like to hear your thoughts on this, Gabriel. Jeremy P.S. I think I may have to agree with Rick about Sproul using human logic over the Word of God, on this one.  |
