|
|
Post by DoGMaTiX on Jul 22, 2005 11:51:23 GMT -5
Was Jesus alive when He suffered hell, or dead? Both  |
|
|
|
Post by eternal on Jul 22, 2005 14:48:24 GMT -5
So then you do agree that Jesus "went" to hell just as any other person "goes" to hell, whatever that may be.
So then you never disagreed in the first place with any teacher who proclaims that Christ went to hell.
Maybe only "Orthodox" disagrees?
|
|
SOLAFIDE
New Member
Thank God there's a God thats my God. MINE
Posts: 36
|
Post by SOLAFIDE on Jul 22, 2005 21:54:23 GMT -5
Okay me and my dad was talkin about this....
Okay so there are theories that there are different and seperate parts of Hell, which I believe... And that true saving believers were placed in a holding place in Hell, But not to be confused with the condeming and judging part of Hell... they were placed in Abraham's Bossom which is believed as a "part" of Hell...
But anyways back to the topic... Hell is for the UN-Just correct? So in essence to say that Jesus went to Hell is saying He's unjust right? So I believe maybe Jesus went to a part of Hell... but He couldnt have went to the Hell where sinners go because they are found guilty and Jesus was innocent. Also I agree with Orthodox or Ronald, whoever said it, when they said Jesus suffered Hell on the cross... Jesus suffered on our behalf and to say that Jesus suffered in Hell is like saying dying on the cross was not enough... meaning it was ineffectual. I find it VERY hard to believe, and Im sure you will too, that God sent His ONLY Son to die an ugly, highly painful and shameful death, and let it be ineffectual.
Jesus Himself on the cross declared, "It is finished," and I have no reason in another way to believe than that of the price was paid at the cross... and no further.
I agree when he says it depends on what one means as "Hell". By Hell it could mean Sheol or Abraham's Bossom or any other part of Hell. And I still have yet for anyone to post Scriptural support on this doctrine... I believe Jesus died on the cross and that the cross completes, "finished", the price of sin....
But then again I could be wrong, you could be wrong, we can all be wrong. I just believe that if we agree on anything, its that we agree on the way of salvation. To tell you the God's honest truth, no other doctrine is more important than that of Salvation. Not the doctrine of Grace, or Justification, or Election, just the doctrine of Salvation is what's essential for me.
pZ
SolaFide
|
|
|
|
Post by DoGMaTiX on Jul 25, 2005 12:41:48 GMT -5
Okay me and my dad was talkin about this.... Okay so there are theories that there are different and seperate parts of Hell, which I believe... And that true saving believers were placed in a holding place in Hell, But not to be confused with the condeming and judging part of Hell... they were placed in Abraham's Bossom which is believed as a "part" of Hell... No maam, there are no different parts of Hell, and Abraham bossoms is a reference to HEAVEN not hell. |
|
|
|
Post by eternal on Jul 25, 2005 14:32:44 GMT -5
Roldan, what was your original disagreement, of have you changed your mind? It seems that you disagree(d) when people say that Jesus went to hell, but now you say that you firmly agree. Is there another part of the doctrine that you disagree with and find errant? And Orthodox, are you still involved up in here?  ?? |
|
SOLAFIDE
New Member
Thank God there's a God thats my God. MINE
Posts: 36
|
Post by SOLAFIDE on Jul 25, 2005 22:28:35 GMT -5
Okay me and my dad was talkin about this.... Okay so there are theories that there are different and seperate parts of Hell, which I believe... And that true saving believers were placed in a holding place in Hell, But not to be confused with the condeming and judging part of Hell... they were placed in Abraham's Bossom which is believed as a "part" of Hell... No maam, there are no different parts of Hell, and Abraham bossoms is a reference to HEAVEN not hell. Ohhh my fault my fault, he said it was like a holding place... but anyways Not like different sections of hell... Like the people before Christ couldnt have gone to heaven right? The Bible says Jesus is the Way the Truth the Life... no one can come to the father but by me... They looked toward the cross right? We looks behind to the cross? So wouldnt Abraham's bossom be a holding place for believers before Christ??? I mean well I dont know, have you ever been to hell?lol I havent so I dont know what it looks like...lol Dont wanna find out either, thats for sure! PEACE SOLAFIDE |
|
|
|
Post by DoGMaTiX on Jul 26, 2005 14:32:09 GMT -5
Ohhh my fault my fault, he said it was like a holding place... Yes and no. Yes, in that Abraham's Bossom is a reference to heaven and in a sense a holding place of our souls in God's presence until we get our physical bodies. No, in that it is not a holding place outside of heaven but is heaven itself. Or else you would have to agree with the Roman Catholics that there is a Purgatory of some sort or Limbo, a place between heaven and hell, and Scripture does not support such a place. Of course they did. Right, and thats what saved them. They had FAITH in the coming Seed of Promise the Messiah/Christ. Right, We have FAITH in the promisED Seed that already came, Christ. Its the SAME FAITH that saves both OT and NT Church. No, see above points. Hope that helped a little. One |
|
SOLAFIDE
New Member
Thank God there's a God thats my God. MINE
Posts: 36
|
Post by SOLAFIDE on Jul 26, 2005 21:14:36 GMT -5
Oh I definately do not believe as Roman Catholics do about the Pergatory or Limbo... I didnt mean like a place between heaven and hell... lol I dont know what I mean... a tad confused.
Okay so when the believers before us died, yes okay I see now.
Right so basically they believed just as we believed, they just believed before It happened and we now believe after It has happened.
Above quote...
Okay then this whole thing means that ALL believers before and after Christ were taken into heaven... Well lol I knew that... I guess I was getting confused in this whole "Did Jesus go to hell or not"... lol so did He or did He not... I'll just read everyone's post and find out...
I know this much, that two respected men, R.C. Sproul and John MacArthur, also disagree on this doctrine.
Sproul believes that God did not go to Hell as in Satan and unbelieving sinners Hell, but as in the grave.
MacArthur believes God actually went to Hell as in Satan and the unbelieving sinners Hell. Both seem very strong in points and proofs so I really dont know who is right or wrong...
PEACE
SOLAFIDE
|
|
|
|
Post by OrthodoX on Aug 2, 2005 10:58:29 GMT -5
Eternal- I owe you an apology for not responding to this thread in quite a while. I have had a busy couple of weeks due to me moving into my new place, my roomate getting married, and my ministry being in a since "re-born", I admit that I have neglected our discussion. With that said however, I have been studying this topic in my free time, especially I Peter. I agree with Roldan's assessment of Calvin's view here, that Calvin did not believe that Jesus went to hell actually, but rather suffered hell on the Cross. My interpretation of I Peter has changed since we first started discussing this last month. I used to believe that Peter was teaching that Christ was preaching the judgement and salvation of God through his type, Noah, to the sinners of that time. This is certainly a popular view, but does not, I believe, do justice to the text, nor to the ministry of Christ. I am under the opinion now that Peter is not so much focusing on some sort of descent into hell or suffering, but rather on the ascent of Christ into heaven. The resurrection and glorifying of Jesus by the Father is the proclaimation of God to those in bondage, namely humanity...more specifically, Israel, bound to the Old Covenant.  I am at work without my scripts, but I will get deeper into this, especially the greek and literary and covenantal context in order to prove this when I am home...I just got my internet hooked up, roadrunner baby!! ;D Hope all is well with you and look forward to your thoughts. grace and peace- DoX |
|
|
|
Post by eternal on Aug 2, 2005 13:10:40 GMT -5
No worries! I am one to certainly appreciate your predictment. As for the post: I actually disagree with both of your positions...suprise suprise ;D Both your prior and your new one in progress. We can talk about those points later. I do look forward to what you have to offer on the topic, but I will remind you that the text reads "WENT and made proclomation," which if I read your position right, should add a meassure of difficulty to suggest that the assencion of Christ itself, I suppose pre-ressurection, would serve as the proclomation of victory. I do agree with you that the message preached was one of victory not evangelism, however, the language and imagery used of "went" does not fit the thesis you seem to propose, at least here in this sitting Also to note is the language of the "spirits" which I think I made note of in my own write up earlier. This too, with the concept of them being in prison seems to strike against the notion of this being a refference to humanity under the Old Covenant. Similarly at issue is the widespread Jewish understanding of various spirits in bondage in the underworld at the time. I would think that such a brief refference would have to be because of an already standing common understanding of what is being spoken of. I think Peter alludes to a development of that theology to allow it to correspond with the work of Christ as the all encompassing Messiah, and the traditions therein. Also, the more stated correspondance with baptism, which had already been firmly narrated along the lines of Christ's own death, burial, and ressurection also serves to instruct us into the meaning of this text. By the time Peter gets around to the cleansing of the water/ressurection, your interpretation would have been highly out of place...correct? It would seem that the sequence then of events in this analogy too should instruct us in the meaning. So then Christ's proclomation was one pre-ressurection. Also to note, that Roldan also affirmed that hell was "visited" on Christ even after He died. Now it appears that we are only dealing with symantics, since Christ experienced hell after death. Now it seems in order to alleviate yourself from saying Christ visited hell, you suggest instead that hell visited Christ. Either way, it speaks of the same issue, Christ and hell together. When we are able to emancipate ourselves from hell being a location like an underlayered dungeon, and instead, which appears to be Calvins attempt, view it more metaphysicaly, Christ "descending" to hell makes much more sense to both sides of the argument. Regardless, the language of the creed envisions a travel to hell, which I think makes the point, even though we should not be dogmatic with the language. But it must be noted, in respects to the creed and how you are going to form your understanding of the doctrine, Christ in the creed undertakes a descent into hell DURRING His death (that is even while burried), and before His ressurection. I aint mad at you if you will disagree with the creed. I don't think this is a make or break issue, one where God will not quicken your spirit over if you are incorrect, LOL. I think God loves His creation and desires for them to be saved, not to dismiss over such petty disagrements. But, if you are going to make this break, you will also have to reconsider the dismissal you show others over their rejection of portions of the creed as well. peace. |
|
|
|
Post by ChristVader on Aug 2, 2005 14:17:59 GMT -5
If everyone is going to heaven there in the OT and NT then why is the Blood of the Martyr's crying out from UNDER the Altar.
Just one of MANY refutations of this overall subject.
Christ is there, in Hades, to Preach THE Hope of Isreal, to those who are awaiting the death of their "first husband" the Mosaic World(Economy) See 2 Peter with "heaven and earth passing away".
Here is a question for you. Is Heaven, in any way pictured, or EVER compared to, the Promised Land found on the "other side of Jordan"?
...........
Still no one has refuted from Scripture that the Cross satisfied the Punishment for sin. (Who gives a rip what Calvin thought? Orthodox sure doesn't respect Calvin, as he doesn't Christen Babies. Roldan can appeal to Calvin as he adhears to Calvin.) If so then who here would not accept death on a cross over the fires of SPIRITUAL Hell. Sign me up RIGHT NOW!!! Oh how easily we forget where Nero found fuel to light his gardens.
Christ got off easy if He didn't have to go to Hell to pay for sin.
Kent
|
|
|
|
Post by DoGMaTiX on Aug 2, 2005 22:01:27 GMT -5
Christ got off easy if He didn't have to go to Hell to pay for sin. Kent Why would He have to literally go to Hell if He suffered it on the cross, same difference? |
|
|
|
Post by ChristVader on Aug 3, 2005 6:28:54 GMT -5
What is the punishment for sin Roldan?
|
|
|
|
Post by DoGMaTiX on Aug 3, 2005 11:33:49 GMT -5
What is the punishment for sin Roldan? Death and spiritual separation from the Father which was all done on the cross where He died and The Father turned His face from Christ and left Him alone, hence Christs outcry "Father why have you forsaken me"? Kent, according to your paradigm there is no Hell anyways. You say that Heaven is NOT a place but a status and the antithesis of heaven is hell, so hell is also a status of spiritual separation from God which does NOT require a literal place called Hell, right? How can Jesus go to a status? Again another inconsistancy in your framework. one |
|
|
|
Post by king neb on Aug 3, 2005 12:27:44 GMT -5
"You say that Heaven is NOT a place but a status and the antithesis of heaven is hell"
Rick, im not sure what Kent has said about it because i have not read all of these posts - but that seems to be carried over from our message board...
so.....
How are you in a place to call out this view 'inconsistent' when you did not even finish the dialogue there?
We tried to get you to define what you meant by 'heaven' and you have not done it...which 'heaven' are we talking about?
There is the 'heaven' in which birds fly. There is the heaven in which at one time Christ and the City dwelt, which had descended "to earth".
Are you telling us there is only 'one' heaven mentioned in Scripture?
Can we start defining our terms or are we just going to keep playing games?
|
|
|
|
Post by ChristVader on Aug 3, 2005 16:04:49 GMT -5
LOL
Intelectual Dishonesty if I have ever seen it!
No Rol, YOUR position is the one that dissolves the existence of Hell. For if it, Hell, can be experienced on a Cross, then there is certainly no reason for one to actually exist now is there.
Heaven a status? Yup if you had LISTENED you would have understood that that is ONE >>>>> ONE >>> ONE perspective of it. Gees, all you guys do is hear what you want to and run with it.
Like Neb has said you havent defined terms. And as you are now a part of TR, that works out perfectly, for AMBIGUITY is the Strong Suit of the New Orthodox.
No one can address your positions as right or wrong because you always have a back door open.
Hell and Heaven EXIST. Got it son?
Kent
|
|
|
|
Post by OrthodoX on Aug 4, 2005 10:46:44 GMT -5
Eternal-
I really enjoyed your last post, you have been very carefully thinking through this issue. May the Lord bless me with the same grace as I attempt to follow your example.
I am not surprised that you disagree with my view(s)...ha ha. I again am at work without my scripts and commentaries, but greatly desire to defend my position thoroughly. Hopefully this evening when I am home?
As for you underlying motive of trying to convince me of a different brand of creedalism, I have yet to be persuaded. I do not disagree with the creeds in the slightest. As a matter of fact I use them as a boundary, this I believe is the mandate of Scripture...Sola Scriptura. ;D
Concerning other posts that have recently appeared on this board I am tempted to comment, but I would then stray from the main topic at hand which you have so graciously engaged me in.
Grace and Peace-
DoX
|
|
|
|
Post by eternal on Aug 4, 2005 15:11:58 GMT -5
Concerning other posts that have recently appeared on this board I am tempted to comment, but I would then stray from the main topic at hand which you have so graciously engaged me in. Grace and Peace- DoX I agree. I will follow your example and ignore the temptation to get side tracked, and instead enjoy the work we do together on this matter. Pray you are well. peace. |
|
|
|
Post by ChristVader on Aug 4, 2005 15:57:22 GMT -5
Orthodox says...
For Clarity: Creeds are unrevisable....
Earlier Orthodox said...
Clarification: Scripture is always revisable based on what some famous named Reformer said, or which way the wind of Orthodoxy is blowing today.
Even earlier Orthodox had said...
Heck John, I can't figure that one out either. You got any ideas?
Tell ya what; why don't you explain to me why it is acceptable for you to say "well my interpretation of Scripture has changed", but it is heresy for me to say, "well my interpretation of the Creeds has changed"?
Do you not see what you are doing to Gods Word? It's not a Prostitute John, that looks good around midnight, but, is up for re-evaluation when you wake up the next morning. And that evaluation based on how good your Orthodox peer's think she looks after they have slept with her too. For that is what this Hyper Orthodoxy is doing. Looking Gods Word up to see if it might be worth another run this evening.
Please quit desecrating His precious Word like this John. Please from the bottom of my heart I ask you.
Kent
|
|
|
|
Post by OrthodoX on Aug 4, 2005 16:54:01 GMT -5
Kent-
Eternal and I have agreed to resist the urge to respond to irrelevant posts. As I have stated, I am a creedalist, which is what I am commanded to be by the Holy Scriptures. My interpretation of both the creeds and the scripts are revisable, I never have denied this.
My authority is the Bible, which teaches that we are to have a "sound confession" within the "pillar and foundation of the truth", or the Church of the living God, till our Lord's return. I pray my Lord reveals his truth to you, you are in my prayers.
You are more than welcome to join in the convo, but the issue isn't, is OrthodoX finally contradicting himself? Or anything like that. The topic we are discussing is, 'Did Jesus Go to Hell? And as Eternal suggests in the first post of this thread, this is what we are to here "discuss".
I will not respond to rabbit trails any more, but rather I will have them deleted or placed in a thread of their own.
DoX
|
|
??