"It is finished." What is the "it?"

[forsha]

why? nothing wrong with church as long as it lines up. So why go to other states. It sounds like boasting to me. I could be wrong. The best church is in your bed room or prayer closet

Heb 10:25, Not forsaking the assembling of yourselves together, as the manner of some is, but exhorting one another; and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

That's right. And that is enough, right? But you are adding "Jesus died spiritually" and "Jesus was born again", hence we are discussing it.

So the penalty is spiritual death, But jesus did not pay that debt?

I guess I am still dead in my sin, my debt was not paid.

I make no complications at all, since I want to stay with the text about this crucial event. You are adding the concept of spiritual death to Christ's atonement, which the text is dead silent about. For your logic it might be fine and dandy, but we would be dealing with scripture here.

No it is not silent at all about it. Jesus would not be calling out asking God why he departed from him in his hour, if he wanted to keep that hidden from us, Psalms 22 is a picture of 2 deaths. not one.

We are in agreement here save for your idea of the "spiritual death" of Christ. And I would like to add that the forsaking in question was not of the nature that Christ lost His Sonship, it was not one of nature, essence, or substance. He did not in any sense or to any degree cease to exist as the Son of God.

I never claimed he did, Again your making it to difficult. and reading to much into it.

Here is where your complication comes in, if He died spiritually, then how was He born again, "restored"? He had to be be born again just like Adam?

No. all he had to have was the HS enter him again, and the father turn and face him again.

The penalty for sin was several different things. All pertaining to the wrath of God. The atonement appeases this wrath of God. And saves souls from His judgment.

No the penalty was one thing. Scripture makes this clear.

"the penalty of sin is death, the gift of God is life

Please try not to add to that. for that would be adding to the word

As for the notions of "Jesus died spiritually" AND "Jesus was born again", there are not many who teach both of these, although they may differ on the timing of Jesus' new birth, at least not openly. You would find them primarily among the Word of Faith movement and finding listings of some names who advocate such can be done by search engines.

I do not listen to what men teach or who teaches what, That would make me a man follower not a God follower. I just read what the word says, and try to follow it to the best of my ability.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

First, can you give any flat, literal scripture for this statement? Secondly, if you say that 'Jesus died spiritually' and had to be 'born again', which you say happened at the cross, then how can you reconcile these two without having Christ becoming a sinner?

How many times do I have to give it.

The wage of sin (penalty) is death, the gift of God is eternal life.

I was born in death (in adam) I must be made alive in Christ.

If it is not physical death, then what else could it be, but spiritual death (separation)

 

[SarahM777]

Originally Posted by tribesman

First, can you give any flat, literal scripture for this statement? Secondly, if you say that 'Jesus died spiritually' and had to be 'born again', which you say happened at the cross, then how can you reconcile these two without having Christ becoming a sinner?

How many times do I have to give it.

The wage of sin (penalty) is death, the gift of God is eternal life.

I was born in death (in adam) I must be made alive in Christ.

If it is not physical death, then what else could it be, but spiritual death (separation)

Tribesman did not ask you for your TAKING POINTS. He asked you to BACK IT UP WITH SCRIPTURE. Where is the scripture in your post?

 

[tribesman]

So the penalty is spiritual death, But jesus did not pay that debt?

I am still asking you for a scripture which says that "the penalty is spiritual death".

No it is not silent at all about it. Jesus would not be calling out asking God why he departed from him in his hour, if he wanted to keep that hidden from us, Psalms 22 is a picture of 2 deaths. not one.

Yet scripture uses only death in singular when speaking of Christ's death. The important for us would be to stay with that. For sure that death was overly sufficient for its purpose.

No. all he had to have was the HS enter him again, and the father turn and face him again.

If so, Jesus's "new birth" is different from ours and it would make less sense to call it by same term.

No the penalty was one thing. Scripture makes this clear.

"the penalty of sin is death, the gift of God is life

Please try not to add to that. for that would be adding to the word...

Hmm...it seems that you would be adding something to the Word. It says "the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Rom.6:23). Wages and penalty are not exactly the same thing. Wages is what you get for your labor. Gen.3:16-19 speaks of what the penalty for sin is and its ultimate consequence. This is the wrath of God that man needs to be saved from (John 3:36).

 

[tribesman]

...Tribesman did not ask you for your TAKING POINTS. He asked you to BACK IT UP WITH SCRIPTURE. Where is the scripture in your post?

There is no scripture for it, and he knows that. His interpretation comes from an overly literalistic reading of the text and a logic of "justice literally equals 1=1" to make it work out. It does not give enough consideration to the context of the principle of atonement.

 

[SarahM777]

There is no scripture for it, and he knows that. His interpretation comes from an overly literalistic reading of the text and a logic of "justice literally equals 1=1" to make it work out. It does not give enough consideration to the context of the principle of atonement.

Should we surprised by that as it's nothing new?

 

[forsha]

There is no scripture for it, and he knows that. His interpretation comes from an overly literalistic reading of the text and a logic of "justice literally equals 1=1" to make it work out. It does not give enough consideration to the context of the principle of atonement.

I have noticed that eternally-grateful, when confronted with a scripture that he does not know how to explain, tends to try to side track you by getting your attention on something else of his beliefs without scripture back up.