Why is Christ not dead / in Hell

[HatGuy]

Okay, this is one that vexes me.

If the price of sin is either eternal death, or eternal suffering in the lake of fire (depending on which interpretation you go with), and Jesus paid the full price of sin, why then is Jesus not either:

1) eternally dead

2) waiting to go into the lake of fire for all eternity

If the price of sin is either eternal death, or eternal suffering in the lake of fire (as I said, depending on which interpretation you go with), and Jesus paid the FULL price of sin, he should then be in one of those two conditions.



The only reason I can think that he would not be in one of those conditions is if:

a) he did not pay the full price of sin but was let off part of the bill (cue track playing opening chords of O Fortuna)

b) The Father chooses to end the sentence of sin prematurely (which opens the gates to a potential universalism as regards salvation - ie: all end up being saved in the end)

It CANNOT be that Jesus gets a reduced sentence on account of being sinless, as that would mean he does not pay the FULL price of sin.

Thoughts?

Thought about this before and I think it's a very good question.

Annihilationism answers the question. In fact, the question is one of those questions that gets me to think annihilationism is the truth.

That's because if hell is an eternal death (complete death - not eternal torment) then Jesus paid the price and was victorious over it. He paid the price (death) and then conquered it.

 

[FenderTL5]

another option not listed: there's a flaw in the modern, western view of penal substitutionary atonement.

 

[HatGuy]

another option not listed: there's a flaw in the modern, western view of penal substitutionary atonement.

The question remains even with substitutionary atonement though, surely?

The recapitulation theory may also have a problem.

Christus Victor is the best answer with regards to the original question. However, you don't have to jettison penal substitution. You just have to put it together with the others.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Did Jesus pay only part of the price....?

No. He signed off on the temporary deal. His presence was a sacrifice. His signature was in blood.

 

[Inkfingers]

Thought about this before and I think it's a very good question.

Annihilationism answers the question. In fact, the question is one of those questions that gets me to think annihilationism is the truth.

That's because if hell is an eternal death (complete death - not eternal torment) then Jesus paid the price and was victorious over it. He paid the price (death) and then conquered it.

You don't come back from eternal death though. Hence, you know, "eternal".

Universalism makes more sense - which would mean that God would lessen the sentence and do to sinners what happen to Jesus (ie: comes back again).

 

[Inkfingers]

another option not listed: there's a flaw in the modern, western view of penal substitutionary atonement.

Yes, that is a fair point (and one I was wondering on).

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

That sounds like the kind of thing that mafia muscle would say whilst cracking his knuckles...

Either the full price of sin is eternal death/torture or not.

If its, Jesus did not pay it. If it isn't, why do we pay it?

You actually believe this? This is you confession? OK! So be it for you.

 

[Inkfingers]

No. He signed off on the temporary deal. His presence was a sacrifice. His signature was in blood.

Either he paid ALL of the price of sin or he did not. Why are you avoiding that point?

 

[HatGuy]

You don't come back from eternal death though. Hence, you know, "eternal

Exactly. Which is why it's amazing. He conquered death.

It's not just about paying the price. If paying the price was all Jesus did, then sure. But he paid the price AND destroyed the devil AND conquered death AND worked on our behalf through his life AND linked humanity and divinity together in the incarnation, and much more besides.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Honestly, it seems to me that you have your belief and have no interesting in listening to anyone.

I agree he is stuck on this. And without any logic or reason for it... Just saying "full price" as if this is literally a monetary transaction of paper and coins.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Either he paid ALL of the price of sin or he did not. Why are you avoiding that point?

What if he didn't..? Why should he have to? There was never a deal made as you suggest to begin with.

 

[Inkfingers]

What if he didn't..? Why should he have to? There was never a deal made as you suggest to begin with.

Scripture says he paid the price.

The price is either eternal death or eternal torture (that's the price WE pay).

Christ is not eternally dead or eternally tortured in fire....therefore he did not pay the price UNLESS the price we pay will also be truncated (ie: universalism).

 

[paul1149]

Since my questions have gone unanswered, I am unsubbing. Good luck.

 

[Inkfingers]

Honestly, it seems to me that you have your belief and have no interesting in listening to anyone. I'll try one more time. You're dying of starvation. You cannot afford your next meal. A man comes along and pays for your meal. Does he now have to starve in your place?

That's a silly comparison.

Starvation is not the price of the meal.

 

[Inkfingers]

Since my questions have gone unanswered, I am unsubbing. Good luck.

I missed your posts in the deluge that I've been endeavouring to answer.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Scripture says he paid the price.

The price is either eternal death or eternal torture (that's the price WE pay).

Christ is not eternally dead or eternally tortured in fire....therefore he did not pay the price UNLESS the price we pay will also be truncated (ie: universalism).

Nope, you kept saying "full price" which is not in scripture... The whole price thing is not meant to be taken as a literal deal anyways.

False dichotomies.

 

[Inkfingers]

Nope, you kept saying "full price" which is not in scripture.

Did he only pay part of the price?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Either he paid ALL of the price of sin or he did not. Why are you avoiding that point?

We're avoiding it ............ because you NEVER actually established this point of yours from the get go in your OP! You've simply made statements--over and over again, I might add--but you haven't given direct support (or citations) about how and from where in the Bible (or from whatever theologian) that has led you to arrive at this set conclusion. Then, you brow-beat the rest of us to submit to a feigned 'obviousness' that...........really isn't there in your argument.

So, now what? Are we supposed to just allow you to keep slipping by in your autonomous, ungrounded, uncited assertions? Sorry, Homie here don't play that game!

 

[Inkfingers]

We're avoiding it ............ because you NEVER actually established this point of yours from the get go in your OP! You've simply made statements--over and over again, I might add--but you haven't given direct support (or citations) about how and from where in the Bible (or from whatever theologian) that led you to arrive at this set conclusion. Then, you brow-beat the rest of us to submit to a feigned 'obviousness' that...........really isn't there in your argument.

So, now what? Are we supposed to just allow you to keep slipping by in your autonomous, ungrounded, uncited assertions? Sorry, Homie here don't play that game!

I haven't browbeaten anyone.

I'm waiting for someone to actually address the point I've made rather than their own tangential version of it which ignores what I've said.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Did he only pay part of the price?

There never was a set price. The only "price" is what God says it is, and was fulfilled for whatever it was.