I agree with you to a large extent.The above is not specifically relevant to the context of the discussion, because we distinguish the Life-Giving Spirit from those made alive.
Unlike Christ, we do not have power to take our lives back up, and are dependent on Him.
I don't think we can equally equate Christ, God in flesh, to men when it comes to our being. His Being was quite separate from our own, in that He was not the product of procreation, but in fact created Himself the very flesh He would inhabit.
I would agree to the extent that Paul distinguishes in no uncertain words between Christ and men, as Scripture always does.
The most troubling issue I have with this debate is that it seems to upset you a fair amount, brother, and I just don't think you need to let this bother you.
Agreed. That was what most of the last post dealt with.
We must distinguish between life and death in every context, as to whether it is temporal or eternal, physical or spiritual.
Men gain spiritual life when they are made alive in Christ. That is what new birth is all about.
So far the only thing I would object to in regards to "penal substitution" is imposing eternal judgment into what Christ suffered. But we have to acknowledge that Christ did die in the stead of the sinner, just as we see in the Old Testament type of animal sacrifice.
God bless.
Where I may disagree (please correct me if I have misunderstood your position) is that I do not believe that we are "spiritually dead" in the sense that we were, or Adam was, spiritually alive and then died.
I do not believe that Jesus suffered "spiritual death" in our place, but rather that He suffered death (physical death) as our representative. The reason I say that this is not Penal Substitution Theory is that we do die physically. I view the "spiritual death" to be that "second death", which is Christ-centered and based on His work (the Father giving all judgment to the Son).