Spiritual Death

[Iconoclast]

In discussing Adam, it is, of course, important to realise the amazing status he had before the Fall. I put some of this on another thread, but since this one is so similar, I think it may be helpful to put it here as well.
First of all, of course, he was unique, both in his creation (Genesis 1:27) and in his fall (Romans 5:12-21). He was also the apex of all God's creation. All creation was 'good' but after the creation of man, God pronounced it 'very good.' Man is therefore creation's crowning glory. So it was necessary that Adam be created sinless, but, of course, he was also defectable, otherwise the warning of Genesis 2:17 would not have been necessary. 'Truly, this only have I found: that God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes' (Ecclesiastes 7:29).
May I suggest that before the Fall, Adam was designated prophet, priest and king under God? The 'king' bit is easy: God gave Adam 'dominion over.......all the earth' (Genesis 1:26). Adam is told 'Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.' This is an instruction that Adam would have had to pass on to his progeny; hence, he was a prophet, speaking the words that God gave him. Eden was a place where God walked (Genesis 3:8); his presence, pre-Fall, was with the first couple. Where else is God's presence with man made manifest? In the Tabernacle (Exodus 40:34), the Temple (1 Kings 8:10-11), in the Church (Matthew 18:20), and in the New Jerusalem (Revelation 21:3). So Eden was a garden temple, a place where man met with God. Therefore Adam was a priest.
So was Adam spiritually alive? Beyond doubt. 'A sinless image-bearer was called by God to be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth with others like him. He was to subdue the earth and rule over the other creatures, starting in the garden of Eden and going out from there (Genesis 1:28). He was made of body and soul outside the garden (Genesis 2:7-8). He was put in the garden to begin the task assigned to him as a priest. He was given a law to obey and a helper to compliment him so that he could fulfill his task. He was a son of God (Luke 3:38). He was a spokesman for God (i.e. a prophet) and a ruler. He was in covenant with God . [Yet the humblest Christian is greater than he. For] he violated the covenant He sinned and transgressed God's law. He was subsequently cursed, clothed with animal skins and exiled from the garden. Now he's sinful, a terrible image of God, a covenant-breaker, and no longer the keeper of God's garden temple.' [R. Barcellos, Better than the Beginning. RBAP, 2013]

When we compare the opening chapters of Genesis with the closing chapters of Revelation, there are some interesting similarities and contrasts:
1. The devil, who first appears in Gen. 3, is thrown into the lake of fire.
2. The first heavens and first earth of Genesis 1:1 become the new heavens and new earth of Revelation 21:1.
3. The tree of life, that first appears in Gen. 2, turns up on the new earth.
4. As God dwelt with Adam in Eden, so He will dwell with all the citizens of the new earth.
5. There will no longer be any death in the new earth. Christians are better placed than Adam was.

'In Him the tribes of Adam boast
More blessings than their father lost' Isaac watts.

Yes...wonderful edifying post. God Himself knows the end from the beginning and here is an example of God's wisdom and purpose being fulfilled 100%.

 

[JonC]

In discussing Adam, it is, of course, important to realise the amazing status he had before the Fall. I put some of this on another thread, but since this one is so similar, I think it may be helpful to put it here as well.
First of all, of course, he was unique, both in his creation (Genesis 1:27) and in his fall (Romans 5:12-21). He was also the apex of all God's creation. All creation was 'good' but after the creation of man, God pronounced it 'very good.' Man is therefore creation's crowning glory. So it was necessary that Adam be created sinless, but, of course, he was also defectable, otherwise the warning of Genesis 2:17 would not have been necessary. 'Truly, this only have I found: that God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes' (Ecclesiastes 7:29).
May I suggest that before the Fall, Adam was designated prophet, priest and king under God? The 'king' bit is easy: God gave Adam 'dominion over.......all the earth' (Genesis 1:26). Adam is told 'Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.' This is an instruction that Adam would have had to pass on to his progeny; hence, he was a prophet, speaking the words that God gave him. Eden was a place where God walked (Genesis 3:8); his presence, pre-Fall, was with the first couple. Where else is God's presence with man made manifest? In the Tabernacle (Exodus 40:34), the Temple (1 Kings 8:10-11), in the Church (Matthew 18:20), and in the New Jerusalem (Revelation 21:3). So Eden was a garden temple, a place where man met with God. Therefore Adam was a priest.
So was Adam spiritually alive? Beyond doubt. 'A sinless image-bearer was called by God to be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth with others like him. He was to subdue the earth and rule over the other creatures, starting in the garden of Eden and going out from there (Genesis 1:28). He was made of body and soul outside the garden (Genesis 2:7-8). He was put in the garden to begin the task assigned to him as a priest. He was given a law to obey and a helper to compliment him so that he could fulfill his task. He was a son of God (Luke 3:38). He was a spokesman for God (i.e. a prophet) and a ruler. He was in covenant with God . [Yet the humblest Christian is greater than he. For] he violated the covenant He sinned and transgressed God's law. He was subsequently cursed, clothed with animal skins and exiled from the garden. Now he's sinful, a terrible image of God, a covenant-breaker, and no longer the keeper of God's garden temple.' [R. Barcellos, Better than the Beginning. RBAP, 2013]

When we compare the opening chapters of Genesis with the closing chapters of Revelation, there are some interesting similarities and contrasts:
1. The devil, who first appears in Gen. 3, is thrown into the lake of fire.
2. The first heavens and first earth of Genesis 1:1 become the new heavens and new earth of Revelation 21:1.
3. The tree of life, that first appears in Gen. 2, turns up on the new earth.
4. As God dwelt with Adam in Eden, so He will dwell with all the citizens of the new earth.
5. There will no longer be any death in the new earth. Christians are better placed than Adam was.

'In Him the tribes of Adam boast
More blessings than their father lost' Isaac watts.

I agree with much here. Adam was created upright. Sin originated with Adam, not God.

Where we disagree is in the assumption this equates to Adam possessing "spiritual life". If you affirm @Iconoclast's interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15, that the passage speaks of Adam created first with a physical body and second with a spiritual one as proof Adam was given spiritual life prior to Christ becoming a life-giving Spirit then we disagree on multiple accounts.

I do see your idea that "before the Fall, Adam was designated prophet, priest and king under God" as going too far. These are offices typified in the OT pointing to the NT. You may be correct but it is purely philosophical conjecture from our vantage gazing back. What we have to rely upon is Scripture.

So we agree on a lot, yet disagree on much as well. That's life. Beyond what Scripture actually teaches us we will simply have to wait until we know in full. Then we can discuss it knowing rather than speculating over a cup of coffee. You can have a spot of tea.

 

[Iconoclast]

JonC,

.

Part of my concern here is that Christianity does not look to restoring sacred space.

Part of my concern is...why does JonC always get it wrong???
The restoration of sacred space is the work of God, not Christianity.

Christianity does not look at Christ as restoring mankind back to what man was in the Garden.

Who said mankind was being restored to what he was??
no one posted this JonC. That does not stop you from suggesting it

Where is JonC going with these misrepresentations?

That is paganism[/QUOTE].

Here it is,lol JonC wants to disparage the fine scholarship and call it paganism. How does he do this once again?
The quoted portions spoke of a restoration of peace, ie, peace with God.
At the fall Adam died spiritually and lost this peace.
19 I create the fruit of the lips; Peace, peace to him that is far off, and to him that is near, saith the Lord; and I will heal him.

20 But the wicked are like the troubled sea, when it cannot rest, whose waters cast up mire and dirt.

21 There is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked.

ANE paganism is based on this type of restoration (ANE temple cities were situated as sacred spaces very much like we read of the Garden in Genesis).

He follows his false idea with this foolish statement that has nothing to do with the link provided. He cannot quite grasp what is offered, so he seeks to diminish what the Pastor offered.If only this Pastor read the posts of JonC, he would not suggest these biblical ideas.

What Christianity looks to is a re-creation (not a return to the original creation).

Here he repeats the falsehood....No one suggests a return to the original creation,lol.
Man In Christ is elevated above the angels as has already been posted ...Psalm 8>Hebrews 2

There will be a new heaven and a new earth, and a new mankind of whom Christ is the Firstborn. It is something new - not a return to something old.

Here JonC repeats the falsehood for the third time,lol No one said we go back to the old

Where paganism looks back Christianity sees Genesis (and all of Scripture) looking forward and the object of its gaze is Christ.

Every Christian looks forward to Christ...try again JonC.

This is why you interpreted the "first Adam who became a living soul" and the "last Adam who became a life-giving spirit" as Adam being created with a natural body and then made spiritually alive.

Wrong again JonC....Adam had a physical body that was alive as well as a spirit/soul that was alive.He was alive all around, not made alive in a two-step process....Where do you get this stuff? nevermind I would rather not know.

You miss the entire point of the passage (the "last Adam" is Christ,[/QUOTE]

Can you show anyone who suggested the last Adam is anyone but Christ??? You repeat this falsehood yet again.
This is the M.O. of JonC....no one posts such falsehoods but that does not stop him from suggesting that they did.
Then he jumps in as if he was bringing clarity.

If any reader has the time, you can examine most all of his posts and see this same exact pattern. Readers are you happy with such a thing?
So after 5 falsehoods, we get this kind of JonC conclusion

first the natural and then the spiritual) because you are cutting up Scripture to try and support your theology (which is actually more philosophy because it is not Christ centered).

Not Christ centered, yeah right

I encourage you to read Scripture rather than using it as a tool to defend your arguments. You are very wrong about 1 Corinthians 15.

Then another personal slight and accusation.....we have seen it over and over. We are not buying what you are selling JonC.

 

[JonC]

JonC,

.
Part of my concern is...why does JonC always get it wrong???
The restoration of sacred space is the work of God, not Christianity.



Who said mankind was being restored to what he was??
no one posted this JonC. That does not stop you from suggesting it

Where is JonC going with these misrepresentations?

Iconoclast,

There is no reason for you to be so abusive and insulting. People do not have to agree with each other and in life you will find many Christians will disagree with your ideas. You would do well to remember that the people you abuse are people for whom Christ died.

I am not saying this because we disagree as I would say the same if we were in complete agreement on these doctrines. What you do to others you do to Christ. This is a principle I encourage you to keep in mind.

I have found that I learn more from discussing doctrine with people I disagree with, those who hold opposing opinions, than those who hold the exact same positions I affirm. This is "iron sharpening iron". It is not without friction. But it is without hate.

You need to examine yourself and how you treat people who disagree with you.

 

[Iconoclast]

Iconoclast,

There is no reason for you to be so abusive and insulting. People do not have to agree with each other and in life you will find many Christians will disagree with your ideas. You would do well to remember that the people you abuse are people for whom Christ died.

I am not saying this because we disagree as I would say the same if we were in complete agreement on these doctrines. What you do to others you do to Christ. This is a principle I encourage you to keep in mind.

I have found that I learn more from discussing doctrine with people I disagree with, those who hold opposing opinions, than those who hold the exact same positions I affirm. This is "iron sharpening iron". It is not without friction. But it is without hate.

You need to examine yourself and how you treat people who disagree with you.

There is no need for you to constantly and non stop mis-represent those who you do not agree with.
This TIME YOU CLAIMED A PASTOR WAS DRAWING FROM PAGANISM??? seriously JonC.
How do you expect anyone to take advice from you when you disparage Godly pastors?
It is quite shocking to see where you go sometimes. I would ask you once again to stop it.
I have not requested anyone agree with me....They are free to believe what they want.

 

[JonC]

There is no need for you to constantly and non stop mis-represent those who you do not agree with.
This TIME YOU CLAIMED A PASTOR WAS DRAWING FROM PAGANISM??? seriously JonC.
How do you expect anyone to take advice from you when you disparage Godly pastors?
It is quite shocking to see where you go sometimes. I would ask you once again to stop it.
I have not requested anyone agree with me....They are free to believe what they want.

Again, Iconoclast, there is no need for your attacks against me or anyone else. People are going to disagree with you. People are going to disagree with the preachers you choose to follow. You disagree with me. Just because I am a preacher licensed by a Baptist church does not mean I am beyond question.

I never claimed that anyone (pastor or otherwise) was drawing on paganism. I stated a simple fact. ANE paganism (temple cities) can be viewed as an attempt to return to a "Garden". They were set up that way. They built towers, not to get themselves to Heaven but to get the gods to come down. Christianity does not look to a restoration of sacred space. It does not look to a restoration of mankind to a pre-fall state. Christianity looks to a new Creation. If you are interested in the topic (ANE religion and Christianity) pm me and I can recommend a few resources.

I hope that clarifies your misunderstanding of my comments, if not for you for the board.

These instances show why it is so important to ask questions about other people's views. If you can set aside the malice you may actually find those who disagree with your ideas have reasons for doing do.
You may not agree with our reasons, and we may often be wrong. But that does not give you the right to wage war to shut down any disagreeing voice.

It is not right that Christians suffer insults simply because they hold an understanding that differs from yours. This is not the agenda you are called you pursue.

 

[Iconoclast]

JonC,

]Again, Iconoclast, there is no need for your attacks against me or anyone else.

there was no attack.just observations.


[QUOTE]I never claimed that anyone (pastor or otherwise) was drawing on paganism. I stated a simple fact. ANE paganism (temple cities) can be viewed as an attempt to return to a "Garden". [/QUOTE]
I will let the readers decide.

[QUOTE]They were set up that way. They built towers, not to get themselves to Heaven but to get the gods to come down. Christianity does not look to a restoration of sacred space. It foes not look to a restoration of mankind to a pre-fall state. Christianity looks to a new Creation. If you are interested in the topic (ANE religion and Christianity) pm me and I can recommend a few resources.[/QUOTE]

Not really interested in your ideas or resources. I just answered because I do not care for how you react to the links.

I hope that clarifies your misunderstanding of my comments, if not for you for the board.

Thanks for trying to clarify, but I did not misunderstand your comments at all.

These instances show why it is so important to ask questions about other people's views. If you can set aside the malice you may actually find those who disagree with your ideas have reasons for doing do.
You may not agree with our reasons, and we may often be wrong. But that does not give you the right to wage war to shut down any disagreeing voice.

I shut down nothing. Everyone can post what they want. I can respond. ?The results are what they are. I do not like interacting with you, not because of doctrinal content, but because of your insinuations in each post.

It is not right that Christians suffer insults simply because they hold an understanding that differs from yours. This is not the agenda you are called you pursue.

observations and facts, are not insults

 

[JonC]

JonC,



there was no attack.just observations.

I never claimed that anyone (pastor or otherwise) was drawing on paganism. I stated a simple fact. ANE paganism (temple cities) can be viewed as an attempt to return to a "Garden".
I will let the readers decide.
They were set up that way. They built towers, not to get themselves to Heaven but to get the gods to come down. Christianity does not look to a restoration of sacred space. It foes not look to a restoration of mankind to a pre-fall state. Christianity looks to a new Creation. If you are interested in the topic (ANE religion and Christianity) pm me and I can recommend a few resources.

Not really interested in your ideas or resources. I just answered because I do not care for how you react to the links.

Thanks for trying to clarify, but I did not misunderstand your comments at all.


I shut down nothing. Everyone can post what they want. I can respond. ?The results are what they are. I do not like interacting with you, not because of doctrinal content, but because of your insinuations in each post.


observations and facts, are not insults

I view spiritual death and spiritual life as centered on the indwelling of the Spirit. I think the believer can willfully sin (willfully "feed" the old nature) but can also die daily to sin (bear his cross). I do not believe the one without spiritual life is able to do anything but satisfy the flesh. His mind is simply set on the flesh.

We can look at the fruits and have a glimpse at the Spirit (whether of the flesh or the Spirit).

The natural man (spiritual death) has the fruits of the flesh. He is full of malice, arrogant, seeks his own agenda, sanders others, insults, attacks, is unforgiving, holds a grudge, is unkind, and interacts with hatred rather than charity.

The spiritual man (spiritual life) keeps no record of wrongs, is forgiving, interacts with kindness, does not seek his own agenda, tries to uplift others, is not insulting towards people, and demonstrates patience and charity.

Robert Frost wrote of two roads that diverged in a yellow wood. Men have choices.

The spiritually dead choose to walk in darkness. Those in darkness cannot help but insult and attack. It is their nature.

The spiritual man chooses to walk in the Light. Those in the Light cannot help but interact in love and kindness. It is his nature.

Perhaps God is convicting you today. That is good as God disciplines those who are His. We are not called to return to the bondage of sin but are liberated from the law of sin and death. Choose Life.

 

[Iconoclast]

You look

I view spiritual death and spiritual life as centered on the indwelling of the Spirit. I think the believer can willfully sin (willfully "feed" the old nature) but can also die daily to sin (bear his cross). I do not believe the one without spiritual life is able to do anything but satisfy the flesh. His mind is simply set on the flesh.

We can look at the fruits and have a glimpse at the Spirit (whether of the flesh or the Spirit).

The natural man (spiritual death) has the fruits of the flesh. He is full of malice, arrogant, seeks his own agenda, sanders others, insults, attacks, is unforgiving, holds a grudge, is unkind, and interacts with hatred rather than charity.

The spiritual man (spiritual life) keeps no record of wrongs, is forgiving, interacts with kindness, does not seek his own agenda, tries to uplift others, is not insulting towards people, and demonstrates patience and charity.

Robert Frost wrote of two roads that diverged in a yellow wood. Men have choices.

The spiritually dead choose to walk in darkness. Those in darkness cannot help but insult and attack. It is their nature.

The spiritual man chooses to walk in the Light. Those in the Light cannot help but interact in love and kindness. It is his nature.

Perhaps God is convicting you today. That is good as God disciplines those who are His. We are not called to return to the bondage of sin but are liberated from the law of sin and death. Choose Life.

Well it looks like someone looked in the mirror while shaving this morning. Self-realization is good for the soul John C
way to start the day confess your faults even though you did it through the lens of the carnal Christian heresy we got the overall idea
I'm glad you realize these things as you looked in that mirror shaving today way to start the day have a good day John C

 

[Revmitchell]

Again, Iconoclast, there is no need for your attacks against me or anyone else. People are going to disagree with you. People are going to disagree with the preachers you choose to follow. You disagree with me. Just because I am a preacher licensed by a Baptist church does not mean I am beyond question.

I never claimed that anyone (pastor or otherwise) was drawing on paganism. I stated a simple fact. ANE paganism (temple cities) can be viewed as an attempt to return to a "Garden". They were set up that way. They built towers, not to get themselves to Heaven but to get the gods to come down. Christianity does not look to a restoration of sacred space. It does not look to a restoration of mankind to a pre-fall state. Christianity looks to a new Creation. If you are interested in the topic (ANE religion and Christianity) pm me and I can recommend a few resources.

I hope that clarifies your misunderstanding of my comments, if not for you for the board.

These instances show why it is so important to ask questions about other people's views. If you can set aside the malice you may actually find those who disagree with your ideas have reasons for doing do.
You may not agree with our reasons, and we may often be wrong. But that does not give you the right to wage war to shut down any disagreeing voice.

It is not right that Christians suffer insults simply because they hold an understanding that differs from yours. This is not the agenda you are called you pursue.

According to him he has dispensed "with the niceties".

 

[Iconoclast]

According to him he has dispensed "with the niceties".

According to him he has dispensed "with the niceties".

Is that what that was, niceties?

 

[JonC]

According to him he has dispensed "with the niceties".

I never knew him to have them to begin with. My experience has been that he has always been arrogant and insulting to anyone who dared argue against his position. I suppose that is why I became a target. Sometimes when people are indoctrinated into a view that they do not fully understand (particularly understand in context with other Christian views) and cannot defend their faith they choose to attack and insult other people who would dare challenge their position.

His agenda is to censor and silence any position that differs from his own and he dies it by slander and insult (he tries to discredit anyone who holds views other than his). This is how he has addressed Skandelion and DHK. This is how he dealt with you, MB, InTheLIght, and me.

I believe that the truth of our character and where we stand does not come through when we are among the like-minded but when we are among Christians who strongly disagree with our views. I sometimes struggle here, I admit. It is easy to be kind to people who are "in your camp". But even the wicked love their children. The truth of our character comes through not in agreeable circumstances but in adversity. It is not courage to run towards the front of the dinner line. It is courage to run to the front of the battle.

If you look at @Iconoclast 's posts here would you think that he is a Christian? I doubt it. You'd have to rely on his statement that he is a Christian, not his actions. IMHO that is a problem. It is one I have to address in my life and I believe everyone needs to consider before addressing other people.

This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth; but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin. 1 John 1:5-7

 

[InTheLight]

Is that what that was, niceties?

ITL,
You do not seem to grasp the idea of examples being used to illustrate a truth. That's okay. It does not make you a bad person.

People do not engage me because I can be quite annoying.
I many times dispense with tactful niceties and get to the issue head on.

What Others Believe

I'd say so...

 

[Yeshua1]

In discussing Adam, it is, of course, important to realise the amazing status he had before the Fall. I put some of this on another thread, but since this one is so similar, I think it may be helpful to put it here as well.
First of all, of course, he was unique, both in his creation (Genesis 1:27) and in his fall (Romans 5:12-21). He was also the apex of all God's creation. All creation was 'good' but after the creation of man, God pronounced it 'very good.' Man is therefore creation's crowning glory. So it was necessary that Adam be created sinless, but, of course, he was also defectable, otherwise the warning of Genesis 2:17 would not have been necessary. 'Truly, this only have I found: that God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes' (Ecclesiastes 7:29).
May I suggest that before the Fall, Adam was designated prophet, priest and king under God? The 'king' bit is easy: God gave Adam 'dominion over.......all the earth' (Genesis 1:26). Adam is told 'Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.' This is an instruction that Adam would have had to pass on to his progeny; hence, he was a prophet, speaking the words that God gave him. Eden was a place where God walked (Genesis 3:8); his presence, pre-Fall, was with the first couple. Where else is God's presence with man made manifest? In the Tabernacle (Exodus 40:34), the Temple (1 Kings 8:10-11), in the Church (Matthew 18:20), and in the New Jerusalem (Revelation 21:3). So Eden was a garden temple, a place where man met with God. Therefore Adam was a priest.
So was Adam spiritually alive? Beyond doubt. 'A sinless image-bearer was called by God to be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth with others like him. He was to subdue the earth and rule over the other creatures, starting in the garden of Eden and going out from there (Genesis 1:28). He was made of body and soul outside the garden (Genesis 2:7-8). He was put in the garden to begin the task assigned to him as a priest. He was given a law to obey and a helper to compliment him so that he could fulfill his task. He was a son of God (Luke 3:38). He was a spokesman for God (i.e. a prophet) and a ruler. He was in covenant with God . [Yet the humblest Christian is greater than he. For] he violated the covenant He sinned and transgressed God's law. He was subsequently cursed, clothed with animal skins and exiled from the garden. Now he's sinful, a terrible image of God, a covenant-breaker, and no longer the keeper of God's garden temple.' [R. Barcellos, Better than the Beginning. RBAP, 2013]

When we compare the opening chapters of Genesis with the closing chapters of Revelation, there are some interesting similarities and contrasts:
1. The devil, who first appears in Gen. 3, is thrown into the lake of fire.
2. The first heavens and first earth of Genesis 1:1 become the new heavens and new earth of Revelation 21:1.
3. The tree of life, that first appears in Gen. 2, turns up on the new earth.
4. As God dwelt with Adam in Eden, so He will dwell with all the citizens of the new earth.
5. There will no longer be any death in the new earth. Christians are better placed than Adam was.

'In Him the tribes of Adam boast
More blessings than their father lost' Isaac watts.

Would you agree with me then that Adam was able to live on for essentially forever before corrupted by the fall, and that he would have been glorious to see and behold, maybe in a sense like an Angel in appearance?

 

[Yeshua1]

No, it isn't. You are stating passages we all agree on to prove unrelated conclusions. You ssid "if" a Adam had not sinned (philosophical question) then he would not have died (you also stated he would live forever, be ageless, and had dome type of glory). You cannot prove that point by stating what actually occurred.

see MM post 60, he just summed up my viewpoint much better then I ever could!

 

[Yeshua1]

I agree with much here. Adam was created upright. Sin originated with Adam, not God.

Where we disagree is in the assumption this equates to Adam possessing "spiritual life". If you affirm @Iconoclast's interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15, that the passage speaks of Adam created first with a physical body and second with a spiritual one as proof Adam was given spiritual life prior to Christ becoming a life-giving Spirit then we disagree on multiple accounts.

I do see your idea that "before the Fall, Adam was designated prophet, priest and king under God" as going too far. These are offices typified in the OT pointing to the NT. You may be correct but it is purely philosophical conjecture from our vantage gazing back. What we have to rely upon is Scripture.

So we agree on a lot, yet disagree on much as well. That's life. Beyond what Scripture actually teaches us we will simply have to wait until we know in full. Then we can discuss it knowing rather than speculating over a cup of coffee. You can have a spot of tea.

many times what you call us using philosophy is instead making strict inference from the texts themselves, such in how we derived the Trinity Themselves as being biblical!

 

[Iconoclast]

I never knew him to have them to begin with. My experience has been that he has always been arrogant and insulting to anyone who dared argue against his position. I suppose that is why I became a target. Sometimes when people are indoctrinated into a view that they do not fully understand (particularly understand in context with other Christian views) and cannot defend their faith they choose to attack and insult other people who would dare challenge their position.

His agenda is to censor and silence any position that differs from his own and he dies it by slander and insult (he tries to discredit anyone who holds views other than his). This is how he has addressed Skandelion and DHK. This is how he dealt with you, MB, InTheLIght, and me.

I believe that the truth of our character and where we stand does not come through when we are among the like-minded but when we are among Christians who strongly disagree with our views. I sometimes struggle here, I admit. It is easy to be kind to people who are "in your camp". But even the wicked love their children. The truth of our character comes through not in agreeable circumstances but in adversity. It is not courage to run towards the front of the dinner line. It is courage to run to the front of the battle.

If you look at @Iconoclast 's posts here would you think that he is a Christian? I doubt it. You'd have to rely on his statement that he is a Christian, not his actions. IMHO that is a problem. It is one I have to address in my life and I believe everyone needs to consider before addressing other people.

This is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you, that God is Light, and in Him there is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with Him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth; but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin. 1 John 1:5-7

Another very kind post that Itl, and Rm will enjoy.
JonC I recall recently where you said you learned about projection from the time you spent in the Army psych ward in your time there.
I tend to believe you now on that. You have it down to a science.
Thank you for so many niceties as they are called.
I can feel the love. Besides RM testified that you have never posted anything not truthful, so we know that is a solid source,lol

 

[JonC]

As evidence of the truth of my post I can say @Iconoclast is appealing for censorship now.

Sometimes it is difficult to face a post that addresses our sins. I did not take pleasure noting I also struggle with how I respond in arguments. But for me to intitionally pull down blinders and ignore the sin does me no good. It serves as a reminder to me of who I am and who I was.

My post was not an insult but an observation. Iconoclast responds to people who disagrees with him by attacking them and trying to silence them or discredit them. That us an ungodly agenda. It does not demonstrate Christ.

Repentance is a spiritual quality. God disciplines those who belong to Him. We cannot walk in darkness while claiming the Light. This is a Christian truth - the meat of the Word.

And this is for us all. I am no better a person than @Iconoclast. But when I see him continuing this agenda against other people, slandering, insulting and attacking people for whom Christ died, trying to silence anyone who dare disagree with him.... I cannot but say that this is wrong. It is not the reason Christ died. And it mocks the blood shed for us.

 

[Yeshua1]

I agree with much here. Adam was created upright. Sin originated with Adam, not God.

Where we disagree is in the assumption this equates to Adam possessing "spiritual life". If you affirm @Iconoclast's interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15, that the passage speaks of Adam created first with a physical body and second with a spiritual one as proof Adam was given spiritual life prior to Christ becoming a life-giving Spirit then we disagree on multiple accounts.

I do see your idea that "before the Fall, Adam was designated prophet, priest and king under God" as going too far. These are offices typified in the OT pointing to the NT. You may be correct but it is purely philosophical conjecture from our vantage gazing back. What we have to rely upon is Scripture.

So we agree on a lot, yet disagree on much as well. That's life. Beyond what Scripture actually teaches us we will simply have to wait until we know in full. Then we can discuss it knowing rather than speculating over a cup of coffee. You can have a spot of tea.

far as I know, George Whitefield, Mr Calvinist stayed good friends with John Wesley, Mr Non call, so we can agree to disagree in a Christ like fashion!

 

[JonC]

far as I know, George Whitefield, Mr Calvinist stayed good friends with John Wesley, Mr Non call, so we can agree to disagree in a Christ like fashion!

We can. The problem is when people look upon anyone who disagrees with them as an enemy to be defeated.

see MM post 60, he just summed up my viewpoint much better then I ever could!

I agree with a lot of @Martin Marprelate 's post, but not all. Unfortunately he has proven thus far unable to defend the post in its entirety.