And when any of us think that now have become an Apostle and have perfect theology and understanding!
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Spiritual Death
- Thread starter Iconoclast
- Start date
- Status
Yes. Good post.
The problem is when people elevate their theology to the level of God's word, as if God revealed to them their understanding. They end up confusing their theories as the "meat" of the Word and become blind to the actual meat.
In this life we know in part.
No...to be clear... I did not call for censorship.
I requested you be removed as unfit to oversee this message board.
You can post your lies, slander and false witness as much as you like, but as many have noted you are not quite up to as ny kind of oversight.
You can publish my report openly as I did not ask or use the word censorship.
That is not the first time you have twisted what people post
I misunderstood Jon C post, as thought that he was saying that you were to one trying to get him to censure you from board!
When a person does not post clearly that kind of mix up can 5ake place.
If you look at his posts you see a pattern.
The thing he is guilty of, he projects on those who answer him.
He does not post to edify, but to undermine the person he is trying to silence.
In other words ....everything he is saying he is guilty of....but then he gets religious and sanctimonious as if he is trying to help.
Go read through his posts with Martin M, or that thread a year ago with nine pages.
He did not speak as much about the topic as he attacked the person.
Here in post 72, and the one before it....straight out false witness and personal attack....just take a moment and re read the posts.
No. @Iconoclast reported my post as "off topic and ungodly" .
My point here is that I know I have responded in the past to @Iconoclast in kind. And I was wrong to do so. I have not slandered him or lied about him, but I have responded to him with insults. That was me allowing sin into my activities on this board (it was not guarding my heart). At the time I was getting aggravated because Iconoclast had targeted me simply because I thought he was wrong. But that does not excuse my behavior.
In the past I had tried to ignore @Iconoclast but that only resulted in him passive aggressively insulting me. I quickly discovered that was not going to work. I want to help him but at the same time I am cautious because I have lost much of the patience I once had.
That said, I am not tempted now to respond to him in kind. His insults and accusations do not apply to me but to his own character. And that is what I want him to realize. We choose to walk in the Light or to walk in the darkness. When we hate, that hatred is a choice. We have been freed from the bondage of the law of sin and death. If we return that is without a doubt completely on us, even more so than it was before we knew better.
For the board, it would be nice for @Iconoclast to conduct himself in a Christ-like manner. But more importantly for @Iconoclast he needs to conduct himself in a Christ-like manner. We cannot insult people, slander them, or attack them simply because they disagree with us. That is simply wrong. People will disagree. But people do not have to attack.
Other people have just as much a right to express their beliefs as does @Iconoclast . And we should be able to do so without being insulted, attacked or ridiculed for our views.
(report shared with permission from member in post #83)
That he would have lived for ever is the inevitable conclusion one has to make from Genesis 2:17. 'In the day that you eat of it, you shall surely die.' Surely, the necessary corollary is, that if you don't eat of it, you won't die. It's like someone saying to you, "If you keep doing that, I'm calling the police." It is a reasonable assumption that if you stop doing 'that,' he won't call the police.
The rest is, I think, a reasonable assumption, but it takes me further into the realm of speculation than I care to go. What I will say is that if the first Adam had not fallen, there would have been no need for a last Adam. But of course, that may be the very reason that God allowed Adam to fall.
This is a logical fallacy (it is denying the antecedent, also called "affirming the inverse").
If you do not eat your meat you cannot have any pudding does not mean you have your pudding if you eat your meat. It stipulates one thing (if you do X then Y will occur), not if don't do X then Y will not occur.
The assumption that Adam would have lived forever had he not sinned is an assumption based on a hypothetical employing a logical fallacy.
Thank you for your kind words.
A couple of other similarities between Eden and the New Jerusalem came into my mind. The first I had intended to post, but it slipped my mind. The others have occurred to me since.
So firstly, the curse that was inflicted in Genesis 3 because of Adam's sin is no more. 'And there shall be no more curse, but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and His servants shall serve Him.' (Revelation 22:3).The curse came about because the man ceased to serve God. But the Man-God served the father perfectly and so the curse is lifted in the eternal state, never to be re-imposed.
Secondly, you wrote about Eden as the mount of the Lord, and correctly pointed out that most other places where God meets with man are on mountains (Mt. Horeb, Mt Sinai, Mt. Zion, Sermon on the Mount, Mountain of Transfiguration etc.). Ezekiel 28:13-15 describes Eden as 'the holy mountain of God.' The same verses describe Eden as rich with precious stones and gold, as does Genesis 2:11. And of course the New Jerusalem is paved with gold and rich with precious stones.
Lastly, we note that in the New Jerusalem, 'They need no lamp nor light of the sun, for the Lord God gives them light' (Revelation 22:5). And the uncreated Light must have been that which lit the earth on the first three days of creation. I'm not sure what to make of that, but it is nonetheless so, and it is another proof that the end is better than the beginning that God's light will light heaven for all eternity.
Side note:Thank you for your kind words.
A couple of other similarities between Eden and the New Jerusalem came into my mind. The first I had intended to post, but it slipped my mind. The others have occurred to me since.
So firstly, the curse that was inflicted in Genesis 3 because of Adam's sin is no more. 'And there shall be no more curse, but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and His servants shall serve Him.' (Revelation 22:3).The curse came about because the man ceased to serve God. But the Man-God served the father perfectly and so the curse is lifted in the eternal state, never to be re-imposed.
Secondly, you wrote about Eden as the mount of the Lord, and correctly pointed out that most other places where God meets with man are on mountains (Mt. Horeb, Mt Sinai, Mt. Zion, Sermon on the Mount, Mountain of Transfiguration etc.). Ezekiel 28:13-15 describes Eden as 'the holy mountain of God.' The same verses describe Eden as rich with precious stones and gold, as does Genesis 2:11. And of course the New Jerusalem is paved with gold and rich with precious stones.
Lastly, we note that in the New Jerusalem, 'They need no lamp nor light of the sun, for the Lord God gives them light' (Revelation 22:5). And the uncreated Light must have been that which lit the earth on the first three days of creation. I'm not sure what to make of that, but it is nonetheless so, and it is another proof that the end is better than the beginning that God's light will light heaven for all eternity.
If you have not studied ANE religions the parallels concerning temple cities and the "Garden" are very interesting. Not saying it is paganism. I have always considered pagan similarities to be good indicators of biblical truth (pagan flood accounts, for example, may demonstrate a common past knowledge of the flood). There was the dwelling of God and the Garden (where God met with man).
Question
Is made, " a little lower than the angels," relative to the concept of life and or death?
and him who was made some little less than messengers we see -- Jesus -- because of the suffering of the death, with glory and honour having been crowned, that by the grace of God for every one he might taste of death. Heb 2:9
In other words was the man,, Adam, singular from creation and the Son of Man, Christ, also singular, from birth of Mary, both made less than the angles in order for the death to have dominion over them? See also Rom 6:9
Did Adam at creation need to be born again to enter the kingdom of God? Could Adam at creation have inherited the kingdom of God without having been changed?
Here is the plan before the man Adam is created.
Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
Who should bring about the need for the plan the first man created or the last man born? What was God's plan? Did the clay in the potters hand act according to the plan of the potter?
I say yes. Why? 1 John 3:8 and Heb 2:9-14
All because of the devil the sinner from the beginning.
Also, @Martin Marprelate, I should have asked earlier:
How do you define "spiritual life"?
None of your comments make sense in the context of spiritually dying unless you are first able to define spiritual life.
If we are going to discuss spiritual death then it is necessary to define spiritual life. This is a weak point of your argument thus far.
If you cannot do that then all you are doing is repeating a tradition (what you may have read or heard) as death itself is an absence of life.
I believe Christians are to answer for their faith and seek the edification of others. In that conviction, I define spiritual life as that life provided by the Last Adam becoming a life-giving Spirit, the indwelling of the Spirit which is life of the "imperishable seed".
Thus far there are two things that you need to address in regards to your argument:
1. The fallacy of arguing the antecedent (if you drink anti-freeze you will die means if you do not drink anti-freeze you will not die).
2. You have not provided a proper definition for spiritual life.
I hope this helps you to strengthen your argument.
How do you define "spiritual life"?
None of your comments make sense in the context of spiritually dying unless you are first able to define spiritual life.
If we are going to discuss spiritual death then it is necessary to define spiritual life. This is a weak point of your argument thus far.
If you cannot do that then all you are doing is repeating a tradition (what you may have read or heard) as death itself is an absence of life.
I believe Christians are to answer for their faith and seek the edification of others. In that conviction, I define spiritual life as that life provided by the Last Adam becoming a life-giving Spirit, the indwelling of the Spirit which is life of the "imperishable seed".
Thus far there are two things that you need to address in regards to your argument:
1. The fallacy of arguing the antecedent (if you drink anti-freeze you will die means if you do not drink anti-freeze you will not die).
2. You have not provided a proper definition for spiritual life.
I hope this helps you to strengthen your argument.
I would add:
IF God created Adam as an immortal being with spiritual life (which is by definition "God's Spirit" in Adam) then how is this creating Adam a little lower than the angels except that God Himself be a little lower than the angles? IF this applies only post-fall then the problem is Scripture tells us it is God who created man a little lower than the angels (rather than man fell a little lower than the angels).
A small technical point here. The word translated 'angels' in Psalms 8:5 is actually elohim in the Masoretic Text, which is usually translated 'God' or 'gods.' So the NASB has, 'You have made him a little lower than God.' However, since the LXX, Syriac and Targum all have 'angels' and the Holy Spirit inspired the writer of Hebrews to do the same, that seems to be the right translation.
'A little lower than the angels' perhaps in 'power and might' (2 Peter 2:11).
As I have said before, I think it is ridiculous to suppose that Adam would have died if he had not sinned because of Genesis 2:17. Suppose that someone said to you, "The very day you come and work for me, I'll pay you $10,000 up front." If you didn't come and work for him, would you still expect to receive the $10,000? The word 'if' is not in Genesis 2:17, but it is nevertheless a conditional statement.
It is plain that Adam was created sinless, and had he remained that way he would not have died. He is also called the son of God (Luke 3:38) We read in Genesis 2:7, 'And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.' It is not said of the birds or animals that God 'breathed' into them, nor that they became living beings, though obviously they were alive and breathing. The Hebrew word for breath is the same as the word for spirit, so I believe that Adam was spiritually alive in that he was able to have a close relationship with God (check out 1 Corinthians 2:11-16). Now, God told Adam that in the day he ate the forbidden fruit, he would die; but he didn't. He lived another 900 years or so and begat sons and daughters. So what sort of death did he die in that day? Surely it was a spiritual death, as shown by his immediate hiding from God in the garden (Genesis 3:8).
To go further than that is speculation. There is nothing that says that he had a resurrection body, for example.
No and yes, in that order. See above.
God is not the author of evil. Adan was created sinless but defectable, yet he fell by his own fault when tempted by Satan. But of course, that did not take God by surprise, and He had prepared a rescue plan for mankind. This plan involved a better covenant, a better covenant Head, a perfect, acceptable propitiation for sin, and eventually, a better and more glorious future for the spiritual children of Christ, than that which Adam lost for his physical offspring.
Indeed! But the Seed of the woman has crushed the serpent's head, and we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us.
Last edited:
Spiritiallife is a human being able to have a real relationship and communion with God, as that is done thru not the physical body, but in the immaterial aspect of man!
Since sin brought death to creation of God, why would Adam not be immortal before he fell?
Could God have made though created Adam as being even higher than the angels, as being the very pinnacle of His creation?
I quoted 1 Corinthians 2:11 above. Adam had a close relationship with God when originally created. And if he didn't, how is creation 'very good' with him in it?
Like David, a man after God's own heart?
This is where we run into an issue. Scripture presents sin as separating man from God. But sin itself is not "spiritual death". Through sin death entered the world. So the absence of sin is not actually "spiritual life" (animals, for example, may not be able to actually "sin" but they do not possess spiritual life).
But you are right that we have to define our terms. This is where @Martin Marprelate 's post, as good as it was, fails. He cannot answer the questions those who disagree with his view presents. And normally we have to rely on someone who does not hold our positions to show us weaknesses in our own arguments.
Since he cannot defend his argument it becomes up to you, if you want to hold his argument as true.
You define "spiritual life" as having a real relationship and communion with God. So by necessity you view spiritual life absent the indwelling of the Spirit (Enoch and David had real relationships with God, and even after the Fall Adam most likely had a real relationship and communion with God at least to some extent). So you need to refine and explain your definition of spiritual life.
The other issue is the idea that God telling Adam that if he eats the fruit he will die implies that should Adam not eat of the fruit he would live forever. This is perhaps how one arrives at the "Covenant of Works" but it is also (by definition) a formal logical fallacy. It is denying the antecedent or fallacy of the inverse. This needs to be addressed because at the start it fails the test.
So it's all you, brother - do the work @Martin Marprelate can't and defend the argument
His post has many good points.
The problem with @Martin Marprelate 's argument is that he is unable to defend it as evidenced on this thread (and therefore it should be dismissed as unsubstantiated opinion).
- Status