Faulty Theology

[InTheLight]

The Bible only seems to know two sorts of people: those who are 'alive unto God' and those who are 'dead in trespasses.' What I'm asking is, which were Adam and Eve?

How about neither? A&E were unique, a special case.

Again, were they 'alive unto God' or 'dead in trespasses?

I'm not sure, but I lean toward alive.

Well, do you think it's a possibility?

Yes, I think it's a possibility that if Adam had never eaten of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and had access to eat the fruit of the tree of life, he could have been immortal. Gen. 3:22.

 

[JonC]

actually MM and I would see it more that God forsook Jesus for those 3 hours while he was the Sin bearer, as per the scriptures!
And just who would hold to that theology of your if not reformed nor Baptists?

My theology is Baptist (I do not reject any of the baptist distinctive) and there are many baptists who do hold my view.

Are you aware that within orthodox Christianity yours is a minority position?

Does that surprise you?

 

[JonC]

How about neither? A&E were unique, a special case.



I'm not sure, but I lean toward alive.



Yes, I think it's a possibility that if Adam had never eaten of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil and had access to eat the fruit of the tree of life, he could have been immortal. Gen. 3:22.

I agree. Out of curiosity, what do you believe is the Tree of Life?

 

[JonC]

@Yeshua1 ,

What I am saying is that we have to think things through but know where Scripture ends and our understanding begins. We think things through and do the best we can, and perhaps we are making good decisions but later down the road God opens our eyes to something that changes our view.

As an illustration:

I am going fishing this weekend. I planed it for awhile. I bought a new surf rod. I looked for a long time and read reviews, and I chose just the one I wanted. I set the thing up very carefully, had it pre-rigged. I took it apart and put a band around the thing so it was read to go this afternoon.

Guess what? It will not fit in my car. So I am taking my two other rods.

We have to look at learning as a process.

 

[Yeshua1]

My theology is Baptist (I do not reject any of the baptist distinctive) and there are many baptists who do hold my view.

Are you aware that within orthodox Christianity yours is a minority position?

Does that surprise you?

No, as majority position would be infant baptism, but I also reject that notion!

 

[InTheLight]

I agree. Out of curiosity, what do you believe is the Tree of Life?

I've never really studied it. I think it's a literal tree (or specie of tree) that we will eat fruit from on New Earth (Rev. 22). While we will literally eat the fruit of this tree, the actual eating of it could be symbolic as well. It could be a symbol of the Savior.

 

[Yeshua1]

@Yeshua1 ,

What I am saying is that we have to think things through but know where Scripture ends and our understanding begins. We think things through and do the best we can, and perhaps we are making good decisions but later down the road God opens our eyes to something that changes our view.

As an illustration:

I am going fishing this weekend. I planed it for awhile. I bought a new surf rod. I looked for a long time and read reviews, and I chose just the one I wanted. I set the thing up very carefully, had it pre-rigged. I took it apart and put a band around the thing so it was read to go this afternoon.

Guess what? It will not fit in my car. So I am taking my two other rods.

We have to look at learning as a process.

the difference though JonC is that you always assume that your position is the right one to take, and that those against yours views are wrong, adding to scripture etc!

 

[JonC]

the difference though JonC is that you always assume that your position is the right one to take, and that those against yours views are wrong, adding to scripture etc!

I hope we all assume that our position is the right one to take and that those against our views are wrong.

Where I see you adding to Scripture is when you say things but cannot provide any passages saying what you say (like that Adam died spiritually).

 

[MB]

MB what is it i have not established?

YThere is no Adam died past tense. You have not established that Adam died spiritually the day he sinned. The verse you presented to prove it does not say Adam died. It says "dying and die" neither of which confirms that he died spiritually.
MB

 

[Reformed1689]

YThere is no Adam died past tense. You have not established that Adam died spiritually the day he sinned. The verse you presented to prove it does not say Adam died. It says "dying and die" neither of which confirms that he died spiritually.
MB

Adam was dead in his sins. Do you agree with this? What was he before sin?

 

[AustinC]

I never said that. I said that Adam being made spiritually dead would be problematic for Calvinists.



Fine. You can say that, but you can't say the Bible specifically says Adam was spiritually alive.



Is a strawman argument that no one is making.

You did say it and you have now restated it. Adam was not "made" spiritually dead. Your phraseology is incorrect.

 

[MB]

the difference though JonC is that you always assume that your position is the right one to take, and that those against yours views are wrong, adding to scripture etc!

The opposite is true. You are always poting scriptures that have nothing to do with the subject. Yet you claim they prove your points. I have yet to see you post anything of any substance.
MB

 

[Yeshua1]

I hope we all assume that our position is the right one to take and that those against our views are wrong.

Where I see you adding to Scripture is when you say things but cannot provide any passages saying what you say (like that Adam died spiritually).

Adam was in a relationship with God, lost that when he sinned, had no need to get saved until he sinned, and then needed a savior, correct?

 

[Yeshua1]

You hold to a non biblical theo

YThere is no Adam died past tense. You have not established that Adam died spiritually the day he sinned. The verse you presented to prove it does not say Adam died. It says "dying and die" neither of which confirms that he died spiritually.
MB

Paul held that We ALL spiritually died in Adam, right?

 

[George Antonios]

In the day that Adam ate of that tree death was sure (it was certain).

This is the second time the point at which I get lost.
I still don't know what you mean by that.
I'm not being capricious or anything. I sincerely am not sure.
Left as it is, we all agree with you said.
Physical death was certain for Adam once he ate of the tree.
Otherwise he would have live physically for ever.

 

[JonC]

Paul held that We ALL spiritually died in Adam, right?

No, but close. This is kinda what I was talking about. You say "Paul held that we all spiritually died in Adam" but there are no passages that actually say this. What you can find is that Paul taught that through Adam's sin death entered the world and spread to all men because all have sinned.

Do you see what I mean? Scripture says ABC and then you say "Scripture says DEF" which is not exactly true.

 

[Reformed1689]

No, but close. This is kinda what I was talking about. You say "Paul held that we all spiritually died in Adam" but there are no passages that actually say this. What you can find is that Paul taught that through Adam's sin death entered the world and spread to all men because all have sinned.

Do you see what I mean? Scripture says ABC and then you say "Scripture says DEF" which is not exactly true.

Well dead in sin (which was caused by Adam) is not a physical death.

 

[Yeshua1]

No, but close. This is kinda what I was talking about. You say "Paul held that we all spiritually died in Adam" but there are no passages that actually say this. What you can find is that Paul taught that through Adam's sin death entered the world and spread to all men because all have sinned.

Do you see what I mean? Scripture says ABC and then you say "Scripture says DEF" which is not exactly true.

We were spiritually dead before we ever chose to sin, as we are physically born in Adam!

 

[George Antonios]

So you are saying there are degrees of being "spiritually alive?" Adam was spiritually alive but not as spiritually alive as justified New Testament saints?

I guess you can use "degrees" - yes.

For example, some people, according to the book of Revelation, will need the tree of life to be healed and live on for ever (Rev.22:2, 14).
But that doesn't hold true neither for you nor me, since Christ himself, not the tree, is our life (Col.3:3-4).

 

[JonC]

This is the second time the point at which I get lost.
I still don't know what you mean by that.
I'm not being capricious or anything. I sincerely am not sure.
Left as it is, we all agree with you said.
Physical death was certain for Adam once he ate of the tree.
Otherwise he would have live physically for ever.

What I mean is that God told Adam that on the day he ate of the fruit he would surely die (not that he would die on that day).

Yes, physical death was certain for Adam once he ate of the tree.

BUT we cannot say "otherwise he would have lived physically forever" based on that information because that is denying the antecedent fallacy (the error of inverse). On the surface it seems to make sense, but the conclusion is in fact a logical error. We do not know what may have been on the other side of that "if".

We do know if Adam, after eating of the fruit, ate of the "Tree of Life" then he would have lived forever. I am not sure if we know for certain what that means, but we don't have to (it is still a hypothetical).