Featured Overfilling potholes

How about this:
Eating in a church building!

Are these verses telling us NOT to eat in the church building
or does it mean that the Lords Supper should not be a large buffet.

(Granted - it is very impolite to eat while the pastor is preaching- but i have
no problem with a good fellowship dinner)

And yes - there are chruches who prohibit any eating in the church building.

 

Many doctrines are made by filling potholes (often potholes that do not exist).

One example is deacons being married to one woman prohibiting divorced men from serving in that position.

Another that has a far greater impact is taking the double use of "die" in Genesis to mean a spiritual dying (that Adam died spiritually). This is more severe as theologies have been built on that supposition (and, of course, that it undermines "Spiritual Life" and Christ as this Life).

 

I get that they rewrite the verse to say "you surely shall die on that day", but even if they don't get English they should look to the original language.

My point is there is no justification for taking "death" to be any "other death" than physical death (God even explains to Adam that he will return to dust).

 

What I am saying is the idea is filling in potholes. It does contradict a theology many love, especially Catholic doctrine (and I suppose by default reformed RCC doctrine) BUT it uses "dying" in a way foreign to Scripture. It is a product of viewing Scripture as dots to be connected rather than a complete narrative.

For example, can you think of any passages that describes spiritual life as temporary? Can you think of a reason to divorce God's comment that Adam would return to dust from death?

We too often complain that adhering to Scripture alone would invalidate a particular doctrine. But that's why we must try. Many doctrines are exactly what @Van suggested, obstacles more dangerous than the supposed potholes they were invented to avoid

 

But some fill in what they see as potholes.

God told Adam he would die and referenced "for dust you are, and to dust you shall return". Reading Scripture as a narrative it'd seem to present this as a physical death. But some see a pothole here and divorce God's words from "death".

The day Adam eats of the fruit he will surely die. The very basic meaning is that death would become certain (that day Adam would surely die). But some see a pothole, so they reword the verse to read "you will surely die on that day" (a subtle but substantial change, especially since the Hebrew simple uses a double which is normally taken as an emphasis or definitive).

Man's nature is described in Scripture as being "of the flesh", "flesh", of Adam, ect. But Scripture does not talk of a "fallen nature". That is a pothole.

Scripture tells us a few things that happened to Adam. He would return to dust. His eyes were opened (he "became like [God] knowing good and evil"). But there is a pothole. Some assume this was a change in nature rather than a change in knowledge or understanding (knowing good and evil).

So we have two different things. We have the Biblical narrative (Adam would die, death entered the world, Adam's eyes were opened, ect.). But we also have fillers (Adam spiritually died, Adam's nature changed).

 

Scripture does not say that Adam would die on that day. That is rewording Scripture.

Scripture has God telling Adam that on the day he eats of the fruit he will surely die. And that is what happened. God pronounced this when He said "from dust you are and to dust you will return". Through Adam's sin death entered the world.

Where did you get the idea that Adam died on the day he ate the fruit?

 

No, it says "the day you eat of it you shall surely die". I agree with that.

But why change it to say Adam would die on that day? The English doesn't mean Adam would die on that day. The Hebrew is clearer (using "die" twice as a certainty or emphatic).

My question is given one possible meaning (that death would be a reality for Adam) why fill in the absence of a specific day by adding an idea not present in Scripture (that "dying" means "dying spiritually")?

 

I agree with Gill that "dying" denotes certainty, but I do not see any possible reason in Scripture for adding a second type of dying. Scripture never uses dying to mean dying spiritually elsewhere, so it is illogical to add it here.

Another problem is Scripture emphatically associates spiritual life with Jesus, and this an everlasting life.

Are you aware of any verse that indicates one was spiritually alive and then died spiritually? Or if any verse that indicates spiritual life except in Christ?

It is something we have grown up with thanks to Catholic influences, but I do not see it in Scripture itself (and, obviously, it was an idea foreign to the pre-Christian Hebrew faith).