What the sin nature is not.

[JonC]

I proved your point that physical death is the payment for sin? I posted passages that shows Adam was separated from the presence of God for 930 years after he transgressed the law of God (don't eat the fruit of that one tree) and before he died physically, and when he did die physically he did not die as the son of God. Adam was on his way to hell because that is the wage of sin, one sin. See James 2:9 here. No. Adam was dead spiritually for those 930 years and the fact he died physically proves it. Unlike us now who have been born again and have received the Spirit of God, who is the life of God, and who are sealed by the Spirit in the righteousness of Jesus Christ where personal sins cannot condemn us, Adam was not.

You proved my point by not being able to provide even one verse supporting your idea.

On the other hand, I provided several passages actually equating this death with physical death. One was God's statement of the curse, noting that Adam would return to dust. Another was Jesus' claim that there is only one dying before Judgment.


Your comments are a bit strange since Able and Cain were not separated from the presence of God.

What you should have said is that Adam was cast from the Garden so that he woukd not eat of the Tree of Life and live forever.

It does not matter when Adam died. God did not set a date.

 

[JD731]

It would take passages that actually state that we had a debt of sin that needed to be repayed.

I agree with the passages you have provided, but not the ideas you add to those passages.

For example, I agree that the wages of sin is death. I agree that sin, once conceived, brings forth death.

I agree that Christ nailed the certificate of debt (the Law with all of its requirements) on the tree.

But to answer your question, it woukd take actual Scrioture (not your theories or ideas about Scripture) to convenience me. The reason is that I believe Scrioture sufficient.

You know, I make longer posts because i attempt to string a reasonable and logical argument for my doctrines from the scripture while attempting to provide enough of the scriptures to show context. I am not depending on so called church fathers who have invented doctrines and non scriptural terms to define them. How many times does God need to say we are bought with a price, the blood of Christ, before it registers there has been a purchase and a transaction made. The word redemption means to buy back.. You just dismiss the logic out of hand and rarely present a scriptural case for you beliefs.

By the way, our Lord forbids us to call any man father in a spiritual sense.

Mt 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

 

[JD731]

You proved my point by not being able to provide even one verse supporting your idea.

On the other hand, I provided several passages actually equating this death with physical death. One was God's statement of the curse, noting that Adam would return to dust. Another was Jesus' claim that there is only one dying before Judgment.


Your comments are a bit strange since Able and Cain were not separated from the presence of God.

What you should have said is that Adam was cast from the Garden so that he woukd not eat of the Tree of Life and live forever.

It does not matter when Adam died. God did not set a date.

God made the redeeming atonement for Adam and Eve himself by killing the lamb and clothing them, a picture of being clothed with the righteousness of God by God himself. So, Adam could live being condemned and without the presence of God because of this but he could not live forever. It would take a better blood sacrifice for that to happen, and there is one 4000 years later that is a satisfactory sacrifice for Adam and his whole family, including Cain and Abel. However Cain rejected this way and brought a sacrifice of his own choosing and was rejected. Abel brought a blood sacrifice, demonstrating that he understood redemption and believed God would save him.

 

[JonC]

You know, I make longer posts because i attempt to string a reasonable and logical argument for my doctrines from the scripture while attempting to provide enough of the scriptures to show context. I am not depending on so called church fathers who have invented doctrines and non scriptural terms to define them. How many times does God need to say we are bought with a price, the blood of Christ, before it registers there has been a purchase and a transaction made. The word redemption means to buy back.. You just dismiss the logic out of hand and rarely present a scriptural case for you beliefs.

By the way, our Lord forbids us to call any man father in a spiritual sense.

Mt 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

I understand your doctrine and how it is worked out using Scripture.

I disagree with the "working out" part.

The reason is that I believe foundational precepts are found in text of Scripture itself and require no "working out".

If I were to read about Adam, transgression, death entering the world and spreading, etc. and find that the text of Scripture was insufficient then I'd be concerned and would perhaps have to develop a theory or doctrine relying on the Biblical text as context.

I, personally, do not find that the case.

 

[JonC]

God made the redeeming atonement for Adam and Eve himself by killing the lamb and clothing them, a picture of being clothed with the righteousness of God by God himself. So, Adam could live being condemned and without the presence of God because of this but he could not live forever. It would take a better blood sacrifice for that to happen, and there is one 4000 years later that is a satisfactory sacrifice for Adam and his whole family, including Cain and Abel. However Cain rejected this way and brought a sacrifice of his own choosing and was rejected. Abel brought a blood sacrifice, demonstrating that he understood redemption and believed God would save him.

You are wringing quite a lot out of a few words in Genesis.

Have you ever wondered why no NT writer came to the same conclusion about God clothing Adam and Eve?

Sometimes it seems like people try to "one up" Scripture. The NT tells how Christ and salvation was foreshowed, so some have to discover new ways to stress unwritten ideas. Genesis tells us God told Adam death would come, and later speaks the curse that he woukd return to dust. That isn't good enough, so some blend in judgment day and spirituality this death into something Jesus' words about death and judgment denied.

I suspect people find Scripture insufficient on its own because they have yet to plunge its depths.

 

[JD731]

You are wringing quite a lot out of a few words in Genesis.

Have you ever wondered why no NT writer came to the same conclusion about God clothing Adam and Eve?

It is the foundational truth of the entire Bible!

 

[JD731]

I understand your doctrine and how it is worked out using Scripture.

I disagree with the "working out" part.

The reason is that I believe foundational precepts are found in text of Scripture itself and require no "working out".

If I were to read about Adam, transgression, death entering the world and spreading, etc. and find that the text of Scripture was insufficient then I'd be concerned and would perhaps have to develop a theory or doctrine relying on the Biblical text as context.

I, personally, do not find that the case.

I think you are doing probably the best you can do under the circumstances but because of the theological road you have chosen to travel there is no light to guide you and you must depend of the artificial light of the church fathers and other academics for direction. That is my assessment of your comments thus far.

 

[JD731]

Speaking of the OT.

Ro 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

 

[JonC]

I think you are doing probably the best you can do under the circumstances but because of the theological road you have chosen to travel there is no light to guide you and you must depend of the artificial light of the church fathers and other academics for direction. That is my assessment of your comments thus far.

Logical fallacy.

Let's look at your comments and my post.

I said that I believe God's Word sufficient.

I said that I believe foundational doctrines are in the text of Scripture.

I offered Scripture stating what I believed and asked that you do the same.

You equate relying on Scripture alone for foundational doctrines to be "depending on the church fathers".

I believe that God's Word is sufficient and that the Spirit guides us in His Word.

BUT I do not believe the Spirit guides us by "special revelation" and gives us words in addition to Scripture. I view this as God unfolding what is written to us....not adding to Scripture.


My assessment of your post is either you are trying to cloud the fact that your "guiding light", as you call it, is the early Catholic Church or you believe the Church Fathers wrote Scripture.

 

[JonC]

Speaking of the OT.

Ro 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

I agree with the passage.....disagree with you.

Our entire disagreement is about my adherence to Scripture (what is written in the text) and not relying on the early Catholic doctrine you call "light" to explain away what is written.


If Scripture makes since as written then why go to another "light" to explain it away?