Featured What the sin nature is 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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?