Adam and certain death

[37818]

1 Timothy 2:14-15, And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she [singular meaning, Eve] shall be saved in childbearing [Genesis 3:15 meaning Christ], . . .

 

[JonC]

Definitely not bored with it, theology has been my interest as far back as I can remember as a child.

I don't believe that we sinned with Adam, but I do believe that Christ bore our sins and took the punishment we deserved.

I once heard a preacher ask the congregation (I was there) why did Christ die such a horrible death after nearly being beaten to death.

He was actually looking for someone to speak up, but no one did.

He said that His punishment was as wide as the sin of man. he suffered horribly for the most horrible sins of man.

I was a young man at that time and it broke my heart, because I knew inside me it was true, that Christ loved us that much.

Well....as soon as I said I was bored an alarm went off. Lol.

I agree. Jesus' death represented the death that we deserve. It was much worse as He is without sin....suffering and dying by the hands of His creation, in Whom they owe their very existence.

 

[Zaatar71]

Well....as soon as I said I was bored an alarm went off. Lol.

I agree. Jesus' death represented the death that we deserve. It was much worse as He is without sin....suffering and dying by the hands of His creation, in Whom they owe their very existence.

Hello John
Being you are moving my posts to another thread, Could I ask you to move your posts out of my thread?
We were not discussing infant baptism there! We were not discussing if I understand English there! So it would be nice if you could move your posts out of my threads also. thanks!

 

[Charlie24]

Not so, I do agree several times, watch,

Yes,agreed

yes ,agreed, as in Isa.59:
59 Behold, the Lord's hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear:

2 But your iniquities have separated between you and your God, and your sins have hid his face from you, that he will not hear.

But God said in the day you eat, you will die. Something died that very day as God said it would....He did not say some other day you will die, he said in the day you eat, you will die.
Yes Charlie I agree, but what happened to his spirit? Did he stay in communion with God, just like before he sinned, or did he die spiritually that day, as the text says, dying, thou shalt surely die.? In other words.. When does Spiritual death happen?

Agreed, because they were alienated from the life of God, the fellowship they had in their original righteousness.

Yes, agreed...God had to "cover them" but the damage was already done, Spiritual death had taken place, but they still had physical life for years.


Exactly what I have said spread over three threads now...so you see we agree on this! We might not agree on other things, but as you see we can agree.

You are on it Charlie!

It's true, miracles do still happen. I thought it impossible.

 

[JonC]

Hello John
Being you are moving my posts to another thread, Could I ask you to move your posts out of my thread?
We were not discussing infant baptism there! We were not discussing if I understand English there! So it would be nice if you could move your posts out of my threads also. thanks!

Yes, you are always free to ask anything.

No, I will not move them because my mention of infant baotism was not about infant baptism itself (it was about Murray's ideas of redemotion and election as a covenantal relationship between what he considered "Abraham's seed).

The reason it is important is this is Murray expounding on his own understanding. It is very easy to look at what shines (what we like of somebody's words) while ignoring the fuller context.

 

[Zaatar71]

Yes, you are always free to ask anything.

No, I will not move them because my mention of infant baotism was not about infant baptism itself (it was about Murray's ideas of redemotion and election as a covenantal relationship between what he considered "Abraham's seed).

The reason it is important is this is Murray expounding on his own understanding. It is very easy to look at what shines (what we like of somebody's words) while ignoring the fuller context.

Okay, you can go with that,lol

 

[JesusFan]

The Scripture says we are born in sin, not that we are born sinners. There's a difference.

We all have the Adamic nature within us when born

Not according to God's Word as given through Paul. Paul says Adam was alive but "natural" and not spiritual.

Do you have a passage stating that or are you just repeating Catholic Doctrine?


You already said this.

And I gave you Scrioture that says otherwise.

Let's compare the two passages (yours and mine) and work it out.

What verse are you reading that says Adam was spiritually alive and then died spiritually?

Adam had his eyes openned, knew was now a sinner, as was innocent before, and had relationship with God, but no longer

Some of the argument against this comes from Catholic Doctrine (Augustine's use of a mistranslation of Romans 5:12, where the Vulgate rendered the word ἐφ᾽ ᾧ (because) as "in whom".

This has been corrected in translations, but that tradition remains.

Even though they have no verse to quote as the error has been corrected in all English translations, the doctrine had already been established in the Catholic Church. They view all men as having sinned in Adam.

This is especially true with the Presbyterian denomination (and Reformed Baptists due to that influence) because they carried over quite a lot of Roman Catholic doctrine (some of it in a reformed version).

Over the years here I have learned that when you tackle tradition with Scripture, tradition will always win. Online forums generally attract people who want to fight for their ideas rather than discuss, examine, and evaluate them against God's Word.

The Bible states that ALL died in Adam, and ALL saved made alive again in Christ, and what was dead and now alive again/ Not our physical selves, but our spiritual nature

 

[JonC]

We all have the Adamic nature within us when born

Yes, we all are born with a human nature (Adam means man). This is what Paul said as well when he said that Adam was made alive natural rather than spiritual. We need to be born of the Spirit.

Adam had his eyes openned, knew was now a sinner, as was innocent before, and had relationship with God, but no longer

Yes, I agree. He "became like God, knowing good and evil" and God kicked him out of the Garden (and out from that relationship) .... back to where Adam came from.

The Bible states that ALL died in Adam, and ALL saved made alive again in Christ, and what was dead and now alive again/ Not our physical selves, but our spiritual nature

Partly right. The wages of sin is death but the gift of God is life.

Adam was a representative substitute for the human race. Jesus is the representative substiture for those who are saved. There is "in Adam" and "in Christ".

The problem is you saying "alive again". Jesus did mot die so that we would become again like Adam. We will have spiritual life (life in Him). One cannot be spiritually alive and then spiritually die. Even the judgment of the wicked will not be spiritual death (they are, as Paul said, natural...they are already spiritually dead).

 

[Charlie24]

We all have the Adamic nature within us when born


Adam had his eyes openned, knew was now a sinner, as was innocent before, and had relationship with God, but no longer


The Bible states that ALL died in Adam, and ALL saved made alive again in Christ, and what was dead and now alive again/ Not our physical selves, but our spiritual nature

The miracles keep rolling in!

 

[Deacon]

I ran across an OT passage last week where the argument for the various interpretations depended on what syllable was stressed.
Here's a sentence in English that changes meaning depending upon which syllable is stressed.

I don't think he should get the job. (but you may think so)
I don't think he should get the job. (I'm emphatically against him getting the job)
I don't think he should get the job. (Perhaps he should get another job instead)
I don't think he should get the job. (Someone else should get the job)
I don't think he should get the job. (In my opinion it's wrong that he's going to get that job)
I don't think he should get the job. (He is probably not able to fill the role demanded for the job)
I don't think he should get the job. (the other job is a better fit)
I don't think he should get the job. (Maybe he should get something else instead)

Rob

 

[Charlie24]

I ran across an OT passage last week where the argument for the various interpretations depended on what syllable was stressed.
Here's a sentence in English that changes meaning depending upon which syllable is stressed.

I don't think he should get the job. (but you may think so)
I don't think he should get the job. (I'm emphatically against him getting the job)
I don't think he should get the job. (Perhaps he should get another job instead)
I don't think he should get the job. (Someone else should get the job)
I don't think he should get the job. (In my opinion it's wrong that he's going to get that job)
I don't think he should get the job. (He is probably not able to fill the role demanded for the job)
I don't think he should get the job. (the other job is a better fit)
I don't think he should get the job. (Maybe he should get something else instead)

Rob

I think that is just about as close to the truth as we can get.