Adam versus believers

[JonC]

Was Adam born with spiritual life before the fall?



This is not the issue.We are speaking of Adam prefall.
Are you saying he had a spirit that was not alive?



This vaguely worded statement does not get it done.In what exact way did spiritual death become a reality?

Did Adam have spiritual life, that died on that day?

In what exact way did it become a reality for ADAM?

How was the relationship between God and Adam severed?

What do you mean by cast out of God's presence?

Adams physical death would be certain...what died in that day as God told Him would happen?

Have you changed your view since Biblicist and Martin called you on this?

I have not changed my position on this.

The discussions you are pulling from are a little over your head.

On the day Adam sinned that sin separated Adam from God and that state became a reality for all mankind. Physical death became certain as well (these are not unrelated) and became a reality for all mankind.

My argument was about spiritual life as relational vs ontological. It involves how life is defined and abiding vs indwelling, the old being viewed as right vs a new creation.

Again, I am right here and will tell you what I believe. You do not need to assume or decontextualize past statements to guess.

Stop trying to tell me and others what I believe. I do not do that to you and it is dishonest of you to do that with others.

 

[Quantrill]

This is actually a legitimate post.

I do hold a tripartite position.

Scripture also speaks of animals as having a spirit and a soul, of man and animals having the "same breath".

Good topic. You should start a thread.

All my posts are legitimate posts.

'Legitimate' here just means 'legitimate' to you. Again you like to pontificate. You ignore the posts you can't answer. Apparently those are not 'legitimate'. Just like you began back in post #(12) when you set your interpretation of Scripture above all others.

Why start another thread? This one is fine. Just answer the questions.

Quantrill

 

[JonC]

All my posts are legitimate posts.

'Legitimate' here just means 'legitimate' to you. Again you like to pontificate. You ignore the posts you can't answer. Apparently those are not 'legitimate'. Just like you began back in post #(12) when you set your interpretation of Scripture above all others.

Why start another thread? This one is fine. Just answer the questions.

Quantrill

By legitimate I mean grown up and not childish (granted, I responded in kind, tongue in cheek). Those posts were not questions but juvenile jabs.

For example, there was no need for you to use "crawfish" (a term indicating you find me sexually attractive in the photo but think I am less attractive in person).

The reason to start another thread is it is a different topic.

My objection was that some (like @Iconoclast) treat their ideas as scripture and defend the practice by saying God given teachers told them so, or the Spirit revealed it to them, ect. Anyone can say that about anything. We have to have a higher view of scripture.

 

[Quantrill]

I have not changed my position on this.

On the day Adam sinned that sin separated Adam from God and that state became a reality for all mankind. Physical death became certain as well (these are not unrelated) and became a reality for all mankind.

My argument was about spiritual life as relational vs ontological. It involves how life is defined and abiding vs indwelling, the old being viewed as right vs a new creation.

What you said, post #(7), was that Adam did not posses eternal life because he died.

Adam was created in the image of God, body, soul, and spirit. That spirit was from the breath of God. The union of the body and spirit resulted in the soul. (Gen. 2:7) A perfect being in right relationship with God. Adam possessed eternal life at that point. Or, are you saying Adam was not perfect and was not in a right relationship with God?

Just because Adam had the ability to sin, does not mean he didn't possess eternal life before he sinned. He just lost it. That's why we are called lost prior to salvation.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

By legitimate I mean grown up and not childish (granted, I responded in kind, tongue in cheek). Those posts were not questions but juvenile jabs.

For example, there was no need for you to use "crawfish" (a term indicating you find me sexually attractive in the photo but think I am less attractive in person).

The reason to start another thread is it is a different topic.

My objection was that some (like @Iconoclast) treat their ideas as scripture and defend the practice by saying God given teachers told them so, or the Spirit revealed it to them, ect. Anyone can say that about anything. We have to have a higher view of scripture.

There was plenty of reason to use the term crawfish on you. You back up. You claim things, but then when questioned, you back away like crawfish.

Indeed, anyone can say anything...as you do now. As you have been doingl.

Quantrill

 

[JonC]

What you said, post #(7), was that Adam did not posses eternal life because he died.

Adam was created in the image of God, body, soul, and spirit. That spirit was from the breath of God. The union of the body and spirit resulted in the soul. (Gen. 2:7) A perfect being in right relationship with God. Adam possessed eternal life at that point. Or, are you saying Adam was not perfect and was not in a right relationship with God?

Just because Adam had the ability to sin, does not mean he didn't possess eternal life before he sinned. He just lost lit. That's why we are called lost prior to salvation.

Quantrill

You could have just asked that.

The reason is I say that is eternal life is by definition not temporary. We cannot have eternal life and die.

No passage indicates Adam had eternal life. In fact, Scrioture states the opposite (Adam was created flesh, all flesh perishes).

And of course, Adam did die so the life he had could not have been everlasting.

Eternal life means "aint gonna die". Adam died.

 

[JonC]

There was plenty of reason to use the term crawfish on you. You back up. You claim things, but then when questioned, you back away like crawfish.

Indeed, anyone can say anything...as you do now. As you have been doingl.

Quantrill

The term means you were sexually attracted to me (probably because of the beard) but know I am less attractive in person (I did shave my beard).

I have backed up what I said. You just did not like the answers.

 

[Quantrill]

You could have just asked that.

The reason is I say that is eternal life is by definition not temporary. We cannot have eternal life and die.

No passage indicates Adam had eternal life. In fact, Scrioture states the opposite (Adam was created flesh, all flesh perishes).

And of course, Adam did die so the life he had could not have been everlasting.

Eternal life means "aint gonna die". Adam died.

Jesus Christ died also. I guess He didn't have eternal life either until the resurrection. Correct?

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

The term means you were sexually attracted to me (probably because of the beard) but know I am less attractive in person (I did shave my beard).

I have backed up what I said. You just did not like the answers.

No you haven't backed up anything. You just pontificate. Then crawfish.

Quantrill

 

[Dave G]

Dave I do not think I misunderstood this ,do you?

Tony?
I think that even if you didn't, perhaps this thread should end.

That's why I said this:

Gents,
It looks like you're talking past each other, at least on some things.

Dave, do you think Enoch had no spiritual life, but pleased God anyhow?

According to what I see in Scripture, it's impossible to have spiritual life and not please God.
To answer the question directly, Enoch pleased God and had spiritual life.
Adam had it and lost it.

I've also already made my view on Adam public in post # 6.
I may be wrong and subject to correction, but that is my view.

Adam died, spiritually.
Before that, I see him having life, which is to know God.
Romans 1 is very specific about men knowing God and then having their foolish hearts darkened.

Now, with all that said...
Gentlemen:
@Quantrill , @JonC and @Iconoclast

Please?
Make peace and leave off contention in this case.
For the sake of that peace, I ask that you step back and consider one another and to be kindly affectioned towards one another.

If possible, as much as lies within each of you, be at peace.

 

[Dave G]

Agent 47's name in Latin means "lethal trade".

Which theological lenses best explains SARS-CoV-2?

See post # 31 and # 34.

 

[37818]

Did Adam possess eternal life that he lost upon sinning?

It is my understanding, no. Genesis 3:22.

 

[JonC]

Tony?
I think that even if you didn't, perhaps this thread should end.

That's why I said this:


According to what I see in Scripture, it's impossible to have spiritual life and not please God.
To answer the question directly, Enoch pleased God and had spiritual life.
Adam had it and lost it.

I've also already made my view on Adam public in post # 6.
I may be wrong and subject to correction, but that is my view.

Adam died, spiritually.
Before that, I see him having life, which is to know God.
Romans 1 is very specific about men knowing God and then having their foolish hearts darkened.

Now, with all that said...
Gentlemen:
@Quantrill , @JonC and @Iconoclast

Please?
Make peace and leave off contention in this case.
For the sake of that peace, I ask that you step back and consider one another and to be kindly affectioned towards one another.

If possible, as much as lies within each of you, be at peace.

I'm just messing with @Quantrill . He does have a good point bringing up anthropology.

I am not quite sure why @Iconoclast is arguing with me about what I believe. We do agree on what Scripture states. The disagreement on this thread became a hypothetical question - what if Adam did not sin. That is certainly a foolish reason for people to be unkind to one another.

When Adam sinned he was separated from God and that tear reached through history. I believe this is what was symbolized with the veil in the Temple. Adam disobeyed God. At that moment Adam was spiritually separated from God and spiritual death became a reality. Physical death also became a certainty. These are connected, I believe. When Adam sinned spiritual death and the certainty of physical death became a reality for all mankind. These are not, as far as I know, contested ideas.

 

[Quantrill]

I'm just messing with @Quantrill . He does have a good point bringing up anthropology.

I am not quite sure why @Iconoclast is arguing with me about what I believe. We do agree on what Scripture states. The disagreement on this thread became a hypothetical question - what if Adam did not sin. That is certainly a foolish reason for people to be unkind to one another.

When Adam sinned he was separated from God and that tear reached through history. I believe this is what was symbolized with the veil in the Temple. Adam disobeyed God. At that moment Adam was spiritually separated from God and spiritual death became a reality. Physical death also became a certainty. These are connected, I believe. When Adam sinned spiritual death and the certainty of physical death became a reality for all mankind. These are not, as far as I know, contested ideas.

No, you're not 'messing' with me. You're crawfishing.

You made a point in post #(86). I answered in post #(87). You do not respond. Why? Because my point in (87) proves you wrong. As my other questions do also that you ignore.

You like to pontificate but you don't like answering questions.

If anyone considers my response harsh...just look at it as me 'messing' with JonC. Thus all is ok. Right?

And I made no point concerning anthropology.

Quantrill

 

[JonC]

No, you're not 'messing' with me. You're crawfishing.

You made a point in post #(86). I answered in post #(87). You do not respond. Why? Because my point in (87) proves you wrong. As my other questions do also that you ignore.

You like to pontificate but you don't like answering questions.

If anyone considers my response harsh...just look at it as me 'messing' with JonC. Thus all is ok. Right?

And I made no point concerning anthropology.

Quantrill

No, I stood by everything I said. I defended my comments, backed them up. You just did not like my answer. You are trolling.

You silly little troll you....

 

[Dave G]

The disagreement on this thread became a hypothetical question - what if Adam did not sin.

I think that hypothetical questions do more damage than good...
Which is why we, as believers should not go outside of Scripture.

To me they create a batleground that really should not exist.

When Adam sinned he was separated from God and that tear reached through history.

I agree.

I believe this is what was symbolized with the veil in the Temple.

I don't.
Rather, I hold that what was symbolized by the tearing of the veil, was what is found in both Jeremiah 31:31-34 and Hebrews 8:6-13...
Jesus Christ ushering in a new covenant, replacing the old.

Adam disobeyed God. At that moment Adam was spiritually separated from God and spiritual death became a reality.

Agreed.

Physical death also became a certainty.

Tentatively I disagree, but not greatly so.

In Genesis 3:22, I see that if Adam and Eve had eaten of the Tree of Life, then they would have lived forever.
That's why the Lord drove them out of the Garden.
That in itself tells me that physical death was already a certainty, but a distant one.

Granted, its a small point, and I must say that it is one that I would not break fellowship over.

These are connected, I believe. When Adam sinned spiritual death and the certainty of physical death became a reality for all mankind.

I once believed as you have stated and have only recently come to what I've posted above.

 

[Quantrill]

No, I stood by everything I said. I defended my comments, backed them up. You just did not like my answer. You are trolling.

You silly little troll you....

Well, you can stand by a pile of manure. Doesn't mean it isn't a pile of manure.

You haven't supported anything. You make claims and then expect everyone to bow down to them. Why? I don't know. You haven't showed me anything, other than you pontificate well, and crawfish better.

Start with responding to post #(88).

Please, don't play the 'troll' card. That's as empty as the 'Hitler' card. When you resort to that, it shows you have nothing.

Quantrill

 

[JonC]

I think that hypothetical questions do more damage than good...
Which is why we, as believers should not go outside of Scripture.

To me they create a batleground that really should not exist.

I agree.

I don't.
Rather, I hold that what was symbolized by the tearing of the veil, was what is found in both Jeremiah 31:31-34 and Hebrews 8:6-13...
Jesus Christ ushering in a new covenant, replacing the old.

Agreed.

Tentatively I disagree, but not greatly so.

In Genesis 3:22, I see that if Adam and Eve had eaten of the Tree of Life, then they would have lived forever.
That's why the Lord drove them out of the Garden.
That in itself tells me that physical death was already a certainty, but a distant one.

Granted, its a small point, and I must say that it is one that I would not break fellowship over.

I once believed as you have stated and have only recently come to what I've posted above.

Yes. Hypothetical questions have caused much division. People forget we serve a Sovereign God, not a god of "if's" but a God who will accomplish His purposes.

I agree with your conclusion of the tearing of the veil, but I also believe the veil itself represented that gulf that divided man from God.

I agree that had Adam and Eve eaten of the Tree of Life they would have lived forever. An interesting discussion can be had about both of these "trees". God indicates that having sinned Adam could eat from the Tree of Life and live forever, which makes me conclude the Tree is more than simply a fruit tree.

 

[JonC]

Well, you can stand by a pile of manure. Doesn't mean it isn't a pile of manure.

You haven't supported anything. You make claims and then expect everyone to bow down to them. Why? I don't know. You haven't showed me anything, other than you pontificate well, and crawfish better.

Start with responding to post #(88).

Please, don't play the 'troll' card. That's as empty as the 'Hitler' card. When you resort to that, it shows you have nothing.

Quantrill

Troll,

I have no idea what you think I did not support. I said we should not elevate our ideas to the level of Scripture and provided an example. What more can be said. It was a simple statement and one I stand by. It is wrong to pretend our understanding is scripture itself. You disagree. So what? If you go about your life and pretend you are a god, writing your own scripture. Find a few followers, shave your head and start a cult. It has nothing to do with me.

You keep coming up with new questions (a moving trolling target).

Jesus did not become man with eternal physical life. He is the Firstborn and we will be like Him.

Good luck with that, Troll. I wish you the best.

 

[Quantrill]

Troll,

I have no idea what you think I did not support. I said we should not elevate our ideas to the level of Scripture and provided an example. What more can be said. It was a simple statement and one I stand by. It is wrong to pretend our understanding is scripture itself. You disagree. So what? If you go about your life and pretend you are a god, writing your own scripture. Find a few followers, shave your head and start a cult. It has nothing to do with me.

You keep coming up with new questions (a moving trolling target).

Jesus did not become man with eternal physical life. He is the Firstborn and we will be like Him.

Good luck with that, Troll. I wish you the best.

See, you ignore again post #(88).

Just because I come up with new questions doesn't mean you have answered the old. You have answered nothing.

No you don't wish me the best. Your hypocrisy is showing now. Looks good though.

Quantrill