Change of man's MORAL nature in the Fall

[MB]

Instead of being upset let's just be at peace with each other and move on
MB

 

[MB]

There you go again. Stop claiming victory there is no win in this arguement
MB

 

[The Biblicist]

The beginning point of "die" is fixed with the point of eating and there is no way you can deny that. Eating did occur "in" that day and therefore "die" did occur in that day as its beginning point. He did not physically died "in that day" did he. So physical dead did not occur. The Second death did not occur "in that day" did it.

Hence, something Paul decribes by the word "death" had its entrance into the world "in that day" Adam sinned (ate). So, at the very minimum that aspect of "death" which leads up to and concludes in physical and second death began "in that day." What aspect of death leads up to and concludes in physical and 2nd death? Answer: - "spiritual" death - bingo!

You cannot argue that "death" "in that day" was part of natural creation because Genesis 2:17 and Romans 5:12 clearly and explicitly repudiate that theory. So, you are forced to deal with at least the beginning of death with regard to Adam's person "in that day" that previously did not exist with regard to his person.

You can't say he physically died as Genesis 5 denies that.
You can't say he was cast into Gehenna that day.

So death in some other sense began that day with regard to his person. Do you deny the existence of "spiritual death" in the sense of spiritual separation from God due to sin?? For example, how can one be "alienated from the life of God" (Eph. 4:18) being physically alive?

 

[The Biblicist]

Instead of being upset let's just be at peace with each other and move on
MB

I am not upset. I agreed with you, it is not my job to make you believe anything but only present evidence you can't refute. You have no response to the evidence I gave to you prior to your previous post to me. If you can offer evidence to deny my interpretation, then I am all ears, lay it on me

 

[The Biblicist]

The verse does not say "you will spiritually die on that day".

You cannot argue that "death" "in that day" was part of natural creation because Genesis 2:17 and Romans 5:12 clearly and explicitly repudiate that theory. So, you are forced to deal with at least the beginning of death with regard to Adam's person "in that day" that previously did not exist with regard to his person.

You can't say he physically died as Genesis 5 denies that.
You can't say he was cast into Gehenna that day.

So death in some other sense began that day with regard to his person. Do you deny the existence of "spiritual death" in the sense of spiritual separation from God due to sin??

 

[JonC]

You cannot argue that "death" "in that day" was part of natural creation because Genesis 2:17 and Romans 5:12 clearly and explicitly repudiate that theory. So, you are forced to deal with at least the beginning of death with regard to Adam's person "in that day" that previously did not exist with regard to his person.

You can't say he physically died as Genesis 5 denies that.
You can't say he was cast into Gehenna that day.

So death in some other sense began that day with regard to his person. Do you deny the existence of "spiritual death" in the sense of spiritual separation from God due to sin??

I never argued that death was a part of Creation (although I will continue to argue the Fall was always a part of God's plan).

I do not deny that men are by nature born of the flesh and not the spirit (they are "spiritually dead"). I do not dent that Christ IS Life and thise in Him have spiritual life.

I do deny the "Christian" mythology you have created about a "spiritual life" not "in Christ" but original to Adam. I deny this fictional life was lost. I deny that "spiritual life" is temporary, even. I deny that Adam was in fact separated from God (God was there even outside the Garden) except in terms of a righteous standing and need for reconciliation.

So yes, I deny the narrative you develop over and around Scripture. I believe it unbiblical myth, but am thankful the Light of the gospel still shines through such "worldly wisdom".

 

[The Biblicist]

I never argued that death was a part of Creation (although I will continue to argue the Fall was always a part of God's plan).

I do not deny that men are by nature born of the flesh and not the spirit (they are "spiritually dead"). I do not dent that Christ IS Life and thise in Him have spiritual life.

Bully for you!

I do deny the "Christian" mythology you have created about a "spiritual life" not "in Christ" but original to Adam. I deny this fictional life was lost. I deny that "spiritual life" is temporary, even. I deny that Adam was in fact separated from God (God was there even outside the Garden) except in terms of a righteous standing and need for reconciliation.

Lets see if I can come from another angle so that it makes sense to you. Do you beleive fallen angels are spiritually dead? If you do, and since they have no physical anatomy would would describe death as simply spiritual separation from God due to sin? Angels are also called "sons of God" because they were spirit begotten by God.

 

[The Biblicist]

I do deny the "Christian" mythology you have created about a "spiritual life" not "in Christ" but original to Adam. I deny this fictional life was lost. I deny that "spiritual life" is temporary, even. I deny that Adam was in fact separated from God (God was there even outside the Garden) except in terms of a righteous standing and need for reconciliation.

Let me take another parallel path to see if I can bring you us together. Do you beleive the pre-creation God has a physical body with literal lungs that breathe in and air literal oxogen? If you do, the Mormons are rooting for you.

I don't, and yet "God breathed" (lit. inspirited) into Adam the "breath" (lit. "spirits" plural). Since this was not oxygen coming from God's lungs, I suggest it is directly imparting from His own spiritual substance wherein life in its fullest sense exists. Thus, begetting a "son of God" in his "own image" and "like us." I did not say God's non-communicable attributes were imparted to Adam, but I do believe his communicable attributes, which have their source and sustaining power in union with God's spirit were communicated directly to Adam. Hence, the life given to Adam was spiritual life as God has no other kind of life found in himself for him to convey and it is that life united with the physical matter produced biological life and thus "lives" plural) or to say it another way Adam became a partaker of the life of God and was called the "son of God" with mutable life sustained by union with God which was conditioned upon obedience.

In the Geneology of Christ given by Luke, Adam is called "the son of God" - "Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God." - Lk. 2:38 He is spirit begotton by God as God cannot beget material bodies.

He could not be a "son of God" due to material relationship unless you are a Mormon. The relationship had to be spiritual. Adam was created in spiritual union with God, whereas, Abel was procreated in physical union with Adam receiving a spirit separated from God due to Adam's sin. Adam's spirit was separated from God due to sin and being "alienated from the life of God" he died spiritually.

Remember, God did not breath life into fish, birds and mammals and bugs but just commanded the water and earth to bring them forth. So, what God imparted to man was not mere oxygen but as the words mean "inspirited" and "spirits". He was spirit begotten by God.

 

[percho]

Mb
You know how isa29:10-24 speaks of people who can physically hear the words but cannot understand them spiritually accurately?
It is like that.
Jn 12:37-40

Is there a reason we need, the Spirit of Truth?

Another question relative to the post of yours before this post.

Is the Spirit of Truth, the adoption to wit or is the Spirit of Truth, the Spirit of Adoption?

For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it. Romans 8:24,25

One of your quote passages: Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.


In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

No miscarriages.

 

[InTheLight]

This is the evidence that God presented himself in visible form (theophany).

Which no one in Genesis 3 is described as having seen.

Definition:
Theophany: a visible manifestation to humankind of God.

Does the Bible say that Adam saw God? No.
Does the Bible say that Eve saw God? No.

So if God wasn't seen by humans, how is it a theophany?

 

[The Biblicist]

Which no one in Genesis 3 is described as having seen.

Definition:
Theophany: a visible manifestation to humankind of God.

Does the Bible say that Adam saw God? No.
Does the Bible say that Eve saw God? No.

So if God wasn't seen by humans, how is it a theophany?

You argument is based on silence when all the evidence "walking" and talking audibly would indicate other wise.

However, if we go with your assumption then what does that prove or disprove? It does not disprove what they heard was audible to their external ears. It does not disprove there was actual conversation, confrontation, and judgement as well as redemptive provisions made.

However, if there was no visible manifestation then tell me why were the hiding in the trees from an invisible presence????

 

[Yeshua1]

The problem is comments like "but it is plainly taught in Scripture" because such claims typically means the person why says them cannot fathom how other people possibly came to their conclusions. This also means those types of people cannot grasp how their interpretations came about. That is what they believe so it must be what is "plainly" taught.

But what if Scripture in and of itself is sufficient without imposing our conclusions on the text (without pretending we know what is implied or what the authors of Scripture were really thinking when they wrote?

What if the reason God did not breath into Scripture itself the idea Adam had a "pre-Fall" nature and a "post-Fall" nature is because it is a false idea?

The clear teaching of scripture is that something happened to the nature of Adam and eve in the garden after the fall, as they no longer were in spiritual union with God and needed now a messiah to restore them back in a spiritual state with god again due to being sinners now!

 

[The Biblicist]

Which no one in Genesis 3 is described as having seen.

Definition:
Theophany: a visible manifestation to humankind of God.

Does the Bible say that Adam saw God? No.
Does the Bible say that Eve saw God? No.

So if God wasn't seen by humans, how is it a theophany?

If no visible presence then why hide in the trees from an invisible presence? There are too many stated details (walking, talking, hiding) to assume it was not a visible presence. Your argument is based on silence .

 

[InTheLight]

If no visible presence then why hide in the trees from an invisible presence? There are too many stated details (walking, talking, hiding) to assume it was not a visible presence. Your argument is based on silence .

LOL! MY argument is based on silence? My argument is based on the fact that the Bible says God SPOKE ALOUD!

No one is described as having seen God in Genesis 3. No one.

This is you speculating again.

 

[Yeshua1]

Which no one in Genesis 3 is described as having seen.

Definition:
Theophany: a visible manifestation to humankind of God.

Does the Bible say that Adam saw God? No.
Does the Bible say that Eve saw God? No.

So if God wasn't seen by humans, how is it a theophany?

God walked with them and talked with them in the garden....

 

[Yeshua1]

My entire point is that you are merely stating your theory and tossing a few verses around. The proof is obvious (Scriprure does not state Adam died spiritually; Adam had two natures; salvation is a renewal to Adam's original state made immutable....etc).

All of his main points are clearly described in the bible though....

 

[Yeshua1]

I was thinking along the same lines.

Certainly reconciliation was needed and men would die physically. But God didn't seem to disappear or withdraw Himself from Adam.

I think the issue is one of spiritualizing Scripture to a point Scripture cannot stand on its own without man creating a narrative for support. The problem is that @The Biblicist 's presentation is barely dependent on Scripture at all. His theories can stand on moral philosophy apart from the Bible.

Mankind was corrupted by the fall, born in a state of being sinners in nature, estranged from God, we are not born morally and spiritual neutral!

 

[JonShaff]

God walked with them and talked with them in the garden....

That's actually phony balony Sunday school myth.

 

[Yeshua1]

No, he hasn't.

The issue is his idea of "spiritual death". No passage speaks of Adam as dying spiritually.

In fact, while Scripture deals with people who are "spiritually dead" the notion of a "spiritual death" as presented in this thread is myth.

The "second death" is for the "spiritually dead" (those who do not have life in Christ).

The issue is how much @The Biblicist 's view is foundational to his theory and how much is actual Scripture.

Think of it, @Iconoclast . Who does Scripture present as being alive spiritually and then dying? Adam? No. The lost? No. They will die the second death but they are not made spiritually alive. The believer? No. We are made alive but not to die.

Adam was in a spiritual state/condition with God in the Covenant of Works, as when he did no sinning, so he had no need for a mediator nor a messiah , but once he fell, changed spiritual state, no longer connected to God, did not the mediator and messiah for his new state!

 

[Yeshua1]

The verse does not say "you will spiritually die on that day". Study "dying you shall die" before applying anything to that text.

He makes his case line by line, BUT his case does not actually depend on the Scripture he provides. He reads into the text.

He would physical die, but his spiritual death hit right away, as God had to provide for Him a messiah/Mediator than, as not required to have one before the fall!