Does the Bible teach Spiritual Death?

[JonC]

Yes,for anyone to suggest that Adam prefall was a "natural man" has missed it totally.

Except, of course, that is exactly what the Bible states. The "first Adam" was created natural man but the "last Adam" became a life giving Spirit.

You can't have it both ways. You cannot pretend to believe God's Word while denying what is stated in God's Word.

 

[Iconoclast]

Except, of course, that is exactly what the Bible states. The "first Adam" was created natural man but the "last Adam" became a life giving Spirit.

You can't have it both ways. You cannot pretend to believe God's Word while denying what is stated in God's Word.

For you to pervert 1 cor15 which is speaking about the resurrection body, first a natural body, then a spiritual body, is not getting it done.
When I said you are a dishonest poster earlier, this is exactly what I was speaking about.
You do this quite often as others have pointed out to you, but you ignore it all the time.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Yes,for anyone to suggest that Adam prefall was a "natural man" has missed it totally.

I agree. If Adam was a "natural man," that suggests that he could not receive the things of God, but found them foolish (1 Corinthians 2:14). Yet in that condition Adam was brought into the Garden, given the responsibility of naming the animals and of caring for the garden, and the only thing God found about him that was not good was that he had no helper.
I think we may assume that he had fellowship with God, since God came to the Garden expecting to see him. All this and he was dead in trespasses; he just hadn't got around to committing any yet.

 

[JonC]

For you to pervert 1 cor15 which is speaking about the resurrection body, first a natural body, then a spiritual body, is not getting it done.
When I said you are a dishonest poster earlier, this is exactly what I was speaking about.
You do this quite often as others have pointed out to you, but you ignore it all the time.

I have not "perverted" Scripture or been "dishonest". I disagreed with adding to the text of Scripture and I also most likely hold to a different interpretation.

Are you able to respond to posts in a Christ-like manner (as a Christian who disagrees with me would respond) or can you only respond as if Christ is foreign to your true belief?

I will ignore your childish response and give you another chance in hope you can respond as a Christian rather than a pretender.

Pray before responding and avoid insults and stupid playground attacks. Try again. Be a man, not a spoiled child crying when someone dare say something you do not like. I have no time to suffer fools. But if you can respond as an adult then I will respond in kind.

Until then, I wish you the best and pray you will mature.

 

[JonC]

I agree. If Adam was a "natural man," that suggests that he could not receive the things of God, but found them foolish (1 Corinthians 2:14). Yet in that condition Adam was brought into the Garden, given the responsibility of naming the animals and of caring for the garden, and the only thing God found about him that was not good was that he had no helper.
I think we may assume that he had fellowship with God, since God came to the Garden expecting to see him. All this and he was dead in trespasses; he just hadn't got around to committing any yet.

What is your justification for rejecting Scripture stating that Adam was created "natural" not "spiritual"?

Are you implying that Scripture is less than the Word of God?

When it comes to people like me (biblicists) do you understand why we would consider your ideas heresies?

If so, how would you justify your views as they are in opposition to the text of the Bible?

Do you believe in a second special revelation given to certain Reformers?

Do you believe that the Roman Catholic Church hat it right insofar as this doctrine goes?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Obviously Adam was created "flesh" and "natural" because that is exactly what the Bible says. And obviously Adam did not please God because that is what the Bible says.

That does not mean.. again, an obvious (I hope) fact... that Adam was not created "upright" and without sin.

It is too far to say Adam was created a Spirit with Spiritual Life because this is not in the Bible. The Bible states Adam was created "natural man" and "flesh" and due to his surrender to the desires of the flesh sinned. No theory will change Scripture. People simply have to choose what to believe.

To deny that Adam was created "natural" rather than spiritual is a heresy (it is a direct denial of God's Word).

Of course, you need to define both spiritual life and spiritual death to make sure we are not talking past one another.

We know the following:
1. Adam was created immortal and sinless. because death and sin entered the world through Adam. If he had been created mortal and sinful, then death and sin would have entered the world through God who made him, and God would be the author of evil.
2. When he was created, the creation was judged by God to be better than it was before and "very good."
3. He and Eve knew no shame before the Fall, but did afterwards..

I know of no one crazy enough to say that Adam was created a "Spirit." He was created a flesh-and-blood man, like the rest of us, from the dust of the ground. Do you want to define "natural" for me and tell me where in the Bible that word is applied to Adam?

We know that Adam was created to have fellowship with his Creator, so it is inevitable that he must have been 'alive unto God.'

To define spiritual life and death, perhaps the best place to look is Ephesians 2:4-5. 'But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ......' We weren't physically dead, so unless you have another suggestion, the text must be referring to spiritual death, and its defining feature is that it is 'in trespasses.' Two of its features, according to verse 12, are having 'no hope' and being 'without God.' Do you think this applied to Adam in Eden before the Fall? Spiritual life is therefore the opposite of this; being able to respond to God and to love Him.

When we look at the word 'natural,' as it appears in 1 Corinthians 2:14, we see that the Greek word is psuchikos, literally, 'soulish.' It seems to mean 'without the Spirit.' Jude 19. ''These are sensual [Gk. psuchikos] persons, who cause divisions, not having the Spirit.' So was Adam, before the Fall, unable to receive the things of God, finding them foolishness, and was he also divisive?

'That which is born of the flesh is flesh; that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.' There is no better example of this principle that Genesis 5:1-3.
'This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, He made him in the likeness of God...................And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image.'

God is Spirit. It is inconceivable that He would a priori bring sin, upon which His eyes are too pure to look, into the world that He had made. Adam was created a spiritual man, that is, a human with spiritual life. But he fell, by his own deliberate fault, and that sin has been passed on to all his progeny. 'You, who were dead in trespasses.'

 

[Martin Marprelate]

When it comes to people like me (biblicists) do you understand why we would consider your ideas heresies?

You should know better than to accuse people on this board of heresy, and as a moderator you should set a better example, but as to your view of me 1 Corinthians 4:3a applies.. You consider yourself a 'biblicist.' Perhaps not everyone agrees with you.

 

[Reformed]

I agree. If Adam was a "natural man," that suggests that he could not receive the things of God, but found them foolish (1 Corinthians 2:14). Yet in that condition Adam was brought into the Garden, given the responsibility of naming the animals and of caring for the garden, and the only thing God found about him that was not good was that he had no helper.
I think we may assume that he had fellowship with God, since God came to the Garden expecting to see him. All this and he was dead in trespasses; he just hadn't got around to committing any yet.

I do not expect many participating in this thread to agree with the Covenant of Works, but pre-Fall Adam was under that administration. Adam was able to please God for reasons you just elucidated. Post-Fall Adam? Different story. Innocence lost.

 

[JonC]

You should know better than to accuse people on this board of heresy, and as a moderator you should set a better example, but as to your view of me 1 Corinthians 4:3a applies.. You consider yourself a 'biblicist.' Perhaps not everyone agrees with you.

I'm not accusing anyone of heresy. I am saying that such a disregard for what the Bible says is for me (I am a Biblicist... that means I take a "literal" approach to Scripture) is heresy. Insofar as Christianity in general I am sure you are within orthodox belief (as is Roman Catholic doctrine).

But within the perspective of those of us who take a literal view of Scripture your belief is heresy.

 

[JonC]

We know the following:
1. Adam was created immortal and sinless. because death and sin entered the world through Adam. If he had been created mortal and sinful, then death and sin would have entered the world through God who made him, and God would be the author of evil.
2. When he was created, the creation was judged by God to be better than it was before and "very good."
3. He and Eve knew no shame before the Fall, but did afterwards..

I know of no one crazy enough to say that Adam was created a "Spirit." He was created a flesh-and-blood man, like the rest of us, from the dust of the ground. Do you want to define "natural" for me and tell me where in the Bible that word is applied to Adam?

We know that Adam was created to have fellowship with his Creator, so it is inevitable that he must have been 'alive unto God.'

To define spiritual life and death, perhaps the best place to look is Ephesians 2:4-5. 'But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ......' We weren't physically dead, so unless you have another suggestion, the text must be referring to spiritual death, and its defining feature is that it is 'in trespasses.' Two of its features, according to verse 12, are having 'no hope' and being 'without God.' Do you think this applied to Adam in Eden before the Fall? Spiritual life is therefore the opposite of this; being able to respond to God and to love Him.

When we look at the word 'natural,' as it appears in 1 Corinthians 2:14, we see that the Greek word is psuchikos, literally, 'soulish.' It seems to mean 'without the Spirit.' Jude 19. ''These are sensual [Gk. psuchikos] persons, who cause divisions, not having the Spirit.' So was Adam, before the Fall, unable to receive the things of God, finding them foolishness, and was he also divisive?

'That which is born of the flesh is flesh; that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.' There is no better example of this principle that Genesis 5:1-3.
'This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, He made him in the likeness of God...................And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image.'

God is Spirit. It is inconceivable that He would a priori bring sin, upon which His eyes are too pure to look, into the world that He had made. Adam was created a spiritual man, that is, a human with spiritual life. But he fell, by his own deliberate fault, and that sin has been passed on to all his progeny. 'You, who were dead in trespasses.'

What we Know is that Adam was created natural man, of the flesh" not "of the Spirit". Adam was created outside the Garden and then taken to the Garden. We know this because the Bible states these facts.

I know you do not like the term "heresy", but here it fits (from a Biblicist perspective). The reason is you have repeatedly rejected and denied God's Word.

I realize there are other views within Christianity. The RCC places RCC doctrine above Scripture. You place your traditions above Scripture. That is fine. But for me, it is heresy because you exchange what is written in Scripture for tradition.

 

[JonC]

To clarify, @Martin Marprelate

Your view is heresy among those of us who take a literal view of Scripture because you directly deny the text of Scripture (where Paul states Adam was created "natural" man you claim Paul was wrong or the passage has a meaning other than conveyed in the text) .

But within "Orthodox Christianity" your view is no more heresy than Roman Catholic doctrine.

Heresy depends on the group. I am a "Biblicist". I take a literal approach to Scripture where you prefer an interpretation within a particular tradition over (or as an interpretive tool for) the text of Scripture.

My view is since Paul states Adam was created natural man and you state Adam was NOT created natural man your view is heresy (again, from a Biblicist point of view) because you directly deny God's Word.

I do not doubt your salvation, if that is your concern.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

When it comes to people like me (biblicists) do you understand why we would consider your ideas heresies?

I'm not accusing anyone of heresy.

Your view is heresy among those of us who take a literal view of Scripture

No need to add further. You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Your view is heresy among those of us who take a literal view of Scripture

Behold the Pharisee!

 

[JonC]

@Martin Marprelate ,

I did not mean to offend and I had hoped that my clarification would explain that I was using the word for it's meaning, not for associated feelings. I had resolved not to use the word "heresy" but upon reflection I thought it was juvenile to commit to not using perfectly good words in a conversation.

To emphasize, I am using the word "heresy" to describe a belief that is contrary to an accepted standard (here, for a sect of Christians who adhere to Scripture in a certain way, a "biblicist"). I thought I was clear, and apologize for my lack of clarity.

I do not mean a belief that is contrary to Christianity itself (and this is not what "heresy" means anyway). I do not mean a denial of truth by a member of the Roman Catholic Church. I do not even mean a rejection of generally accepted Christian belief.

I mean that your view is what those in my group would consider a "heresy" (it is a doctrine contrary to what we hold as fundamental truths in regards to Scripture). I hold certain presuppositions and believe they are necessary in any conversation. One of these is that I hold what people call (perhaps wrongly) a "literal" understanding of Scripture and a "literal" method of interpretation. Your statement that Adam was not created "natural" is a rejection of the principle of interpretation that I believe necessary (my presupposition). As it contradicts the biblical text it is what I would consider a "heresy". NOT that you are less Christian but that it is enough to separate your doctrine form our (my church's) doctrine. It is enough to divide over, but this division does not mean we cannot be united in Christ.

I am talking about your comment - the post - not you. It means nothing about you at all.

I do not think that you are a "pharisee". I do not believe you are a "heretic" in regards to Christianity.

I believe you are a honest, intelligent, Christian man. I think that you express your doctrines very clearly on your blog. You are a gifted teacher and I believe God will use and continue to use you for kingdom work. But at the same time I believe that you are wrong in several areas. It is not wrong of me to say this. I realize that you believe the same of my doctrines. You believe that I am wrong in several areas.

There is no need to devolve into insults. I know that you are a better person than that because you have proved to be a better person than that. I even grant that you are probably a much better person, Christian, and teacher than I will ever be. We are faithful to what God has given us.

 

[JonC]

Behold the Pharisee!

I am sorry that you feel that way. I am sorry that my use of a word offended you to this degree.

I thought I was being very clear, but apparently I have failed. That is my fault and I take responsibility for my lack of clarity.

Blessings

 

[JonC]

No need to add further. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Again, I apologize for my lack of clarity.

What I mean is that I do not hold that anyone here is a heretic insofar as Christian faith goes. But for my small slice of Christianity the doctrine that you presented is "heresy" because it is enough to divide over. I do not mean divide in a bad way, I mean it in a good way (like Spurgeon's sermon on sects and the benefit it has for doctrine).

An example of what I mean: I consider the doctrine of infant baptism a "heresy". It is enough to separate over. That does not mean churches who practice infant baptism are "heretics" in the overall Christian sense. But it is enough to exclude that doctrine from our churches. The people who hold that doctrine can attend. But they cannot be members unless they are baptized in the way we believe proper. They can even believe that infant baptism is another means and be in good standing with our churches. We are not the "thought police", but that doctrine will always be a "heresy" in our church.

I hope that clarifies my meaning. And again, I apologize for any lack of clarity.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I am talking about your comment - the post - not you. It means nothing about you at all

Weasel words. Your 'apology' is not accepted because it is no apology at all. It's as if bloody Mary told the Reformers that they were not being burned for being heretics but for their heretical views. You have reneged upon an agreement we made earlier, and have shown yourself to be utterly untrustworthy.

[snip]

 

[JonC]

Weasel words. Your 'apology' is not accepted because it is no apology at all. It's as if bloody Mary told the Reformers that they were not being burned for being heretics but for their heretical views. You have reneged upon an agreement we made earlier, and have shown yourself to be utterly untrustworthy.

I am sorry you feel that way.

I certainly do make mistakes, perhaps more than most here. But I try my best - as a moderator, a member here, a father, husband, and child of God. I know I fail in all roles at times, but I try hard not to.

Thank you for pointing out how hurtful the word "heresy" can be. I did not realize for some it carried such baggage. I am not convinced it needs to be banned, but perhaps you could expound on why you are so offended by the word.

Blessings

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I am sorry you feel that way.

I certainly do make mistakes, perhaps more than most here. But I try my best - as a moderator, a member here, a father, husband, and child of God. I know I fail in all roles at times, but I try hard not to.

Thank you for pointing out how hurtful the word "heresy" can be. I did not realize for some it carried such baggage. I am not convinced it needs to be banned, but perhaps you could expound on why you are so offended by the word.

Blessings

I have pointed this out in P.M.s to you which you have plainly read and immediately discarded. We agreed that the word would never be used between us Go and read the P.M.s now. You know perfectly well that on another forum you were required to stop using the word, and for very good reason. Your mock humility does not impress me.

[snip] .

 

[JonC]

I have pointed this out in P.M.s to you which you have plainly read and immediately discarded. We agreed that the word would never be used between us Go and read the P.M.s now. You know perfectly well that on another forum you were required to stop using the word, and for very good reason. Your mock humility does not impress me.

BTW, your action in snipping my post is cowardly and despicable. You are trying to cover up your own tracks.

Yes, I did agree to ban the word "heresy". But you and I had other agreements as well. And yes, I changed my mind regarding banning the word.

I am prone to error. It was wrong of me to try to ban a word simply because of anothers subjective perception of the word. I should never have gone down that road.

But I am far from the sharpest tool in the shed. I often give too much credit to folks and ignore the obvious (it is a miracle I have not been mugged...yet). I tend not to see the negative and focus on the positive. Sometimes this means I act in ignorance.

Anyway, if you want to start a thread about the word "heresy", it's history and meaning then you are welcome to do so. Here it is a bit off topic.

But given your aptitude for teaching (as I have witnessed on your blog) I am sure you will provide a thought provoking thread. You ha e a gift for teaching and I am glad to have met you in this capacity. I have learned a lot from you not only here but watching your sermons.

Blessings