Faulty Theology

[Reformed1689]

We are told to be holy in our conduct. 1 Peter 1:15

No, we cannot be worthy of worship.

Then the definition of holy cannot include worthy of worship.

 

[InTheLight]

Holy means...to be set apart.

Yes. ! Peter 2:9; Leviticus 20:26

 

[InTheLight]

Then the definition of holy cannot include worthy of worship.

Oh, worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness!
Tremble before Him, all the earth. Psalm 96:9

 

[InTheLight]

If their sin caused them to be dead, an active state, and clearly they were still physically alive, that only leaves one option. It was a spiritual death.

Yes, that is a logical deduction.

So Romans 5:12 is not about physical death?

 

[Reformed1689]

Oh, worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness!
Tremble before Him, all the earth. Psalm 96:9

And Moses stood on holy ground. Should he have worshipped the ground? The Sabbath day was holy, should we worship the day? Israel was a holy nation, should we worship Israel? The elements in the tabernacle and later the temple were holy, should those elements be worshipped?

Holy does not equal worthy of worship. That is not part of the definition.

 

[Reformed1689]

Yes, that is a logical deduction.

So Romans 5:12 is not about physical death?

I have always maintained that the fall brought forth both physical and spiritual death.

 

[InTheLight]

And Moses stood on holy ground. Should he have worshipped the ground? The Sabbath day was holy, should we worship the day? Israel was a holy nation, should we worship Israel? The elements in the tabernacle and later the temple were holy, should those elements be worshipped?

Holy does not equal worthy of worship. That is not part of the definition.

OK.

 

[Revmitchell]

And Moses stood on holy ground. Should he have worshipped the ground? The Sabbath day was holy, should we worship the day? Israel was a holy nation, should we worship Israel? The elements in the tabernacle and later the temple were holy, should those elements be worshipped?

Holy does not equal worthy of worship. That is not part of the definition.

Nope it just means sacred

 

[Revmitchell]

Here we go... I never said you were wrong. I've defended my position.

What is the Hebrew definition of the word "holy" as it is used in scripture?

I did not say you did but you jumped in on the arguments of those that did

 

[George Antonios]

My argument with AustinC is his contention that Adam and Eve were holy. You won't find that in scripture.

I agree on the technical observation that they were never called holy.
Now, holy is defined in scriptures as set apart from sin-and/or-that-which-is-profane, and Adam and Eve were set apart in the garden. But yes, you are technically correct.

There is no direct scripture that says so. People that are affirming they were spiritually alive before the Fall are using reason and logic to get to that deduction.

Re: Christ's example in my post #46. But again, you are in a way, technically correct.
However, I've provided some scriptures to that effect in #46.

I'm not certain they were spiritually alive. I haven't fully formed an opinion on it, which is why these debates are useful.

Agreed.

If they were spiritually alive before the Fall, then they "spiritually died", that seems problematic to adherents of the "P" in TULIP.

I think I see you point but that difficulty is solved in realizing that the believer's justified state in Christ is far greater than Adam's pre-fall state:

• Pre-fall Adam was not joined unto the Lord in one spirit (1Co.6:17).
• Pre-fall Adam was not sealed with that holy Spirit of promise (Eph.1:13).
• Pre-fall Adam was not a member of Christ's body, of his flesh, and of his bones (Eph.5:30).
• Pre-fall Adam did not have the righteousness of God as we do in Christ today (Php.3:9).
• etc.

Only the above understanding of how N.T. church-age salvation differs from any previous or upcoming dispensation solves the difficulty.
Consider that otherwise, the difficulty remains, not only in the example of Adam, but in the angels as well. The Bible clearly states that the angels are spirits (Ps.104:4) and sons of God (Job 1:6; 2:1, 38:7, etc) and yet some of them do fall and end up in the lake of fire - but again, their pre-fall state is not like our post-redemption state at all.
Our state is far greater and more secure because we have Christ's own life and righteousness fueling our spirits.

 

[Yeshua1]

Uh no it doesnt

Holy set apart for and by God!

 

[Reformed1689]

If they were spiritually alive before the Fall, then they "spiritually died", that seems problematic to adherents of the "P" in TULIP.

How so?

 

[InTheLight]

How so?

Calvinism teaches that God quickens man's spirit so it can believe. They are made "spiritually alive." Once the heart is regenerated that person will believe and become a part of God's family. Calvinist's believe in perseverance of the saints (the "P" in TULIP) meaning that the elect cannot lose their salvation, cannot revert to a spiritually dead state.

Yet if Calvinists believe Adam was spiritually alive, then made to be spiritually dead, that goes against their own theology, does it not?

 

[InTheLight]

I think I see you point but that difficulty is solved in realizing that the believer's justified state in Christ is far greater than Adam's pre-fall state:

• Pre-fall Adam was not joined unto the Lord in one spirit (1Co.6:17).
• Pre-fall Adam was not sealed with that holy Spirit of promise (Eph.1:13).
• Pre-fall Adam was not a member of Christ's body, of his flesh, and of his bones (Eph.5:30).
• Pre-fall Adam did not have the righteousness of God as we do in Christ today (Php.3:9).
• etc.

Only the above understanding of how N.T. church-age salvation differs from any previous or upcoming dispensation solves the difficulty.

So you are saying there are degrees of being "spiritually alive?" Adam was spiritually alive but not as spiritually alive as justified New Testament saints?

Consider that otherwise, the difficulty remains, not only in the example of Adam, but in the angels as well. The Bible clearly states that the angels are spirits (Ps.104:4) and sons of God (Job 1:6; 2:1, 38:7, etc) and yet some of them do fall and end up in the lake of fire - but again, their pre-fall state is not like our post-redemption state at all.
Our state is far greater and more secure because we have Christ's own life and righteousness fueling our spirits.

Angels are spirits, not fleshly. Flesh can be spiritually dead or spiritually alive. Are you saying spirits can be spiritually alive? I would think that goes against Romans 8.

 

[Reformed1689]

Calvinism teaches that God quickens man's spirit so it can believe. They are made "spiritually alive." Once the heart is regenerated that person will believe and become a part of God's family. Calvinist's believe in perseverance of the saints (the "P" in TULIP) meaning that the elect cannot lose their salvation, cannot revert to a spiritually dead state.

Yet if Calvinists believe Adam was spiritually alive, then made to be spiritually dead, that goes against their own theology, does it not?

No. Adam wasn't regenerated when created, you, like JonC are trying to equate pre/post fall as having the same parameters. The saints are those who are saved. Adam did not need saving pre fall, there was nothing to be saved from.

Furthermore, Adam would not be losing salvation if he was never saved in the first place.

Finally, if Adam was one of the elect, he would have been saved post-fall. That being said, many Calvinists, myself included, prefer the term preservation of the saints as opposed to the perseverance of the saints.

 

[JonC]

@JonC I'd love to discuss this topic with you but I'm afraid I'm still where we left off last time, simply trying to understand your interpretation of Genesis 2:17 before I can even address it.

Sure, Genesis 2:17

Here is the Hebrew (I don’t do Hebrew): וּמֵעֵ֗ץ הַדַּ֙עַת֙ טֹ֣וב וָרָ֔ע לֹ֥א תֹאכַ֖ל מִמֶּ֑נּוּ כִּ֗י בְּיֹ֛ום אֲכָלְךָ֥ מִמֶּ֖נּוּ מֹ֥ות תָּמֽוּת׃

Here is the Greek (I do Greek): ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ ξύλου τοῦ γινώσκειν καλὸν καὶ πονηρόν οὐ φάγεσθε ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ ᾗ δ’ ἂν ἡμέρᾳ φάγητε ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ θανάτῳ ἀποθανεῖσθε

Here is the KJV: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

This is God telling Adam that he should not eat of the fruit of the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” because in the day that he eats of that tree he shall surely die.

We know that this is not merely a statement or a warning because in the New Testament Paul uses this to explain how Adam’s disobedience was in fact a transgression of God’s command.

I believe that this is literal.

Here is how I interpret the verse:

Of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat of it, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.

In the day that Adam ate of that tree death was sure (it was certain).


Here is why:

I base this on a few things. First, I believe the English in the KJV is accurate – in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. NOT thou shall surely die on the day that thou eatest the fruit.

The English translation is not, however, why I take the position I take.

One reason I hold my position is that nowhere in Scripture does mût refer to anyone dying spiritually (that usage is foreign to Scripture). @Martin Marprelate clearly demonstrated this when he pointed out that in 1 Kings 2:36-37 the phrase was used to indicate Shiemei would surely die physically (not spiritually).

Another reason I hold my position is that it corresponds with the Hebrew idea of death. They were not focused on dying spiritually but rather on physical death and being righteous in accordance with God’s standard (God’s covenant). Of course, they could have been mistaking (this is not evidence I am correct, but one reason I hold my view).

Another reason is that the idea of this being a spiritual death is foreign to the early church. Here I need to acknowledge that their view is often explained by being focused on persecution and their immediate experience.

Another reason I hold this view is throughout the Hebrew tradition such repetition indicates an emphatic (not that it will immediately occur, but that it’s occurrence is certain). This is true throughout the Old Testament with the use of individual words and in the Psalms with repetitive phrasing.

Another reason I hold this view is nowhere in Scripture is Adam said to have died spiritually or even possessed a spiritual life (other than the human spirit and/ or soul that is common to man). In fact, there are several passages to the contrary (that Adam was created natural, not spiritual and the flesh/ natural/ Adam is in contrast to the Spirit/ Christ/ spiritual/ Life).

Another reason is the passage makes sense without adding to it that Adam died spiritually on the day he sinned. I see no reason to add to the text as it is logical in and of itself. When we do add to text (to make sense of it) we need to hold whatever we have added very lightly, not with a firm grip building upon it.

 

[InTheLight]

No. Adam wasn't regenerated when created, you, like JonC are trying to equate pre/post fall as having the same parameters. The saints are those who are saved. Adam did not need saving pre fall, there was nothing to be saved from.

Furthermore, Adam would not be losing salvation if he was never saved in the first place.

So we are back to my assertion that Adam and Eve are a special case when it comes to discussing spiritual life.

 

[Yeshua1]

Sure, Genesis 2:17

Here is the Hebrew (I don’t do Hebrew): וּמֵעֵ֗ץ הַדַּ֙עַת֙ טֹ֣וב וָרָ֔ע לֹ֥א תֹאכַ֖ל מִמֶּ֑נּוּ כִּ֗י בְּיֹ֛ום אֲכָלְךָ֥ מִמֶּ֖נּוּ מֹ֥ות תָּמֽוּת׃

Here is the Greek (I do Greek): ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ ξύλου τοῦ γινώσκειν καλὸν καὶ πονηρόν οὐ φάγεσθε ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ ᾗ δ’ ἂν ἡμέρᾳ φάγητε ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ θανάτῳ ἀποθανεῖσθε

Here is the KJV: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

This is God telling Adam that he should not eat of the fruit of the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” because in the day that he eats of that tree he shall surely die.

We know that this is not merely a statement or a warning because in the New Testament Paul uses this to explain how Adam’s disobedience was in fact a transgression of God’s command.

I believe that this is literal.

Here is how I interpret the verse:

Of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat of it, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.

In the day that Adam ate of that tree death was sure (it was certain).


Here is why:

I base this on a few things. First, I believe the English in the KJV is accurate – in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. NOT thou shall surely die on the day that thou eatest the fruit.

The English translation is not, however, why I take the position I take.

One reason I hold my position is that nowhere in Scripture does mût refer to anyone dying spiritually (that usage is foreign to Scripture). @Martin Marprelate clearly demonstrated this when he pointed out that in 1 Kings 2:36-37 the phrase was used to indicate Shiemei would surely die physically (not spiritually).

Another reason I hold my position is that it corresponds with the Hebrew idea of death. They were not focused on dying spiritually but rather on physical death and being righteous in accordance with God’s standard (God’s covenant). Of course, they could have been mistaking (this is not evidence I am correct, but one reason I hold my view).

Another reason is that the idea of this being a spiritual death is foreign to the early church. Here I need to acknowledge that their view is often explained by being focused on persecution and their immediate experience.

Another reason I hold this view is throughout the Hebrew tradition such repetition indicates an emphatic (not that it will immediately occur, but that it’s occurrence is certain). This is true throughout the Old Testament with the use of individual words and in the Psalms with repetitive phrasing.

Another reason I hold this view is nowhere in Scripture is Adam said to have died spiritually or even possessed a spiritual life (other than the human spirit and/ or soul that is common to man). In fact, there are several passages to the contrary (that Adam was created natural, not spiritual and the flesh/ natural/ Adam is in contrast to the Spirit/ Christ/ spiritual/ Life).

Another reason is the passage makes sense without adding to it that Adam died spiritually on the day he sinned. I see no reason to add to the text as it is logical in and of itself. When we do add to text (to make sense of it) we need to hold whatever we have added very lightly, not with a firm grip building upon it.

All , save for jesus, areborn with sin natures, so we must be born againto have spiritual life, but Adam was created sinless in his humanity, thus was already spiritually alive to God!

 

[HankD]

Hank D said;

Notice this says that Adam was dying and that he would die. It does not say he died spiritually


All things are establish by two or three witnesses. You have one witness this is not established.
MB

MB what is it i have not established?

 

[Revmitchell]

Sure, Genesis 2:17

Here is the Hebrew (I don’t do Hebrew): וּמֵעֵ֗ץ הַדַּ֙עַת֙ טֹ֣וב וָרָ֔ע לֹ֥א תֹאכַ֖ל מִמֶּ֑נּוּ כִּ֗י בְּיֹ֛ום אֲכָלְךָ֥ מִמֶּ֖נּוּ מֹ֥ות תָּמֽוּת׃

Here is the Greek (I do Greek): ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ ξύλου τοῦ γινώσκειν καλὸν καὶ πονηρόν οὐ φάγεσθε ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ ᾗ δ’ ἂν ἡμέρᾳ φάγητε ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ θανάτῳ ἀποθανεῖσθε

Here is the KJV: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

This is God telling Adam that he should not eat of the fruit of the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” because in the day that he eats of that tree he shall surely die.

We know that this is not merely a statement or a warning because in the New Testament Paul uses this to explain how Adam’s disobedience was in fact a transgression of God’s command.

I believe that this is literal.

Here is how I interpret the verse:

Of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat of it, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.

In the day that Adam ate of that tree death was sure (it was certain).


Here is why:

I base this on a few things. First, I believe the English in the KJV is accurate – in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. NOT thou shall surely die on the day that thou eatest the fruit.

The English translation is not, however, why I take the position I take.

One reason I hold my position is that nowhere in Scripture does mût refer to anyone dying spiritually (that usage is foreign to Scripture). @Martin Marprelate clearly demonstrated this when he pointed out that in 1 Kings 2:36-37 the phrase was used to indicate Shiemei would surely die physically (not spiritually).

Another reason I hold my position is that it corresponds with the Hebrew idea of death. They were not focused on dying spiritually but rather on physical death and being righteous in accordance with God’s standard (God’s covenant). Of course, they could have been mistaking (this is not evidence I am correct, but one reason I hold my view).

Another reason is that the idea of this being a spiritual death is foreign to the early church. Here I need to acknowledge that their view is often explained by being focused on persecution and their immediate experience.

Another reason I hold this view is throughout the Hebrew tradition such repetition indicates an emphatic (not that it will immediately occur, but that it’s occurrence is certain). This is true throughout the Old Testament with the use of individual words and in the Psalms with repetitive phrasing.

Another reason I hold this view is nowhere in Scripture is Adam said to have died spiritually or even possessed a spiritual life (other than the human spirit and/ or soul that is common to man). In fact, there are several passages to the contrary (that Adam was created natural, not spiritual and the flesh/ natural/ Adam is in contrast to the Spirit/ Christ/ spiritual/ Life).

Another reason is the passage makes sense without adding to it that Adam died spiritually on the day he sinned. I see no reason to add to the text as it is logical in and of itself. When we do add to text (to make sense of it) we need to hold whatever we have added very lightly, not with a firm grip building upon it.

Heresy