Is Physical Death the Penalty for Sin?

[Ulsterman]

HP: Pardon me Pastor? Where have you engaged the Scripture set forth that clearly states that Enoch did NOT see death?

If I may presume to answer for another pastor, I think my brother was making reference to Hebrews 11:5, "By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death."

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Ulsterman: If I may presume to answer for another pastor, I think my brother was making reference to Hebrews 11:5, "By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death."

HP: I am not certain that you are helping his position on this one. You are correct in that Scripture does plainly say that Enoch did not see death. That is my position as well. It would at least appear that some on this list would like to change that verse and say that Enoch died when he was translated. I see that as a clear misrepresentation of Scripture.

Let me ask you Pastor, what is the penalty for sin according to Scripture? Is physical death the penalty? If so, and all men are sinners, why did not Enoch or Elijah see death? Are you going to take the position that death is the mere transition from this life to the next? Are we going to have to die before we meet the Lord in the air if in fact we are alive as believers when Christ returns for his own and we meet Him in the air?

I for one do not believe that physical death is the penalty for sin, but rather, and especially the timing of it, is a direct consequence of being born a descendant of Adam. I believe there is but one true penalty for sin, and that is total separation from God for eternity. Once one incurrs that penalty, there is no escape and it is final. What is our take on this issue?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

TrustitL: Note: it is not sin that makes us "lose" our salvation. It is unbelief…….
The willful sin, I believe, is not doing a sin that you know is a sin (that is really the only kind of sin there is), it is turning from the faith.

HP: Could you clear this up a bit? Are you honestly taking the position that unbelief is not sin? What about the often stated notion that 'unbelief is the damning sin?'

How is "not doing a sin that you know is a sin,..... but rather ‘turning from faith?" Does not Scripture state that “ANYTHING not of faith IS sin?”

 

[Ulsterman]

HP: I am not certain that you are helping his position on this one. You are correct in that Scripture does plainly say that Enoch did not see death. That is my position as well. It would at least appear that some on this list would like to change that verse and say that Enoch died when he was translated. I see that as a clear misrepresentation of Scripture.

Let me ask you Pastor, what is the penalty for sin according to Scripture? Is physical death the penalty? If so, and all men are sinners, why did not Enoch or Elijah see death? Are you going to take the position that death is the mere transition from this life to the next? Are we going to have to die before we meet the Lord in the air if in fact we are alive as believers when Christ returns for his own and we meet Him in the air?

I for one do not believe that physical death is the penalty for sin, but rather, and especially the timing of it, is a direct consequence of being born a descendant of Adam. I believe there is but one true penalty for sin, and that is total separation from God for eternity. Once one incurrs that penalty, there is no escape and it is final. What is our take on this issue?

The wages of sin is death. That is physical death, which comes to all until the rapture and resurrection, spiritual death which is true of all in their natural state, and eternal death which is the experience of all who die in unbelief.

I don't think Enoch and Elijah's case really make any difference to the truth that death in all its forms are part and parcel of the curse. Adam did not physically die the day he disobeyed God, but he did die spiritually. God, as Sovereign over His own affairs, is perfectly within his rights to allow Enoch and Elijah to by pass physical death if He so chooses, this does not alter the general rule that the soul that sinneth it shall die.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

We do always err when we try to fit God into a box. The Scripture is clear that God’s ways are not our ways and His thoughts are not our thoughts. God is God and He can do whatever He wants to do. If He chooses to exempt a man from the penalty of death, that is certainly His prerogative. If He chooses to allow certain men to experience death twice, as did Lazarus, then He has that right as well.

It has been stated, numerous times, that death is the separation of the soul and body. The physical, sin-cursed body cannot enter heaven. Therefore, in the case of Enoch, Elijah, and the future New Testament saints taken in the rapture, at some point mortals will put on immortality and corruption will put on incorruption. That would certainly classify as physical death.

Regardless, Hebrews 11:5 is given to typify the saints who will be living when Jesus comes. They will be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord and will not see death as do most men. It is most definitely not a contradiction of Romans 5:12.

 

[trustitl]

I am not sure why you are asking "Are you honestly taking the position that unbelief is not sin?" I know you will be able to explain why you have the right to ask the question, but it appears that you are merely being contentious in asking. Of all the things I have recently posted on this topic zeroing in on this seems trivial.

But to answer the question to clear up the record for you and anybody else that would have ever seriously considered asking, unbelief is sin. My point in saying "it is not sin that makes us lose our salvation" is that there are false teachers out there saying you lose you salvation if you "sin". As you are very aware, there are true, weak believers out there that are in fear of God's love and forgiveness due to them stumbling in any way.

They need to be reminded that they have an advocate:

I John 2:1 "My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: 2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for our's only, but also for the sins of the whole world."

I John 2:12 "I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name's sake."

Your use of "Does not Scripture state that “ANYTHING not of faith IS sin?” is not helpful in this context. The previous verse makes it clear that it is not God that condemns him, rather it is himself .

HP asked "Was the death of Christ unable to succor that for which it was intended, or is double jeopardy in play?" This reminds me of the poll about the 10 Commandments. It is obviously neither and the question appears to be loaded. Christ died to gain victory over death. He did that, and I know thatit is no longer my enemy.

I Cor. 15:36 Thou fool(Paul's words, not mine :thumbs: ), that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:

So in reality death is something to look forward to by believers. Paul did. If a seed could, it would look forward to being sown even though it were about to die. It would be how it could be changed into a more glorious form.

I Cor. 15:42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: 43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. 46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. 47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. 48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. 49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

Physical death is nothing to be feared for believers for it the avenue for us to be glorified. No double jeopardy and Christ has defeated death.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

Let me ask you Pastor, what is the penalty for sin according to Scripture?

The wages of sin is death - Romans 6:23
Death is the result of sin - Romans 5:12
God told Adam that the day he eats the fruit (disobedience = sin) that he would die - Genesis 2:17
Sin, when it is finished, brings death - James 1:15

I for one do not believe that physical death is the penalty for sin, but rather, and especially the timing of it, is a direct consequence of being born a descendant of Adam.

So, then, had Adam not sinned, his descendants would still have died a physical death? God clearly states that, through Adam, sin entered the world. Death entered the world at the same time. Before the fall there was no death. After the fall, death passed to all men. As I stated above, only God Himself can make exceptions to His rule. It matters not that our finite minds cannot comprehend His ways.

I believe there is but one true penalty for sin, and that is total separation from God for eternity. Once one incurrs that penalty, there is no escape and it is final. What is our take on this issue?

My take is that there is no scriptural support for your opinion. You have to disregard many scriptures to arrive at this erroneous conclusion.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Quote:
HP: I believe there is but one true penalty for sin, and that is total separation from God for eternity. Once one incurrs that penalty, there is no escape and it is final. What is our take on this issue?

Pastor Bob: My take is that there is no scriptural support for your opinion. You have to disregard many scriptures to arrive at this erroneous conclusion.

HP: 2Th 1:6 Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you;
7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

I will let the reader establish if in fact my clearly stated position is in line with Scripture or not.

 

[Pastor_Bob]

I will let the reader establish if in fact my clearly stated position is in line with Scripture or not.

This scripture in no way supports the notion that the penalty of Adam's sin is not physical death. This passage merely explains the final judgment on those who reject God's Son. This penalty is the second death which is suffered only by the lost. Physical death is a penalty suffered by all men - saved and lost alike.

 

[BobRyan]

We do always err when we try to fit God into a box. The Scripture is clear that God’s ways are not our ways and His thoughts are not our thoughts. God is God and He can do whatever He wants to do. If He chooses to exempt a man from the penalty of death, that is certainly His prerogative. If He chooses to allow certain men to experience death twice, as did Lazarus, then He has that right as well.

It has been stated, numerous times, that death is the separation of the soul and body. The physical, sin-cursed body cannot enter heaven. Therefore, in the case of Enoch, Elijah, and the future New Testament saints taken in the rapture, at some point mortals will put on immortality and corruption will put on incorruption. That would certainly classify as physical death.

Regardless, Hebrews 11:5 is given to typify the saints who will be living when Jesus comes. They will be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord and will not see death as do most men. It is most definitely not a contradiction of Romans 5:12.

All suffer the decaying-tent problem Paul speaks to in 2Cor 5 even the ones who are translated without seeing death as Paul says of Enoch in Heb 11. I agree with all that you have said except that I would not describe the event of being translated as dying.

If God zaps your arm or leg and makes it like it was brand-new zero defects do you then say that your arm or leg has died?

in Christ,

Bob

 

[trustitl]

Quote:
HP: I believe there is but one true penalty for sin, and that is total separation from God for eternity. Once one incurrs that penalty, there is no escape and it is final. What is our take on this issue?

If this is the penalty for sin, how would Jesus have paid it for us? A just God requires a just payment. A weekend in hell would not have sufficed.

 

[BobRyan]

Now and then I detect times when Trustit and I almost agree on something! (Or maybe I am up too late past my bedtime - so to speak).

The Penalty Christ paid is the penalty of sufferring we owe -- He took the stroke that was due us -- He took our penalty our debt of suffering and nailed it to the cross with the stamp "paid in full" according to Col 2.

The reason that Christ can do that without ALSO having to be tormented infinitely for each sin of each person - is that infinite suffeirng is NOT the debt owed for each sin we FINITE beings commit.

The reason that Christ could pay the FINITE debt for FINITE sins and THEN did not also have to endure the suffering of INFINITE death -- is that "the dead do not SUFFER anything!"

The "living know that they will die -- but the dead know not anything". If eternal death were the only penalty then there would be no need to raise the wicked after the 1000 years and send them into the suffering and torment of the Lake of Fire - the "second death".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

If I may presume to answer for another pastor, I think my brother was making reference to Hebrews 11:5, "By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death."

all true -- Enoch was translated -- taken bodily to heaven without dying.

 

[BobRyan]

HP: I notice you placed this in bold for us. If Jesus literally paid the penalty for our sins, and the penalty for our sins is physical death, then why do believers that have had their sins paid for by Christ still have to suffer physical death? Was the death of Christ unable to succor that for which it was intended, or is double jeopardy in play?

Great question! One I just love to answer!

"Payment" as we see in God's Gospel model of atonement given in Lev 16 is NOT of the grocery store model - nor is it in the pagan propitiation model where God get's paid and then your debt is settled..

It is the "substitutionary atonement model" where God does NOT get paid ANYTHING! Instead the penalty that God's Law demands is paid --

Christ pays that debt of sin but He does not "pay God the Father". God does not watch His Son "suffer on the cross until He feels really really good about it, or gets to a point of feeling satisfied, nor until He starts to feel appeased as He watches the torture and torment of His Son".

NONE of that happened on the cross!

Instead we see a Loving God SUFFERING for the sins of others! That is NO PAYMENT AT ALL TO God.

Think about it -- if you OWE your neighbor 10,000 dollars for bashing in his car -- then you owe him MUCH MORE for torturing and bashing his SON-- you do not "owe LESS"!!

In the ATONEMENT we see God self-sacrificing to satisfying the penalty of the Law and because He did it by HIS OWN suffering. For our part (if anything) we owe Him MORE! The Roman soldier, the Jew, the defecting disciple betraying Christ are all SINNING! EACH of their sins demands that MORE sin debt be paid -- not LESS!

Becuase it is God WHO PAID rather than God who "got paid" Then it is HE alone who get's to decide WHO to apply that payment to -- and under what conditions that payment may be used.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: "Payment" as we see in God's Gospel model of atonement given in Lev 16 is NOT of the grocery store model - nor is it in the pagan propitiation model where God get's paid and then your debt is settled..

It is the "substitutionary atonement model" where God does NOT get paid ANYTHING! Instead the penalty that God's Law demands is paid –

HP: I might say it this way. It is an atonement, not a literal payment. It is a model where man is first subject to the full penalty of God’s law for the sins one has committed. God, seeking to reconcile sinful man to Himself, substituted of Himself in the sufferings and death of Christ, in order to satisfy the debt that the sinner had incurred without anyone having to literally pay the penalty for sin that the law demands. By this vicarious substitution, God has made a way to governmentally treat the sinner as if though he had not sinned, IF the sinner will fulfill the stated conditions of salvation which are initially repentance and faith.

On the cross no specific sin was literally paid for, but rather it was again a substitutionary atonement that addressed the penalty and demands of the law for the entire sinful fallen human race. It was an all encompassing atonement that built a bridge by where any and all could receive the gift of forgiveness and eternal life with Christ, IF they would again comply with the stated conditions of repentance and faith. The penalty for no individual sins were set aside directly as a result of the atonement, but again the way was made for all the sins of the entire world to be forgiven under certain conditions. God has completed His part and now calls on man to repent and believe in order for individuals to receive of the benefits of that atonement.

BR: Christ pays that debt of sin but He does not "pay God the Father".

HP: It most likely causes confusion to state that ‘Christ paid,’ or that ‘Christ bought’ given the climate that prevails holding to a literal payment. Christ simply made an atonement for the debt of sin. Christ paid and or bought ‘only in a sense,’ not in any such sense that would be understood by a forensic proceeding such as a literal payment suggests.

BR: God does not watch His Son "suffer on the cross until He feels really really good about it,

HP: Well, I believe I get your point but the Scriptures do say, “Isa 53:10 ¶ Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.”

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Pastor Bob: This scripture in no way supports the notion that the penalty of Adam's sin is not physical death.

HP: Why do you not distinguish between the physical and the spiritual? If physical death was the penalty for sin, once one died it would have been paid for. I have clearly shown by Scripture that some die physically and some have not and will not see physical death. There are only a few logical conclusions to be drawn. If physical death is the penalty for sin, then either God is a respecter of persons by not allowing some that sinned to meet their just punishment, or all have not sinned. If physical death is the penalty for sin, and Christ, according to you, has paid the penalty for sin for at least the elect, why do Christians still die? Why would that not be a question of double jeopardy? Let me ask you directly. Was the atonement not sufficient to eliminate the debt you say was paid for?

Please do not try and tell us that you have already answered these questions unless you can point us to a post that answers them directly.:wavey:

 

[BobRyan]

Those who did not die - were not "paying the penalty of sin by not dying". Your argument is that they DID pay the full penalty of their sins and since they did not die physically then that must mean that the penalty is really only spiritual death. But I would argue that Adam was not going to "normally die at age 1000" yet all those preflood humans were dying off at about 1000 years of age. Then post-flood that shrunk down to 120 years and then down to 80. So surely that was not "Adam's condition".

But I don't see how you can argue that Enoch (for example) DID pay the full penalty of his sin and that since he did not die that means the penalty must "really" be only spiritual death.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Quote:
BR: God does not watch His Son "suffer on the cross until He feels really really good about it,

HP: Well, I believe I get your point but the Scriptures do say, “Isa 53:10 ¶ Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.”

In Is 53 -- Christ the one who cries out "my God my God why hast though forsaken me" and who prays "If it be possible let this cup pass from me" is said to "be satisified" when he views the suffering he endures for the sake of accomplishing salvation for the lost.

But that satisifaction like the notion of "God is pleased" in Isaiah 53 is not a statement saying that "God was happily torturing Christ" or that Christ was simply "satisfying himself by enduring torture". This is not God being pampered it is God "suffering".

This is not the way "God get's paid".

As i said -- each sin committed against Christ on the cross simply ADDED to the debt of sin that had to be atoned for.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

BR: "Payment" as we see in God's Gospel model of atonement given in Lev 16 is NOT of the grocery store model - nor is it in the pagan propitiation model where God get's paid and then your debt is settled..

It is the "substitutionary atonement model" where God does NOT get paid ANYTHING! Instead the penalty that God's Law demands is paid –

Isaiah 53 says he "took the stripes for us to whom the stroke was DUE" --God paid the debt we owe according to the Law of God. But since God is paying - he is not the one "getting paid" -- in the atonement model no "being" is getting paid anything.

HP: I might say it this way. It is an atonement, not a literal payment. It is a model where man is first subject to the full penalty of God’s law for the sins one has committed. God, seeking to reconcile sinful man to Himself, substituted of Himself in the sufferings and death of Christ, in order to satisfy the debt that the sinner had incurred without anyone having to literally pay the penalty for sin that the law demands.

I agree if what you are saying is that Christ fully satisfies the debt that the law defines as being owed in our place so that we do not have to -- if we accept Gospel salvation.

HP

By this vicarious substitution, God has made a way to governmentally treat the sinner as if though he had not sinned, IF the sinner will fulfill the stated conditions of salvation which are initially repentance and faith.

Agreed. This upholds the law "the penalty the law demands" and it satisfies both justice and mercy.

justice because the Law is satisifed AND the sinner is killed in the form of dying to self and being "created" as a new creation.

Justice would not be satisified if someone simply let the murderer back out onto the streets to "murder some more".

HP
On the cross no specific sin was literally paid for, but rather it was again a substitutionary atonement that addressed the penalty and demands of the law for the entire sinful fallen human race.

You seem to be trying to have it both ways.

It is like saying that all my bills add up to some huge amount. So now a rich benefactor steps in a pays the entire lump sum debt without actually paying off any of the debts owed?? Or are you saying that even the lump sum debt is not paid -- just abolished?

IF the debts could be abolished instead of paid then the economy collapses since debts are not actually payable.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR:Those who did not die - were not "paying the penalty of sin by not dying".

HP: No man pays the penalty of sin by physically dying period.

BR: Your argument is that they DID pay the full penalty of their sins and since they did not die physically then that must mean that the penalty is really only spiritual death.

HP: Where did you get that? Certainly not from me. I never said any paid the full penalty of their sins. I said that eternal separation from God is the penalty, nothing more and nothing less. Certainly there are many consequences of sin, physical death as only one of them.

BR: But I would argue that Adam was not going to "normally die at age 1000" yet all those preflood humans were dying off at about 1000 years of age.

HP: Argue as you will, but there is not the least shred of evidence that anything created as mortls or physical was designed to last fro eternity in that condition. Scripture clearly states the exact opposite in that nothing physical can or will inherit eternity. It must be changed to inhabit eternity. Even if one denies the Scriptures, entropy should say something to our intellect concerning the physical as being finite and that by design. To consider otherwise is to ignore some of the most basic intuitive notions concerning time and space.

Had Adam not sinned God could have just translated him as He did Enoch and Elijah.

BR: But I don't see how you can argue that Enoch (for example) DID pay the full penalty of his sin and that since he did not die that means the penalty must "really" be only spiritual death.

HP: How do you pull ideas out of thin air and act as if though I have said I believe them? Where did I ever say that Enoch paid any penalty whatsoever for sin? Possibly you are speaking of someone else that might have said it.

Believe as you may, Scripture does not account any sin to him at all. He simply walked with God and the Lord took him, and that is the beginning and the end of the story of Enoch. Those who try and place sin to his account may have some apologies to make some day. I for one will not place guilt or sin where Scripture is silent and or indicates a pure walk with the Lord.