Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 9:30 PM Pacific.
This thread will be closed sometime after 9:30 PM Pacific.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Original Sin Again
- Thread starter rsr
- Start date
- Status
This is exactly what @JonC says is unacceptable Take it up with him.
Or simply, dying you will die. The language itself (the grammar) is objective. It does not necessitate dying a spiritual death (which explains why it has not been interpreted that way throughout history).
Of course I wouldn't! I believe the doctrine of the Trinity is necessarily contained in Scripture.
So say you.
But others do show both deaths in spite of your denial
Genesis 2:17—“You Shall Surely Die”
Last edited:
Many verses have implications on the doctrine of the Trinity. The unity is stated in Scripture (as is the Trinity). I'm amazed that you and @Yeshua1 have not at least stumbled on a verse stating the Spirit as God or the Word as being God. I always thought even a blind squirrel finds the occasional nut. The two of you prove that saying wrong.
No, so says the language. The word simply does not mean what you seem to believe it means (a spiritual death, or one death now and another later).
This does not in itself deny your interpretation of the issue, but the language itself is objective. We can at least deal with possible meanings in an honest manner.
Objective ?
You claimed no one in history believed both spiritual and physical death are taught in the scripture by anyone in history I have shown you one - do you need more?
Again the grammar has allowed for two both here in Genesis 2:17 and definitely in Romans 5:12.
Let the readers decide.
i.e., implied. Just like those who believe the Catholic church is the church Jesus founded on Peter is necessarily contained in Scripture. Or that the Church of Christ is the only true church is necessarily contained in Scripture. Or that free-will theology is necessarily contained in Scripture. Or that Penal Substitution Theory is necessarily contained in Scripture. Or that the "covenant of works" is necessarily contained in Scripture. Or that Transubstantiation is necessarily contained in Scripture. Or that the continuation of sign gifts is necessarily contained in Scripture. Or that Arianism is necessarily contained in Scripture. Or that Open Theology is necessarily contained in Scripture.Of course I wouldn't! I believe the doctrine of the Trinity is necessarily contained in Scripture.
When we move away from Sola Scriptura we move away from sound doctrine. This is what you have done, brother. You have abandoned objective and sound doctrine in favor of subjective implication. You can't test your doctrine because it is not written in Scripture (it is merely something you feel to be implied). The test, then, ends up being your own feelings about the doctrine or the tradition it comes out of. This is unbiblical.
Not at all - you misunderstood my comment.
I am saying that the language itself does not dictate two deaths. Grammar itself is objective. What we do with the language may be another issue all together.
Context, not grammar, dictates interpretation. This is basic stuff, brother. You are wrong that the grammar proves Adam was alive and then died spiritually. What we know of spiritual life seems to indicate that you are wrong about the doctrine as well, but that's another issue. Where the grammar is objective or interpretations are often not.
Secondly, when I say it has not been interpreted your way (that Adam died twice) throughout history I don't mean that it has never been interpreted that way. I mean that this is not the single interpretation throughout history (if it were dictated by the grammar it is reasonable that most, if not all, scholars....especially of the Greek and Hebrew....would have picked up on it).
Last edited:
Er no. Necessarily contained.
Yes....implied...i.e., what is meant but not actually stated.Er no. Necessarily contained.
The Genesis 2 context does not necessarily imply both a spiritual as well as physical death for Adam.
However scriptural history certainly does.
He was cut off from the intimate fellowship of the Garden of Eden with Elohim and several centuries later he was cut off from the biological life of oxygenated blood circulating through his arteries and returned to the dust from whence he came.
However scriptural history certainly does.
He was cut off from the intimate fellowship of the Garden of Eden with Elohim and several centuries later he was cut off from the biological life of oxygenated blood circulating through his arteries and returned to the dust from whence he came.
You misunderstood me (sorry, I see why....my bad).
I mean that the grammar itself does not dictate the meaning of two separate deaths. If it did then throughout history every scholar of Greek and Hebrew would have recognized the singular possible meaning. I did not mean something akin to "you made it up", or that no one believed this throughout history.
The word simply does not have to mean two deaths. If it did, I'd lean more towards the first being somehow a death in terms of a relationship or status. Stating that Adam had spiritual life means that Adam had God abiding in him as we have under the New Covenant. I do not find support for this idea in Scripture (although I don't doubt some believe it to be true).
Where is spiritual life defined as intimate fellowship with God? Granted, that is what we have when we have spiritual life, but this is not actually how Scripture defines it. What you are saying is that Adam was saved (indwelt by God) and then rejected that indwelling in favor of the flesh. He "lost his salvation". None of this is in Scripture.
The Bible only speaks of Adam as being alive in the flesh and dying in the flesh (physically). I understand what you believe and why you believe it, but it is not in the Bible itself (and I understand if you believe it implied....or necessarily contained but not written).
This thread is closed.
- Status