Our role in evangelism

[Iconoclast]

I have began a search for posts that JonC is not aware..it might take some time, but I will hunt them down, one by one the posts in black are from JonC those in red are posts of members leading to responses

Spiritual Life and Spiritual Death

Scripture also tells us that Adam was created flesh and not spirit.

So I view the spiritual life that Adam did have as based on his relationship with God, but not based on anything in Adam himself.
Jon, perhaps I was too vague.
I am asking you to quote the scripture and explain how that scripture actually proves your assertion.
From my perspective, you are speaking around the Bible and instead arguing a philosophy apart from the Bible. I have no desire to talk philosophy.

Oh. Well, first of all the passage does not prove my assertion. We are speaking of something that God chose not to reveal in Scripture. In fact, "spiritual life" and "spiritual death" are not spiritual terms. Therefore it is up to us to come up with definitions to communicate our ideas about these terms in a meaningful way.

One is that "spiritual life" is fellowship with God. This is not in the Bible, but I understand the definition and can use "spiritual life" to speak of "fellowship with God".

I have suggested elsewhere (and I will again) that it would be better to use the terms Scripture does use - "flesh" and "spirit". So the question becomes whether God created Adam as spirit or flesh. I believe God created Adam as flesh (a human body and a spirit set on the flesh).

The problem is man, not Scripture, speaks of people dying spiritually. Scripture speaks of human spirits that lack spiritual life (that are spiritually dead).


post62
That said, Scripture does not say that man was spiritually alive and then spiritually died. Scripture places men as naturally flesh with a human spirit which is focused on it's own desires (on the desires of the flesh).

Spiritual Life

Scripture never speaks of Adam, or anyone else, experiencing spiritual death. There is death, there is physical life,

So the inerpretation" on the day you eat of it you shall surely die" is a legitimate interpretation. On that day death became certain and mankind became enslaved to the law of sin and death.

The reason is you are viewing the verse through your theology. Nowhere is" spiritually dying" stated in Scripture. But it is fundamental to your theology.

We are dead and sin John. Yes, that is a fact. Adam was not dead in sin prior to fall because he had not sinned. He was not born in sin like we are. So in the day that he sinned, on that very day, that very moment, he became spiritually dead in his sin. Yes, that is absolutely a fact found in Scripture.

Can you post even one verse that states Adam was created a spiritual being (spiritual life) because I can (and have) provided a verse to the contrary (that Adam was created a natural man, not a spiritual man)?

Spiritual death has been "passed" from Adam

Yes, but they did not die physically in that day as Adam lived to be 930 years of age (Gen.5. They died spiritually in that day. Spiritual death always precedes physical death and actually is the cause of physical death as spiritual death separates a person from God who is the source of life ("being alienated from the life of God" - Eph. 4:18). Perhaps that is what you were getting at when you said they died that very day?

You forget one thing! God pronounced it "good" and "very good" which God can never do if death and sin were already existent. Sin and death entered the world due to one man's disobedience and that is repeated over and over again in romans 5:12-19.
You have a very short memory or a very selective memory, I have told you clearly that I do not believe God's redemptive righteousness comes through the law and I don't know why you keep beating this dead dog. How many times do I have to tell you that I don't believe that, never have beleived that and never will believe that.


I apologize. I misunderstood you to link God's righteousness with the moral law (with behavior or conduct) and Christ's righteousness being an adherence of the law.

It seems that in the past you were a bit obsessed with morality as exhibited in the law (the law reflecting God's moral character rather than man's).

You seem to have come a long way. Good for you.

edited by admin team

 

[JesusFan]

I have began a search for posts that once again JonC has denied existed,lol...it might take some time, but I will hunt them down, one by one
the posts in black are from JonC those in red are posts of members leading to responses

Spiritual Life and Spiritual Death

Scripture also tells us that Adam was created flesh and not spirit.

So I view the spiritual life that Adam did have as based on his relationship with God, but not based on anything in Adam himself.
Jon, perhaps I was too vague.
I am asking you to quote the scripture and explain how that scripture actually proves your assertion.
From my perspective, you are speaking around the Bible and instead arguing a philosophy apart from the Bible. I have no desire to talk philosophy.

Oh. Well, first of all the passage does not prove my assertion. We are speaking of something that God chose not to reveal in Scripture. In fact, "spiritual life" and "spiritual death" are not spiritual terms. Therefore it is up to us to come up with definitions to communicate our ideas about these terms in a meaningful way.

One is that "spiritual life" is fellowship with God. This is not in the Bible, but I understand the definition and can use "spiritual life" to speak of "fellowship with God".

I have suggested elsewhere (and I will again) that it would be better to use the terms Scripture does use - "flesh" and "spirit". So the question becomes whether God created Adam as spirit or flesh. I believe God created Adam as flesh (a human body and a spirit set on the flesh).

The problem is man, not Scripture, speaks of people dying spiritually. Scripture speaks of human spirits that lack spiritual life (that are spiritually dead).


post62
That said, Scripture does not say that man was spiritually alive and then spiritually died. Scripture places men as naturally flesh with a human spirit which is focused on it's own desires (on the desires of the flesh).

Spiritual Life

Scripture never speaks of Adam, or anyone else, experiencing spiritual death. There is death, there is physical life,

So the inerpretation" on the day you eat of it you shall surely die" is a legitimate interpretation. On that day death became certain and mankind became enslaved to the law of sin and death.

The reason is you are viewing the verse through your theology. Nowhere is" spiritually dying" stated in Scripture. But it is fundamental to your theology.

We are dead and sin John. Yes, that is a fact. Adam was not dead in sin prior to fall because he had not sinned. He was not born in sin like we are. So in the day that he sinned, on that very day, that very moment, he became spiritually dead in his sin. Yes, that is absolutely a fact found in Scripture.

Can you post even one verse that states Adam was created a spiritual being (spiritual life) because I can (and have) provided a verse to the contrary (that Adam was created a natural man, not a spiritual man)?

Spiritual death has been "passed" from Adam

Yes, but they did not die physically in that day as Adam lived to be 930 years of age (Gen.5. They died spiritually in that day. Spiritual death always precedes physical death and actually is the cause of physical death as spiritual death separates a person from God who is the source of life ("being alienated from the life of God" - Eph. 4:18). Perhaps that is what you were getting at when you said they died that very day?

You forget one thing! God pronounced it "good" and "very good" which God can never do if death and sin were already existent. Sin and death entered the world due to one man's disobedience and that is repeated over and over again in romans 5:12-19.
You have a very short memory or a very selective memory, I have told you clearly that I do not believe God's redemptive righteousness comes through the law and I don't know why you keep beating this dead dog. How many times do I have to tell you that I don't believe that, never have beleived that and never will believe that.


I apologize. I misunderstood you to link God's righteousness with the moral law (with behavior or conduct) and Christ's righteousness being an adherence of the law.

It seems that in the past you were a bit obsessed with morality as exhibited in the law (the law reflecting God's moral character rather than man's).

You seem to have come a long way. Good for you.

JonC viewpoint on this issue of spiritual life seems to go right along with his views on the Atonement!

 

[Iconoclast]

"JonC

I have done none of those things.

I am asking you to support your accusation.

You have done everyone of those things and more,
I will show it to you as per your request.
I have three posts i am looking for..it might take some time, but they will be revealed.

You say I (and others) do not understand but are unable to provide anything we don't understand.

I can , but frankly I do not like taking time to deal with dishonesty.
Did you post in this last week that the word elect is only used of those already saved in scripture?



[QUOTE]You say I denied 1 Corinthians 2:14 but cannot provide any instance where I denied the verse.[/QUOTE]

I can, but with the other feature disabled for whatever reason, I will search it out.

You have a habit of making false and wild accusations against people who date to disagree with you.

Not at all. people have often disagreed with me. I do react strongly against dishonest posters. Slimy posting , constant accusations of...you misunderstood me, then changing the answer to get around the previous error. Not that they admit error, just that they change their statement like a chameleon.

This is not right. It is wrong, not only because you make unfounded claims and false accusations but also (and primarily) because it is contrary to the law of Christ.

You accuse as usual, This is nothing new.

Why do you make claims you cannot back up?
Do you think it makes me look bad just because you say I do not understand something you cannot provide?

Your dishonesty makes you look bad. No my questioning you on it.

Do you think it makes me look bad just because you say I deny a passage but you cannot provide any instances where I deny a passage?

Any member who wants to can read these links and see your dishonest dealings ,mostly with BIBLICIST..they just have to look how often you do this, from years ago, to the present day.

It doesn't. It makes you look pretty and discredits your words. It is the boy crying wolf. I caution you about making these false accusations because it makes you untrustworthy.

The problem you have with this, is that you have done this to so many people on the BB, that they know already that you are describing your own conduct, not mine.
Remember you asked be to do this...you requested this

 

[Iconoclast]

JonC viewpoint on this issue of spiritual life seems to go right along with his views on the Atonement!

He is CONSISTENT IN HIS ERROR. We have to give him credit on that.

 

[Iconoclast]

Members read carefully who is being direct and honest, and who is dishonest....nothing new under the Sun,enjoy, inform, and learn

Change of man's MORAL nature in the Fall
here is more
JonC posts are in black
The idea Adam was created "spiritually alive" and without the need of a spiritual birth prior to the Fall is extra-biblical. It is myth (not using the term negatively but factually).


Biblicist saw the error and immediatley
Here is one vital crux of the entire issue and that is what is your definition of "die" which occurred "in the day" he sinned? Can something NOT LIVING die? His body did not die until another 930 years. Can something non-existent die?

My definition of "die" in this context is SPIRITUAL SEPARATION from God and there can be no spiritual SEPARATION if there was no prior spiritual UNION with God.

Since God is the SOURCE of life, light, love and holiness and spiritual separation brings man into a state of death, darkness, enmity and depravity (Eph. 4:18-19) then Adam had to be created in spiritual union with God or no such "death" (separation from life, light, love and holiness) could occur.

Evidence, is that he was created "upright" or in a moral condition "LIKE US" and "IN OUR IMAGE" which is a moral image as declared clearly by Paul in Ephesians 4:24; Col. 3:10.

So, for all you who claim my position is wrong please define the nature of "die" in Genesis 2:17 in the context of "in that day." I await!

Some on this forum simply do not care what evidence is placed before them, especially evidence they cannot respond to, they simply ignore it and keep repeating their false mantra and talking points. This kind of irrationality and stubborness is worthless to deal with and that is why some have been placed on ignore. However, there are some on this forum that cannot be placed on ignore who fit that description.

What I am saying is that you are creating a "mythology" or a narrative through which to view those passages. You are treating the "new man" we put on as Adam's "old man" pre-Fall. You are assuming that there is a "fatal flaw" in human nature. You apply this to Adam being created "upright" and assume that this meant a different pre-Fall nature. You are also forgetting that post-Fall men are still described as being created in God's image. I disagree with the narrative you superimpose on Scripture.

That is purely your own imagination at work because I have already flatly denied that charge and demonstrated what we "put on" is not the pre-fallen condition but a SUPERIOR condition and union. It is superior as it is not mutable like the pre-fallen condition but immutable. It is superior because it results in inability to die and prepares us to living in a superior world to the prefallen world.

So, your charges are baseless drawn from pure imagination. You can invent accusations all day long but it does not make imaginative accusations any more true. I supplied the scriptures.

The idea that our sin nature came into existence by God creating our spirit at conception is unbiblical for several reasons. First, it denies that our conditionn is directly due to Adam's action as the scriptures clearly state "through the offence of one many be dead......by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation.....by one man's disobedience many were made sinners."

Second, it denies that the sin nature or the state of death or the state of spiritual separation was "passed" to all mankind but rather created by God.

Third, it is a philosophical contradiction. If God creates each human's spirit at conception and if it is the contact of that spirit with the body that makes it sinful, then the sin nature must already be present in the material body which is a self-contradiction as the sin nature by definition is SPIRITUAL and not material as morality or immorality have to do with spiritual not material.

The sin nature is "passed" down from Adam to all mankind through procreation and it is found in the "seed" of the male and procreation is of the whole human nature instead of parts of it just as it is in all other living things - there is no partial reproduction of like kind but full reproduction of like kind. Other genetic qualities in the seed determine individual personalities.

This theory has God repeating original creation of man by repeatedly breathing into a body the spirit thus making the creation of man unfinished and ongoing. Human nature was created once and for all by God and then like all other living beings fully reproduced after its own kind instead repoducing half-humans and thus non-human beings.

Your focus is too anthropologic and too inclined towards "returning to the Garden" (which is very similar to classic ANE paganism). In Christ we go beyond the "Garden" and to the very Throne.

Basically, I disagree with the narrative you create to frame the passages you believe supports your view. I believe your description here a "mythology" in the context it is anecdotal to Scripture.

You are perverting my view in order to condemn it. My view is not "return to the original Adam" that is your perversion of my view. I believe no such thing. My view is not "returning to the Garden" that is your perversion of my view. I believe no such thing. My view is not about returning to the pre-fallen creation at all but that is your perversion of my view. Everything about my view is an UPGRADE and NEW and BETTER.

So far, I have been met with PERVERSIONS of my view but not a scrap of Biblical evidence to prove my interpetations of scriptures that I do provide (they don't) are wrong. When will the HOT AIR cease and Biblical scholarship begin????? I await!

This is classic JonC , dishonest posting. He re words a posters words, twisting them even when the poster spells it out like this...How many have found this to be true. It is ongoing and shameful.

Dozens of examples can be clearly seen by simply reading through the treads

 

[Salty]

Six hour warning
This thread will be closed no sooner than 5 pm EDT / 2 pm PST

Just a reminder

 

[JonC]

@Salty and @Squire Robertsson

I see what he is asking about.

When I hit a profile (mine or any members) and select "posts" there is an error message.

We can still search for posts and see recent activity.

I have never used the "posts" tab so I don't know if it has ever worked or what posts it should show.

@Iconoclast believes I somehow disabled the feature.

 

[Iconoclast]

continued
You don't answer with scriptures, you don't deal with scriptures provided. You don't show how scriptures have been misinterpreted. In short, you operate purely in philosophical hot air and frankly what you say is not worth the time or effort to even respond to.

Again, pure hot air when you say "thus far not proved your point with scripture" as you have not proved my interpretation of scripture wrong either - so, again pure hot air. Every statement you make is not accompanied by any scripture. Every statement you make about my view of scripture is not accompanied by any Biblical evidence - none, zilch, nada!

However, at least I provide scripture, and I provide intepretation and I defend my interpretative view point. Try it for once, you might like it!

 

[Iconoclast]

@Salty and @Squire Robertsson

I see what he is asking about.

When I hit a profile (mine or any members) and select "posts" there is an error message.

We can still search for posts and see recent activity.

I have never used the "posts" tab so I don't know if it has ever worked or what posts it should show.

@Iconoclast believes I somehow disabled the feature.

When the feature was working It worked on everyone but you and one other poster. That means you disabled your posts from being viewED....the error message was...THIS POSTER DOES NOT ALLOW THEIR POSTS TO BE VIEWED BY OTHERS,LOL
yOU HAD TO DISABLE, OR DENY PERMISSION...LOL

Baptist Christian Forums - Error

This member limits who may view their full profile.

 

[JonC]

@Iconoclast

All I asked for was the post where you believe I denied 1Corinthians 2:14 so that I can see what you are talking about as I never denied the verse.

Perhaps I failed to articulate something and will gladly explain my meaning. But I believe the verse is correct. Natural man cannot understand spiritual things.

No need for a tantrum. Just provide the post so that I can clarify whatever you misunderstood to be a denial of the passage.


@Salty and @Squire Robertsson ,

All I am doing is asking Iconoclast to provide the post where he thinks I denied 1 Cor 2:14 so that I can clear up any misunderstanding (as I do not deny the verse at all).

I could have worded something wrong, but given recent posts by Iconoclast (which seems to be a temper tantrum at my request he provide a post to support his claims) I suspect no such post ever existed. If it does exist then I simply would want to clarify my intent.

 

[JonC]

When the feature was working It worked on everyone but you and one other poster. That means you disabled your posts from being viewED....the error message was...THIS POSTER DOES NOT ALLOW THEIR POSTS TO BE VIEWED BY OTHERS,LOL
yOU HAD TO DISABLE, OR DENY PERMISSION...LOL

Baptist Christian Forums - Error

This member limits who may view their full profile.

It does not work on you. Why did you disable it? What are you trying to hide?

@Squire Robertsson and @Salty

I am getting tired of @Iconoclast 's slanders and false accusations. He simply made a claim he cannot support and is angry I inquired about the post.

I did not disable anything. It is the same when I check @Iconoclast 's post, do perhaps he can tell us how he disabled it.

(BTW, it is the same with you two as well. I suspect @Iconoclast was not being honest, but you can see if it works with others). As far as I know the feature has never worked. But people can use search to see all posts from a member. And "recent activity" works.

@Iconoclast is just trying to slander me to distract from the fact he made a false claim and also that he said "spiritual truth is spiritual words combined with spiritual thoughts" is "new age thought" prior to learning that was in the Bible.

 

[Iconoclast]

CONTINUED;
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).

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.

Yeah, all that hot air without one exegetical based reason really makes your point. Can something die which is not alive???

In posts 130-132 Biblicist schooled JonC...you can read it and see.

Can one hold a corpse morally responsible? Can one kill something which is already dead?

You see, your theories do not hold up. Can someone who is not spiritually alive die physically? Better yet, can One who is Life experience a physical death?

You seem to have somehow spiritualized death to mean a "spiritual death" when historically (and biblically) it is a physical death and then the Judgment (which is Christ centered). The "second death" is where those who do not have spiritual life die (when hades and death are cast into the lake of fire).

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.

Scripture never....not even once....presents one as dying spiritually. Natural man is of the flesh and "spiritually dead", but NEVER experiences a "spiritual death". Instead he needs a "spiritual birth".

But how much of the OP's thesis depends on the myth of a "spiritual death"?

My point is this is all speculation built on a philosophical approach to Scripture. It assumes, contrary to the teachings we have of the early Christians, that the consequences of sin is primarily a "spiritual death".

Early teachings was that sin has consequences. It results in a physical death. We also face a judgement which find's its center in Christ. The consequence of sin is death (a physical death) as well as placing man at odds with God. The ultimate state of natural man is condemnation and the "second death" (hades and death cast into the lake of fire). But in Christ there is life for those who believe.

Your theory of "spiritual death" is simply not in the Bible. Theory is a very weak foundation upon which to build doctrine. But theory, granted....a "logical" theory....is the foundation upon which you build.

It simply does not exist in Scripture.

One again, your conclusion is pure hot air and nothing more. I carefully demonstrated with clear explicit scritpure each step and completely precluded speculation. YOu simply can't deal with it and the absolute proof that you can't deal with it is that you offer no exegetical based evidence to challenge even one single expository conclusion I draw - not one! Why? Because you know you cannot do it as you would look absolutely foolish. What is absolutely hilarious is that the very thing you are condemning is the very thing you are doing - speculation without a shed of Biblical support. At least I provide scripture, interpretation, and exegetical comments but you only philosophize - pure hot air.

I feel your pain. @JonC has produced no Scripture (up to page 4), has not interacted with any of your copious Scriptural references and yet has the brass neck to claim that you are not being Scriptural.

Unfortunately, this attitude is ruining the board.

↑
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.
It says "IN" that day and correspond precisely with the eating event. Are you going to tell us that they did not eat "on" that day either? It began "in that day" and that is clear and it is demanded by the context.
It does not say IN that day you will spiritually die....or even die (I believe given your history you know this). Death is a process. Through Adam's sin death entered the world.

The idea that the verse proves man was spiritually alive and then died (spiritually and later physically) is not only inconsistent but it is reading theory into the text. It also assumes either a spiritual life outside of Christ or a temporary one in Him. It is a corruption of Scripture, period. And unfortunately it is the base you have chosen as a foundation for your thesis here.

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.

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?

 

[Iconoclast]

It does not work on you. Why did you disable it? What are you trying to hide?

@Squire Robertsson and @Salty

I am getting tired of @Iconoclast 's slanders and false accusations. He simply made a claim he cannot support and is angry I inquired about the post.

I did not disable anything. It is the same when I check @Iconoclast 's post, do perhaps he can tell us how he disabled it.

(BTW, it is not he same with you two as well. I suspect @Iconoclast was not being honest, but you can see if it works with others)


View attachment 6119

We will see soon enough.
It was working and now disabled.
I have no access to any such controls, so how could I do it.
If I am looking to use it, why would I disable it?
I will find it the old fashioned way....
to be clear, Did you make that statement about the word elect???
Did you say it is only used in scripture about those already saved?

You keep making personal comments about me, and my "mental state".
If anyone is having mental instability it is you, slandering, insulting , making false accusations. You have been doing this all along.
I have asked you to stop, but you persist.

 

[JonC]

CONTINUED;
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).

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.

Yeah, all that hot air without one exegetical based reason really makes your point. Can something die which is not alive???

In posts 130-132 Biblicist schooled JonC...you can read it and see.

Can one hold a corpse morally responsible? Can one kill something which is already dead?

You see, your theories do not hold up. Can someone who is not spiritually alive die physically? Better yet, can One who is Life experience a physical death?

You seem to have somehow spiritualized death to mean a "spiritual death" when historically (and biblically) it is a physical death and then the Judgment (which is Christ centered). The "second death" is where those who do not have spiritual life die (when hades and death are cast into the lake of fire).

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.

Scripture never....not even once....presents one as dying spiritually. Natural man is of the flesh and "spiritually dead", but NEVER experiences a "spiritual death". Instead he needs a "spiritual birth".

But how much of the OP's thesis depends on the myth of a "spiritual death"?

My point is this is all speculation built on a philosophical approach to Scripture. It assumes, contrary to the teachings we have of the early Christians, that the consequences of sin is primarily a "spiritual death".

Early teachings was that sin has consequences. It results in a physical death. We also face a judgement which find's its center in Christ. The consequence of sin is death (a physical death) as well as placing man at odds with God. The ultimate state of natural man is condemnation and the "second death" (hades and death cast into the lake of fire). But in Christ there is life for those who believe.

Your theory of "spiritual death" is simply not in the Bible. Theory is a very weak foundation upon which to build doctrine. But theory, granted....a "logical" theory....is the foundation upon which you build.

It simply does not exist in Scripture.

One again, your conclusion is pure hot air and nothing more. I carefully demonstrated with clear explicit scritpure each step and completely precluded speculation. YOu simply can't deal with it and the absolute proof that you can't deal with it is that you offer no exegetical based evidence to challenge even one single expository conclusion I draw - not one! Why? Because you know you cannot do it as you would look absolutely foolish. What is absolutely hilarious is that the very thing you are condemning is the very thing you are doing - speculation without a shed of Biblical support. At least I provide scripture, interpretation, and exegetical comments but you only philosophize - pure hot air.

I feel your pain. @JonC has produced no Scripture (up to page 4), has not interacted with any of your copious Scriptural references and yet has the brass neck to claim that you are not being Scriptural.

Unfortunately, this attitude is ruining the board.

↑
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.
It says "IN" that day and correspond precisely with the eating event. Are you going to tell us that they did not eat "on" that day either? It began "in that day" and that is clear and it is demanded by the context.
It does not say IN that day you will spiritually die....or even die (I believe given your history you know this). Death is a process. Through Adam's sin death entered the world.

The idea that the verse proves man was spiritually alive and then died (spiritually and later physically) is not only inconsistent but it is reading theory into the text. It also assumes either a spiritual life outside of Christ or a temporary one in Him. It is a corruption of Scripture, period. And unfortunately it is the base you have chosen as a foundation for your thesis here.

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.

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?

Members,. Please consider all of these accusations from Iconoclast. Thread after thread.

All I asked was for him to provide the post where he thinks I denied 1 Corinthians 2:14.

You see his response.

 

[JonC]

We will see soon enough.
It was working and now disabled. I will find it the old fashioned way....
to be clear, Did you make that statement about the word elect???
Did you say it is only used in scripture about those already saved?

I did say that in terms of salvation Scripture always speaks of "the elect" as those who are saved.

But the post you are seeking (where I denied 1 Cor 2:14) was only in your mind.

 

[Iconoclast]

Members,. Please consider all of these accusations from Iconoclast. Thread after thread.

All I asked was for him to provide the post where he thinks I denied 1 Corinthians 2:14.

You see his response.

members..be patient. The search function I used has been disabled. It will take some time.
Already we see posted from the archives JonC never understood spiritual death properly, so it is only a matter of time before I uncover it.
Be patient...many of you know it firsthand...

 

[Iconoclast]

I did say that in terms of salvation Scripture always speaks of "the elect" as those who are saved.

But the post you are seeking (where I denied 1 Cor 2:14) was only in your mind.

You said...those who are already saved only....
Yet Paul said this;

10 Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

So, you keep asking when I say you and your posse do not understand, this is just one small example.
Paul speaks of elected persons, who are not"already saved"
He usedthe word elect...of people not already saved, but will be saved.

 

[JonC]

members..be patient. The search fuction I used has been disabled. It will take some time.
Already we see posted from the archives JonC neve understood spiritual death properly, so it is only a matter of time before I uncover it.
Be patient...many of you know it firsthand...

The sad part is I am starting to think you actually believe the post exists.

Then I remember this is the 3rd time this has happened recently and I (like all here) know you are just putting on a show. This was evident by your temper tantrum.

You just get too emotional and reply with your feelings rather than your mind.

I can save you the time and simply tell you I do not deny 1 Corinthians 2:14.

Just like you could not provide a post of me saying Owen should be read as a literary device and just like you could not provide a concept I misunderstood earlier.

Each of those times you lost it and had a tantrum, but in the end you could not support your claim.

This will be no different. It is you. That is just how you operate.

 

[JonC]

You said...those who are already saved only....
Yet Paul said this;

10 Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

So, you keep asking when I say you and your posse do not understand, this is just one small example.
Paul speaks of elected persons, who are not"already saved"
He usedthe word elect...of people not already saved, but will be saved.

We can discuss this after you provide the post of me rejecting 1 Cor. 2:14.

In short I will simply say you are wrong.

 

[Iconoclast]

We can discuss this after you provide the post of me rejecting 1 Cor. 2:14.

In short I will simply say you are wrong.

i will find it, it will take some time.
When i find it, will you make yet another excuse for what you said?