"...shalt surely die."

[skypair]

How is one "in Adam" and "in Christ" from that passage? By being a willing participant in each, in Adam by sinning, and in Christ by sharing His death, burial and resurrection. You would have to hold to universalism if all are automatically in Adam, as the text states so also all are in Christ.

Good point, web!

I like your point about born again from the first death too. Otherwise you are only born once.

I think you would benefit from seeing the trinity of man as "the image of" the trinity of God, though.

And I think we all could benefit from seeing that, by sinning, we turn away and hide from God but that, when we do, He comes and looks for us. Calvies would call that "drawing" but God didn't "drag" Adam and Eve out of the trees. They heard and came.

skypair

 

[Amy.G]

You're missing 2 points: 1) "surely die" is exactly what God said about Adam if he ate from the tree. In that case, Adam didn't die physically immediately. Therefore, 18:19 speaks of punishment "handed down" by God.

2) It is in keeping with God's justice as well to punish only the ones who actually sin. If you are trying to say that anyone would punish the son for the father's sin, you are unjust, but God is not unjust (as your assertion presumes).

skypair

I never asserted that God is unjust. How do you get that?

This passage deals with personal accountability for sin. It is not talking about Adam's sin or original sin or eternal punishment. It deals with the physical punishment of people in Israel.

 

[canadyjd]

You're missing 2 points: 1) "surely die" is exactly what God said about Adam if he ate from the tree. In that case, Adam didn't die physically immediately.

God kept His Word. He established the sacrificial system that very day. God killed animals, and "clothed" Adam and Eve. The death of the animals was in the place of Adam and Eve. The "covering" signified the covering of their shame/sin.

2) It is in keeping with God's justice as well to punish only the ones who actually sin.

And scripture tells us "all have sinned", so all deserve punishment.

BTW, Grasshopper is correct. "Soul" was often used to indicate the entire person (both phyical and spirit). We "are" a living soul. We do not "have" souls (according to Gen. 1).

Webdog is also correct. Jewish writers would occasionally use "soul" interchangebly with "spirit".

The Jews understood men to be "two-part" beings, with flesh and spirit.

peace to youraying:

 

[skypair]

God kept His Word. He established the sacrificial system that very day. God killed animals, and "clothed" Adam and Eve. The death of the animals was in the place of Adam and Eve. The "covering" signified the covering of their shame/sin.

Absolutely! But the comparison between us and Adam doesn't start there. It starts when Adam was innocent and when we were born innocent. Then we both (Adam and us) sinned -- then we "died" (our souls/consciences hid from God, separation) -- then God came calling for us -- then we came out of hiding... Does any of this sound familiar to you?

And scripture tells us "all have sinned", so all deserve punishment.

Was Paul preaching to babies when He said that? Or would one of the assumptions be when he wrote his letter that babies can't read? But do you contrariwise believe that babies "have sinned?" In what?

BTW, Grasshopper is correct. "Soul" was often used to indicate the entire person (both phyical and spirit). We "are" a living soul. We do not "have" souls (according to Gen. 1).

I will grant grasshopper his/her due if he/she will do the same for me. My view is that, in talking about salvation, the soul is a separate aspect of our personality which must be saved separately as well.

The Jews understood men to be "two-part" beings, with flesh and spirit.

And see, this would be very natural for them. They had no idea about God's separate Spirit until Jesus promised to send Him "if I go." (cf. disciples of John the Baptist said "we didn't even know there was an Holy Ghost" Acts 19:2).

skypair

 

[canadyjd]

Originally Posted by canadyjd
God kept His Word. He established the sacrificial system that very day. God killed animals, and "clothed" Adam and Eve. The death of the animals was in the place of Adam and Eve. The "covering" signified the covering of their shame/sin.

Absolutely!

skypair and I agree on something! I knew it would happen, I guess, if we kept posting long enough.:applause:

But the comparison between us and Adam doesn't start there. It starts when Adam was innocent and when we were born innocent. Then we both (Adam and us) sinned -- then we "died" (our souls/consciences hid from God, separation) -- then God came calling for us -- then we came out of hiding...

Others have pointed out verses of scripture that specifically say we are conceieved in sin, and that we are sinners at birth and by our very natures. I would suggest that you must address those passages of scripture already mentioned if you wish to validate this doctrine as biblical.

Was Paul preaching to babies when He said that? Or would one of the assumptions be when he wrote his letter that babies can't read? But do you contrariwise believe that babies "have sinned?" In what?

I believe Martin Luther said that infants are only innocent in their limbs. He meant they simply didn't have the physical strength to reveal their sin openly.

When my daughter was 2, I told her not to jump on the couch. She started to sit down, but then stood up, looked me right in the eye and said, "NO!". Being disobedient to parents is sinful, don't you agree; or did that one not "count".

I will grant grasshopper his/her due if he/she will do the same for me. My view is that, in talking about salvation, the soul is a separate aspect of our personality which must be saved separately as well.

skypair, it isn't about "giving" anyone their "due". It is about the truth. What has God revealed to us in scripture? It can't be about "opinions" being valid. If we must accept all opinions as valid, then we have 6 billions opinions, don't we? That sounds like a whole lot of confusion and very little understanding.

peace to youraying:

 

[skypair]

Others have pointed out verses of scripture that specifically say we are conceieved in sin, and that we are sinners at birth and by our very natures. I would suggest that you must address those passages of scripture already mentioned if you wish to validate this doctrine as biblical.I believe Martin Luther said that infants are only innocent in their limbs. He meant they simply didn't have the physical strength to reveal their sin openly.

Well, I have addressed them before and you do get around here. And why would you offer the words of these men who deny what the Bible says? Ezek 18:20 is very plain -- clearer that Psa 51:5, etal. And as Jesus said to the Pharisees, "Which of you casteth the first stone?" Oughtn't every infant in the OT to have been stoned if they were right? Was David going to his "crib-dead" son in hades or in Abraham's bosom, sheol?

When my daughter was 2, I told her not to jump on the couch. She started to sit down, but then stood up, looked me right in the eye and said, "NO!". Being disobedient to parents is sinful, don't you agree; or did that one not "count".

I believe that when she knows it counts with God, she has sinned. But I doubt at that age that she realized that you were one of the "seven spirits" (Rev 5:6) speaking for God. Teach her the 4th commandment and what "honoring parents" means -- teach her about God. There will come a time when those make sense to her and, yes, she will sin. But it appears to me you haven't or can't "establish the law" quite yet in her mind. "Where there is no law, there is no transgression." Remember?

skypair

 

[canadyjd]

Well, I have addressed them before and you do get around here.

Sorry, I simply don't remember you addressing those passages in a way that compliments your doctine.

Ezek 18:20 is very plain

So is Romans 3:10 & 23. Let's see what they say, and then determine if they are in contradiction.

Eze 18:20 essentially says everyone shall be judged according to their own righteousness and sins, not the sins of their fathers.

Romans 3:10&23 says "there is none righteous, not even one" and "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."

I can look at these and see it means everyone has sinned and everyone shall be judged for their own sin, not the sins of their fathers.

No contradiction.

You look at these and say that everyone is born innocent, just like Adam. They are capable of not sinning.

I say, "HUH?" Where in the world do you see any mention of Adam and innocence in these verses? Why don't we look at verses of scripture that actually deal with the issue?

And then I might mention Psalm 51:5 "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceieved me." Which indicates we are sinners, even from birth and our sin is ever with us. We are, therefore, not born "innocent" as Adam and Eve were innocent before the fall.

And then I might mention Eph. 2:3, which says we are "by nature, children of wrath". Which indicates we are under the wrath of God because of our human nature. This means our human natures are sinful. Therefore, we have a "sin nature".

And now, again, I would suggest that if you want your doctrine to be upheld under the scrutiny of scripture, and therefore be "biblical", you must address those passages of scripture that directly deal with the subject you are speaking of in such a way that there is no contradiction.

peace to youraying:

 

[skypair]

Sorry, I simply don't remember you addressing those passages in a way that compliments your doctine. So is Romans 3:10 & 23. Let's see what they say, and then determine if they are in contradiction.

Eze 18:20 essentially says everyone shall be judged according to their own righteousness and sins, not the sins of their fathers.

Romans 3:10&23 says "there is none righteous, not even one" and "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."

And infants are NOT righteous -- they are innocent.

And everyone has or will sin, jd. Do you think these infants, when they are resurrected into the MK, will not sin?? Of course they will sin there. No contradiction there either.

You look at these and say that everyone is born innocent, just like Adam. They are capable of not sinning.

They are capable of not sinning before they die, yes, it they die in infancy.

And then I might mention Psalm 51:5 "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceieved me." Which indicates we are sinners, even from birth and our sin is ever with us. We are, therefore, not born "innocent" as Adam and Eve were innocent before the fall.

First, that is poetic language. Second, it speaks of being born in the flesh. Answer pls: Did David's son, whom David said he would go to, go to hell?? If not, why not?

And then I might mention Eph. 2:3, which says we are "by nature, children of wrath". Which indicates we are under the wrath of God because of our human nature. This means our human natures are sinful. Therefore, we have a "sin nature".

No problem. Sin nature is just NOT what you think it is. It is NOT sin guilt -- it is the propensity to sin when we exercise our survival instincts unlawfully. And everyone who understands what Paul is saying here knows that he or she has personally sinned according to that nature.

And now, again, I would suggest that if you want your doctrine to be upheld under the scrutiny of scripture, and therefore be "biblical", you must address those passages of scripture that directly deal with the subject you are speaking of in such a way that there is no contradiction.

How'd I do?? Do you really think the abortionist is sending little souls to hell? Or did Jesus say, "for of such [little ones] is the kingdom of heaven?"

skypair

 

[canadyjd]

canadyjd said:And now, again, I would suggest that if you want your doctrine to be upheld under the scrutiny of scripture, and therefore be "biblical", you must address those passages of scripture that directly deal with the subject you are speaking of in such a way that there is no contradiction.

How'd I do??

Let's take a look and see.

skypair:And infants are NOT righteous -- they are innocent.

You haven't shown any verse of scripture that speaks of infants being "innocent" concerning sin. I'll wait patiently for that. We do know they have a sin nature and are under the wrath of God, according to the Eph. 2 passage, right?

skypair: And everyone has or will sin, jd. Do you think these infants, when they are resurrected into the MK, will not sin?? Of course they will sin there. No contradiction there either.

You haven't shown me any passages of scripture that speaks of infants being resurrected into the MK, as infants, and then sinning and thereby incurring the wrath of God. Every last bit of that doctrine is nothing but speculation on your part.

skypair: They are capable of not sinning before they die, yes, it they die in infancy.

Perhaps, but that doesn't address the whole sin nature issue, does it?

skypair: (concerning pslam 51) First, that is poetic language. Second, it speaks of being born in the flesh.

First, calling it "poetic language" does not dismiss the truth found therein, does it? Second, to say the passage is speaking of "being born in the flesh" changes the very words of scripture to make it fit what you want it to say. David says he was conceived in sin and born in iniquity. He is not speaking of "flesh" but of sin.

skypair: Answer pls: Did David's son, whom David said he would go to, go to hell?? If not, why not

The passage is found in 2 Samuel 12:23. "But now, he has died: Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me."

This is the only passage I have found in scripture that comes close to answering the question of the fate of children who die as infants. Based on the fact that David's demeanor changed from fasting prior to the child's death, to one of worship after; and that he expected to go to the child when he died as well, leads me to believe David believes the child will be in heaven.

But what is the basis of David's hope? Is it that he believes the child to be "innocent" as you have stated? I don't see that in scripture. I believe David's hope in seeing his child again is based on his understanding that Almighty God is a God of mercy and compassion.

You see, it's not that the child was "innocent" and therefore deserved to go to heaven. It is because God is merciful and full of compassion that infants that die go to heaven.

BTW, based on your previous statements that infants that die are resurrected into the MK, then David really didn't have any reason to hope, did he? His son may, in fact, turn to sin in the MK (according to your doctrine) and thus be excluded from heaven. David, and scripture, would therefore be incorrect in saying "I shall go to him....", since the best he can say is "maybe I'll get to see him in the MK"; according to your doctrine.

No problem. Sin nature is just NOT what you think it is. It is NOT sin guilt -- it is the propensity to sin when we exercise our survival instincts unlawfully.

Of course it is "sin guilt". Why else would we be under the wrath of God if not for sin guilt? And where in scripture do you see anything about "excersising our survival instincts unlawfully" being the definition of a "sin nature"?

To answer your question, I don't think you did very well in addressing the passages of scripture. You tried to dismiss one as "poetic" and then change its words to fit what you wanted it to mean. And......

I'll just leave it at that for now.

peace to youraying:

 

[Frogman]

What are the wages of sin?

Death.

Do infants not experience death?

Is this death limited to 'spiritual' death, or the 'death of the soul' as you would understand it related to the separation from God experienced by Adam and Eve upon sinning?

do we who are knowledgeable of our sins, sin only in our souls, or do we follow the lusts of the flesh?

Again, why do infants experience death in the flesh, having not sinned until first having an ability to understand the consequences of their sin.

bro. Dallas:wavey:

 

[canadyjd]

What are the wages of sin?

Death.

....why do infants experience death in the flesh, having not sinned until first having an ability to understand the consequences of their sin.

bro. Dallas:wavey:

:applause: Sometimes the most obvious things are the last to be noticed. Well said.

peace to youraying:

 

[webdog]

:applause: Sometimes the most obvious things are the last to be noticed. Well said.

peace to youraying:

...and the most incorrect. The wages of sin is death...BUT...the gift of God is eternal life. The "but" tells you what kind of death...spiritual death.

 

[canadyjd]

...and the most incorrect. The wages of sin is death...BUT...the gift of God is eternal life. The "but" tells you what kind of death...spiritual death.

Come on, webdog, how can you possibly read Romans 6 and not see Paul is speaking of phyical death? Just look at the next two verses "7:1: Or do you not know , brethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives."

Are you saying Paul is teaching that once a person dies spiritually, the law had no more jurisdiction over them? That is nonsense.

7:2 "For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband"

Are you claiming that Paul is teaching that a woman is only bound to her husband, under the law, as long as he is alive spiritually? If he dies spiritually, she is no longer bound?

Paul is clearly speaking of physical death.

peace to youraying:

 

[psalms109:31]

Spiritual and bodily death

Wages of our sin is a spiritual and physical death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

The wages of our sin wasn't a spirtual death?

 

[webdog]

Come on, webdog, how can you possibly read Romans 6 and not see Paul is speaking of phyical death? Just look at the next two verses "7:1: Or do you not know , brethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives."

Are you saying Paul is teaching that once a person dies spiritually, the law had no more jurisdiction over them? That is nonsense.

7:2 "For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband"

Are you claiming that Paul is teaching that a woman is only bound to her husband, under the law, as long as he is alive spiritually? If he dies spiritually, she is no longer bound?

Paul is clearly speaking of physical death.

peace to youraying:

...but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Eternal life is referring to our physical bodies then? If it is in regards to physical death as you claim, why do we die physically if "through Jesus Christ our Lord" we are granted eternal life?

Wages is in regards to payment. What sins do the infant pay for...being conceived?!?

 

[skypair]

Wow, jd! You really did analyze what I said rather than "blow me off."

Let's take a look and see.You haven't shown any verse of scripture that speaks of infants being "innocent" concerning sin. I'll wait patiently for that. We do know they have a sin nature and are under the wrath of God, according to the Eph. 2 passage, right?

If we sin, yes.

You haven't shown me any passages of scripture that speaks of infants being resurrected into the MK,...

Isa 49:20-23

...as infants, and then sinning and thereby incurring the wrath of God.

Isa 65:20

First, calling it "poetic language" does not dismiss the truth found therein, does it?

It exaggerates it, right?

Second, to say the passage is speaking of "being born in the flesh" changes the very words of scripture to make it fit what you want it to say. David says he was conceived in sin and born in iniquity. He is not speaking of "flesh" but of sin.The passage is found in 2 Samuel 12:23. "But now, he has died: Can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he will not return to me."

Good -- right passage! And yes, he fasted that God might save him and rejoiced afterward his son would go to heaven. But your understanding of God's motives are general and secular rather than judicial. God cannot/would not condemn innocence. Do you believe that?

You see, it's not that the child was "innocent" and therefore deserved to go to heaven. It is because God is merciful and full of compassion that infants that die go to heaven.

I thought Jesus said "I am the Way..." So how do you include infants in this??

BTW, based on your previous statements that infants that die are resurrected into the MK, then David really didn't have any reason to hope, did he?

He knew that he would see his son in "Abraham's bosom," jd. And I do believe that children resurrected into the MK will have a "leg up" in that they will SEE Christ in Whom they are to believe. You are overlooking the very place that David said he would see his son, aren't you?

His son may, in fact, turn to sin in the MK (according to your doctrine) and thus be excluded from heaven.

No! In fact, there is no death for believers in the MK!!

Of course it is "sin guilt". Why else would we be under the wrath of God if not for sin guilt? And where in scripture do you see anything about "excercising our survival instincts unlawfully" being the definition of a "sin nature"?

Is an infant under "the wrath of God" or the vagaries of men?

And your 2nd question -- Rom 7:9.

skypair

 

[pinoybaptist]

What are the wages of sin?

Death.

Do infants not experience death?

Is this death limited to 'spiritual' death, or the 'death of the soul' as you would understand it related to the separation from God experienced by Adam and Eve upon sinning?

do we who are knowledgeable of our sins, sin only in our souls, or do we follow the lusts of the flesh?

Again, why do infants experience death in the flesh, having not sinned until first having an ability to understand the consequences of their sin.

bro. Dallas:wavey:

glad to hear from you again, my dear brother.
I trust God has been very graceful to you.

Brother pinoy

 

[Frogman]

If we sin, yes.

If we sin?

And what if we do not?

We must surely live, therefore we (bearing in mind we are speaking now of infants not yet actively engaged in sin) and not ourselves who were unfortunate enough to have lived beyond a mysterious age of accountability, it is obvious that such a one who does not sin does not, will not and even cannot die.

Thus, such a person has no need for the glorious redemption of our kinsman; their own good nature, nay, righteousness becomes the intermediary, the atonement, their...wait a minute, they yet would have no need of atonement.

Such humanism effectively denies the very Word of God, the Logos.

bro. Dallas:wavey:

Dear Brother pinoybaptist,
The Lord has been very gracious to me, despite of my having stumbled upon the conditional if.:tonofbricks:

 

[canadyjd]

...but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Eternal life is referring to our physical bodies then? If it is in regards to physical death as you claim, why do we die physically if "through Jesus Christ our Lord" we are granted eternal life?

The resurrection of our physical bodies brings us into eternal life with Jesus Christ. If it is just a spiritual life we are given, there is no need for the resurrection of our physical bodies. And the context remains clear. Paul is speaking of physical death.

Wages is in regards to payment. What sins do the infant pay for...being conceived?!?

You tell me, why do they die, if they have no sin? If they are innocent, like Adam before the fall when sin and death entered, why do they die?

peace to youraying:

 

[Frogman]

Did Adam know his wife and she conceived before or after the fall?

Thus, man is created in the likeness of God, but procreated in the likeness of Adam.

Is this concept foreign to scripture?

Did Levi not pay tithes to Mechelsidek though in Abram?

bro. Dallas:wavey: