Spiritual Death

[kyredneck]

I do not believe Paul was claiming he was "spiritually alive" before he was considered "under the Law" (their custom was 13 years old, if I remember correctly) and then he died spiritually and later was made alive again in Christ.

K. But you still didn't explain what he meant.

What if we're all 'born innocent' (as Adam was created) due to Christ's atonement?

 

[kyredneck]

Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.

You know, I hear many people break down Romans 5, but very few try to explain this passage.

Could Fallen Adam choose Life

Scroll...

 

[The Biblicist]

Sure.

Scripture presents natural man "not spiritually alive", i.e., dead. Dead is a state of not being alive.

However, what was being claimed was that this state of being spiritually dead must mean that at one time we were spiritually alive.

NOT TRUE! We never argued that fallen sons of Adam were at one time spiritually alive except "in Adam" prior to the entrance of death. Something died "in the day" he sinned. Adam's life prior to the fall was imparted directly from God's own being - THE LIFE OF GOD in Adam in a mutable condition subject to obedience. No death if no disobedience.

 

[JonC]

K. But you still didn't explain what he meant.

What if we're all 'born innocent' (as Adam was created) due to Christ's atonement?

Scripture tells us that we were born of the flesh and Adam was created flesh. Scripture also tells us that it is impossible for flesh to inherit the kingdom of God.

So all must be "born again"/ "born from above"/ "born of the spirit".

Anything other way of approaching the issue is philosophical rather than theological.

I hope that helps.

 

[JonC]

NOT TRUE! We never argued that fallen sons of Adam were at one time spiritually alive except .....

There is no "except" in Scripture.

You have taken up philosophy- NOT theology. These are two very different ways of approaching Scripture.

 

[Iconoclast]

Isn't bearing false witness still a sin under your tradition?

No. I have stated MANY times on this thread that I am not questioning that natural man is spiritually dead. I am saying spiritual death is not in Scripture (one is not "in Christ" today, "not in Christ" tomorrow", and back "in Christ" next week).

JonC,
I think you are confusing yourself and have said spiritual death is somehow here, but not here at the same time.

 

[JonC]

JonC,
I think you are confusing yourself and have said spiritual death is somehow here, but not here at the same time.

No, I am not confusing myself at all. If I have poorly articulated my position then you have my apology. Just read what the Bible states - not what you feel it "implies".

Scripture states that Adam was created flesh.

Scripture states we are "of the flesh".

Scripture states it us impossible for "flesh" to inherit the kingdom of God.

Scripture states spiritual life is only "in Christ".

Scripture states men must be "born again"; born "of the spirit".

The only reason I can think of for you (and @The Biblicist , @Yeshua1 & @Martin Marprelate ) to see a need to add a theory about man really being spiritually alive and then experiencing a spiritual death is that you do not believe Scripture sufficient without your additions.

Is there another reason to add to Scripture what is not in the actual text?

If so, do you think these philosophical additions should be given the same weight as Scripture?

Do you believe it appropriate to build doctrine on these theories?

 

[percho]

The scapegoat, upon which the sins of the nation were laid, and sent away from the dwelling place of God and His people:

Who did that represent?

Methinks the Passover lamb, took away the sin of the world, and the scapegoat came five feast days after the Passover lamb and after a time span.

 

[Aaron]

Good topic. At Yom Kippur there were two goats. One was offered to God and the priest symbollically put the sins of Israel on the head of the other and released it to an uninhabited place. The latter (the one not killed) is the scapegoat. To the Jews it represented the removal of sin (forgiveness).

Since we are at the tail end of this thread why not start a thread to look at the topic.

That's right. It bore the sins of the people and was forsaken. That's Christ. He died a sinner's death, and all that a sinner's death includes. The curse, the sting, the judgement, the indignation and wrath of God.

All your words art can't get around that.

 

[Aaron]

Methinks the Passover lamb, took away the sin of the world, and the scapegoat came five feast days after the Passover lamb and after a time span.

With still some sin left over to transer. LOL.

You need to go back to our teacher, the Law, and read it understanding that Christ is all the sacrifices. He was both goats.

 

[percho]

9 And I was alive apart from the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died; Ro 7

What does this mean?

For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. Romans 7:9

Could Adam have said that?
And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man (anthrōpos) became a living soul. Gen 2:7

17 thou shalt not eat of it: ----- the commandment came

Sin revived? What sin? Actually the Greek has a definite article. The sin revived ἡ ἁμαρτία ἀνέζησεν -- Again what sin.

I believe - He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. From 1 John 3:8

Dying Adam died.

The same thing is stated in this verse.

The sting of (the) death, (the) sin; and the strength of (the) sin, the law. 1 Cor 15:56

 

[percho]

With still some sin left over to transer. LOL.

You need to go back to our teacher, the Law, and read it understanding that Christ is all the sacrifices. He was both goats.

With still some sin left over to transer. LOL.

You need to go back to our teacher, the Law, and read it understanding that Christ is all the sacrifices. He was both goats.

I'm not sure the scapegoat is a sacrifice. Or that is, was sacrificed.

 

[kyredneck]

Scripture tells us that we were born of the flesh and Adam was created flesh. Scripture also tells us that it is impossible for flesh to inherit the kingdom of God.

So all must be "born again"/ "born from above"/ "born of the spirit".

Anything other way of approaching the issue is philosophical rather than theological.

I hope that helps.

Do babies that die go to hell?

 

[Iconoclast]

[
JonC,
[No, I am not confusing myself at all. If I have poorly articulated my position then you have my apology. Just read what the Bible states - not what you feel it

The only reason I can think of for you (and @The Biblicist , @Yeshua1 & @Martin Marprelate ) to see a need to add a theory about man really being spiritually alive and then experiencing a spiritual death is that you do not believe Scripture sufficient without your additions.

Is there another reason to add to Scripture what is not in the actual text?]

No. We are not adding to the texts just understanding them as they are meant to be understood.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 5:30 AM Pacific.

 

[JonC]

Do babies that die go to hell?

I do not believe so. The reason is this "second death" is at Judgment (on "that day"). They do, however, suffer the consequences of sin (they die).

This also is a philosophical question rather than theological due to its starting point. I am not sure we can dogmatically know how God will judge infants. I am not sure it matters except in the context of providing a comfort to a parent who has lost a child (and even then the direction should be pointing to a perfect union with God rather than with a lost child).

 

[JonC]

[
JonC,
[No, I am not confusing myself at all. If I have poorly articulated my position then you have my apology. Just read what the Bible states - not what you feel it

The only reason I can think of for you (and @The Biblicist , @Yeshua1 & @Martin Marprelate ) to see a need to add a theory about man really being spiritually alive and then experiencing a spiritual death is that you do not believe Scripture sufficient without your additions.

Is there another reason to add to Scripture what is not in the actual text?]

No. We are not adding to the texts just understanding them as they are meant to be understood.

Why do you believe all of those ideas were left to man to develop rather than explicitly stated in Scripture?

It seems you are approching gnosticism in how you handle Scripture. Here your claim is essentially that the Bible was meant to be understood not by what it actually states but through what you believe hidden in implication (what you see between the text). Thise we ho take a more "literal" approach to the actual text, in your view, lack understanding because they do not hold these truths hidden beneath the biblical text.

This thread is approaching closure. I once held very similar views as you hold now. I took about a year (much of it discussed on the BB) and fid what I recommend you do now.

Here is a challenge for you.

Get a dry erase board. Write down your view. Line by line write down Scripture that affirms your view. Erase any part if ypur view (even if you are absolutely sure you are correct) that is not stated in Scripture.

Perhaps then you can see our disagreement. Very little (if any) of what you have argued here is written in the text of Scripture. What you have been relying on is your understanding, yout "tradition" or narrative - not Scripture itself.

I hope you take the time to do the exercise. I think you may better learn where you stand (I did). It's like the illustration of the boiling the frog - little by little, inch by inch, you move away from the actual text and unless you look back you never realize how many miles you have traveled and that you on a "proper understanding" rather than Scripture itself.

 

[JonC]

That's right. It bore the sins of the people and was forsaken. That's Christ. He died a sinner's death, and all that a sinner's death includes. The curse, the sting, the judgement, the indignation and wrath of God.

All your words art can't get around that.

I never tried to get around that. Although another topic, what I rejected was (to borrow from the "radical reformers") the "romish" residue of your tradition. Consider how often Scripture deals with the Scapegoat. What we can say is it symbolizes Christ removing the sins of the people. Now look at what you've added from those few verses.

What you have done is used Scripture to justify your position rather than derive your position from that text. The Scapegoat symbolically carried away the sins, but never suffered (biblically....in practice the Jews often killed the animal anyway so it couldn't return).

 

[JonC]

The topic is actually branching out quickly (just as the thread is about to close).

I said last night I’d close the thread this morning. If anyone wants to continue any of these discussions then please feel free to start another thread. I started one off one post regarding how we form our theology.


Thread is Closed.