Spiritual Life and Spiritual Death

[Yeshua1]

If "spiritual life" means in a perfect relationship with God, then I agree with you. And "spiritual death" would be a separation from that relationship with God.

I do disagree with the idea that only Adam and Jesus shared that relationship with God, but that is largely because I believe Jesus is God in the Garden and Adam never had the relationship with the Father and Spirit that the Son had, being that Adam was never a member of the Trinity.

Jesus and Adam only humans to never had a sin nature at the start, as in that pristine state, Adam did not need the Messiah nor the Holy Spirit until he fell!

 

[JonC]

Jesus and Adam only humans to never had a sin nature at the start, as in that pristine state, Adam did not need the Messiah nor the Holy Spirit until he fell!

Define "sin nature".

 

[AustinC]

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.

I know of two definitions.

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".

The other is that "spiritual life" refers to the life given by Christ as a "Life giving Spirit" and the act of God putting His Spirit in us. Scripture does speak of life in these terms.

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).

I understand people may disagree, and that is perfectly fine. As long as we know what one another means then we can have a discussion.

Thanks for clarifying. I have no desire to argue over how many angels can stand on the head of a pin. I am out.

 

[JonC]

Thanks for clarifying. I have no desire to argue over how many angels can stand on the head of a pin. I am out.

I never intended to argue, just to look at differences.

I've found that many disagreements are simply matters of definition. This is especially true when trying to answer questions that are not answered in the Bible using terms that are not in the Bible.

 

[Yeshua1]

Define "sin nature".

The part of us that desires to be our own God, to obey none but ourselves, our desires, our own will!

 

[JonC]

The part of us that desires to be our own God, to obey none but ourselves, our desires, our own will!

So by "nature" you mean "will"?

 

[Yeshua1]

rit, the

So by "nature" you mean "will"?

No, more like our soul/spirit, the part of us that can commune with God, but instead is in rebellion against His ways!

 

[JonC]

rit, the
No, more like our soul/spirit, the part of us that can commune with God, but instead is in rebellion against His ways!

I am not exactly sure I understand what you mean.

You said spiritual life meant in a right relationship with God.

But our "nature" is our "spirit", which is either un-fallen or fallen?

 

[37818]

. . . Adam was not a sinner until he sinned. At that point spiritual death became a reality and Adam was separated from God.

The following is an important side issue here.
What is not commonly nor correctly understood is how Adam's sin caused the whole hunan race to have Adam's fallen nature. The mere act of disobediance is not what is inherited. It is the divine knowledge of good and evil, Genesis 3:22. And the why that knowledge causes the sinful nature which is the reasom the divine separation. Genesis 3:11, ". . . Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?"

 

[Yeshua1]

I am not exactly sure I understand what you mean.

You said spiritual life meant in a right relationship with God.

But our "nature" is our "spirit", which is either un-fallen or fallen?

The immaterial aspect of us is born dormant and dead, affected by the Fall, and that is reborn by the Holy Spirit Himself once saved!

 

[JonC]

The following is an important side issue here.
What is not commonly nor correctly understood is how Adam's sin caused the whole hunan race to have Adam's fallen nature. The mere act of disobediance is not what is inherited. It is the divine knowledge of good and evil, Genesis 3:22. And the why that knowledge causes the sinful nature which is the reasom the divine separation. Genesis 3:11, ". . . Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?"

I believe Adam was man (a representative of all mankind). Any man placed in his place (except Christ) would have done the same.

 

[Dave G]

Define "sin nature".

The habitual inclination to love sin and to willfully commit it...naturally.
For example:

" Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? [then] may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil." ( Jeremiah 13:23 ).

 

[JonC]

The habitual inclination to love sin and to willfully commit it...naturally.
For example:

" Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? [then] may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil." ( Jeremiah 13:23 ).

I kinda agree. I still like "flesh" and "spirit" better as those are the categories scripture offers (less work to just use what's there, I guess).

Then we get a human nature (perhaps "will") inclined to the flesh vs a spiritual nature inclined to the Spirit.

 

[JonC]

@Dave G ,

A little off topic but have you ever read Desiring God by John Piper?

He makes a good case about how our desires change upon rebirth. It is one of my favorite books and has impacted my life.

 

[percho]

On another thread I tried to explain an argument to @Iconoclast . I hope that this will allow others who may have misunderstood my argument to ask questions as well as those who do understand to help explain what I mean.

On an old thread @Iconoclast keeps bringing up TheBiblicist defined spiritual life as fellowship with God and spiritual death as separation from God. I defined spiritual life as "in Christ/ sealed by the Spirit" and spiritual death as being outside of Christ.

One definition is relational (fellowship or separation in relation to God) and the other is ontological (sealed by the Spirit, God putting His Spirit in us).

If you look at those old threads you will see those terms (I argue Adam was not spiritually alive ontologically).

So my argument is that prior to the Fall Adam was spiritually alive (relationally) because he had fellowship with God and when he sinned he died spiritually (relationally) because he experienced a separation from God.

But my argument is also that prior to the Fall Adam was not spiritually alive (ontologically) as he was not "sealed by the Spirit" and did not have God's Spirit in him, but was in fact spiritually dead (ontologically).

Prior to Jesus Christ being raised out of the dead, no more to die nor no more to return to corruption, was there any life relative to man that could be construed as spiritual life?

so also it hath been written, 'The first man Adam became a living soul,' the last Adam into spirit a life-giving, but that which is spiritual is not first, but that which was natural, afterwards that which is spiritual. 1 Cor 15:45,46

 

[percho]

The part of us that desires to be our own God, to obey none but ourselves, our desires, our own will!

But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: James 1:14,15

Adam: The lust came before the sin. From whence cometh lust? What caused it to conceive and bring forth sin?

Nature?

Not sure I know.

 

[percho]

I believe Adam was man (a representative of all mankind). Any man placed in his place (except Christ) would have done the same.

I will go so far to say I believe the First Adam, the living soul, did what he was created for? The conduit unto the last Adam, the redeemer.

having known that, not with corruptible things -- silver or gold -- were ye redeemed from your foolish behaviour delivered by fathers, (Literally, of father tradition ) father singular, Adam.

 

[Dave G]

A little off topic but have you ever read Desiring God by John Piper?

No I have not.

I've read most of the "Sovereignty of God" by A.W. Pink, some of "The Obedience of a Christian Man" by William Tyndale, and many other books...
but it's been a while since I did anything other than read the Bible itself.

He makes a good case about how our desires change upon rebirth. It is one of my favorite books and has impacted my life.

I'm sure that he does.

However,
While I'm familiar with John Piper ( and other prominent and so-called "Calvinists", as well as others in the public eye these days ) I'm uncomfortable with how much of a "cult following" that writers who pen Christian books have been getting the past 100 years or so.
In fact, I'm reminded a bit of 1 Corinthians 3:1-9 when I think on the subject.

That's one of the reasons why I tend to avoid mentioning teachers and preachers in my posts ( or in conversation with other believers ) anymore,
because of the tendency of some ( especially younger believers ), to get carried away with ministers and what they have to say, instead of pursuing what has become the central focus for me the past 20 years or so...

God's word.

That doesn't mean that I don't read some of them, on occasion, and agree with their conclusions...
But it does mean that I've made a conscious choice to place Christian writers way out on the "back burner", and the Bible alone on the front.

 

[JonC]

No I have not.

I've read most of the "Sovereignty of God" by A.W. Pink, some of "The Obedience of a Christian Man" by William Tyndale, and many other books...
but it's been a while since I did anything other than read the Bible itself.

I'm sure that he does.

However,
While I'm familiar with John Piper ( and other prominent and so-called "Calvinists", as well as others in the public eye these days ) I'm uncomfortable with how much of a "cult following" that writers who pen Christian books have been getting the past 100 years or so.
In fact, I'm reminded a bit of 1 Corinthians 3:1-9 when I think on the subject.

That's one of the reasons why I tend to avoid mentioning teachers and preachers in my posts ( or in conversation with other believers ) anymore,
because of the tendency of some ( especially younger believers ), to get carried away with ministers and what they have to say, instead of pursuing what has become the central focus for me the past 20 years or so...

God's word.

That doesn't mean that I don't read some of them, on occasion, and agree with their conclusions...
But it does mean that I've made a conscious choice to place Christian writers way out on the "back burner", and the Bible alone on the front.

Good point. I was thinking today (I do not do it often ) that Scripture does not mention any pastors by name in the Bible (that I can think of off hand, anyway).

 

[JonC]

But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: James 1:14,15

Adam: The lust came before the sin. From whence cometh lust? What caused it to conceive and bring forth sin?

Nature?

Not sure I know.

Good point. Christ was tempted by the flesh (in all points as we are) yet without sin. He prayed "if possible let this cup pass, but not My will but Yours".