Marcia,
You posted good questions that I will try to address in order to explain myself more clearly. Thank you for the clear statements that can be addressed. I enjoy the challenge of explaining something that has helped me understand scripture. I sadly am not able to explain it as clearly as I would like. I do this hoping to help others as well as refining my own understanding.
Although it may have appeared so, I don't let my children define my "Bible" terms but neither do I merely let the Bible do it. I am sure you don't either. I may sounds like I let my kids be my dictionary, but my point is really that I do not let theologians do it. I think Paul used words that would make sense to people who do not have extensive education. We have come to the point of needing extensive education in order to sort out all the opinions and how they were arrived at.
I don't think there are "Bible" terms anyway. The Bible was written using languages that everybody understood. Examples include baptism, repent, impute, etc. These were every day words that normal people would have understood.
The context of where I get the meaning of flesh and death is both broad and narrow. It is consistent, is not needed to be applied haphazardly, and makes Romans understandable.
For example the context of theRomans passages you quote say nothing to me about death being separation from God nor the flesh being a sinful nature. The wages of sin is physical. To say that it is more than that needs strong support that I do not see.
The sinful nature doctrine and the notion that death is separation from God makes no sense to me in the context of Romans. However, the terms physical death and flesh do. Paul would be guilty of bouncing back and forth between death being physical and spiritual a number of times in chapter 6 alone. Add to that chapters 7 and 8 and Romans would be considered a very difficult book. He would not create this confusion on purpose since there are words for sinful, nature and separation that would have been much better.
The advocates of these positions say that when Adam sinned he was immediately spiritually dead, separated from God, and that his flesh was now corruptible. What would have been the reason God would have kicked him out of the Garden if these were true? It only makes sense that Adam needed access to the Tree of Life to avoid corruption and ultimately death. That penalty of death has been required ever since and has never once been a sinful nature imposed upon innocent offspring.
Adam needed a savior because he now had knowledge of good and evil with the death sentence upon him. Knowing he was a lost sinner and living eternally in that condition would have been miserable. Being just, God required death for sin. Adam was warned of this penalty but chose it without this thing called a sinful nature. Being merciful this just God made a system to atone for Adam's situation.
You posted good questions that I will try to address in order to explain myself more clearly. Thank you for the clear statements that can be addressed. I enjoy the challenge of explaining something that has helped me understand scripture. I sadly am not able to explain it as clearly as I would like. I do this hoping to help others as well as refining my own understanding.
Although it may have appeared so, I don't let my children define my "Bible" terms but neither do I merely let the Bible do it. I am sure you don't either. I may sounds like I let my kids be my dictionary, but my point is really that I do not let theologians do it. I think Paul used words that would make sense to people who do not have extensive education. We have come to the point of needing extensive education in order to sort out all the opinions and how they were arrived at.
I don't think there are "Bible" terms anyway. The Bible was written using languages that everybody understood. Examples include baptism, repent, impute, etc. These were every day words that normal people would have understood.
The context of where I get the meaning of flesh and death is both broad and narrow. It is consistent, is not needed to be applied haphazardly, and makes Romans understandable.
For example the context of theRomans passages you quote say nothing to me about death being separation from God nor the flesh being a sinful nature. The wages of sin is physical. To say that it is more than that needs strong support that I do not see.
The sinful nature doctrine and the notion that death is separation from God makes no sense to me in the context of Romans. However, the terms physical death and flesh do. Paul would be guilty of bouncing back and forth between death being physical and spiritual a number of times in chapter 6 alone. Add to that chapters 7 and 8 and Romans would be considered a very difficult book. He would not create this confusion on purpose since there are words for sinful, nature and separation that would have been much better.
The advocates of these positions say that when Adam sinned he was immediately spiritually dead, separated from God, and that his flesh was now corruptible. What would have been the reason God would have kicked him out of the Garden if these were true? It only makes sense that Adam needed access to the Tree of Life to avoid corruption and ultimately death. That penalty of death has been required ever since and has never once been a sinful nature imposed upon innocent offspring.
Adam needed a savior because he now had knowledge of good and evil with the death sentence upon him. Knowing he was a lost sinner and living eternally in that condition would have been miserable. Being just, God required death for sin. Adam was warned of this penalty but chose it without this thing called a sinful nature. Being merciful this just God made a system to atone for Adam's situation.
