What is Death?

[Winman]

So right interpertation is determined by whose who rather than Biblical interperation?

There are two obvious facts that neither you nor all the theologions you want to flee to can overturn:

1. Romans 5 and 1 Cor 15 clearly present Christ as the "Second Adam" in contrast to the first Adam as REPRESENTATIVE men.

2. The testing of Adam in this representative capacity cannot be in his FALLEN condition as the fall is not only clear evidence of failing a previous test but the fallen nature can no longer serve as an objective basis for any kind of representative testing.

Amazing, you will not even listen to famous Calvinist theologians!

You really believe you are smarter than everyone don't you? Yet, you fail to see how it would be unjust for a man to die for a sin he never committed?

There is no hope for you, you are an unthinking fanatic.

 

[The Biblicist]

Amazing, you will not even listen to famous Calvinist theologians!

You really believe you are smarter than everyone don't you? Yet, you fail to see how it would be unjust for a man to die for a sin he never committed?

There is no hope for you, you are an unthinking fanatic.

I hate to remind you of this, but I have never claimed to be a Calvinist and this should prove it as you even admit I don't follow Calvinist writers.

I never came to my positions by reading Calvinists but by reading scritpure and studying scripture.

What is man? The Word of God is our final authority not the words of men!

However, you cannot deal with the Biblical based arguments I present except fleeing to men's words. Try the Word of God for a change.

 

[The Biblicist]

So right interpertation is determined by whose who rather than Biblical interperation?

There are two obvious facts that neither you nor all the theologions you want to flee to can overturn:

1. Romans 5 and 1 Cor 15 clearly present Christ as the "Second Adam" in contrast to the first Adam as REPRESENTATIVE men.

2. The testing of Adam in this representative capacity cannot be in his FALLEN condition as the fall is not only clear evidence of failing a previous test but the fallen nature can no longer serve as an objective basis for any kind of representative testing.

Again, these two axioms cannot be overturned by no amount of quotations from uninspired theologions.

 

[saturneptune]

I must confess to Winman and Biblicist, I thought I understood this issue of original sin, our sin, before and after the law, the Tree of Life, etc pretty good. I have been following your thread and am now very confused. Both of your posts seem reasonable. Help!!!

 

[Winman]

I must confess to Winman and Biblicist, I thought I understood this issue of original sin, our sin, before and after the law, the Tree of Life, etc pretty good. I have been following your thread and am now very confused. Both of your posts seem reasonable. Help!!!

Original Sin is actually quite complex, and there are many various theories. I have shown some quotes from theologians (Calvinists) who have great difficulty with each of the three predominate theories.

But basically put, Original Sin teaches that you are conceived dead in sin. You are guilty of Adam's sin the moment you are conceived, just as if you had eaten the forbidden fruit yourself. Thus, if you die, you would go straight to hell for eternity for the sin you committed "in Adam". This is why the Catholics and others baptize babies, to wash away this "original" sin you carry.

This is just one theory, other theories say you simply inherited Adam's corruption or "sin nature" and MUST sin. It is all you can do by your very nature. Again, this was imposed on you not because of any personal choice, but because of Adam.


Original Sin was NEVER held by the Jews, and is not to this day. The Eastern Orthodox Church rejects OS. OS is primarily an invention of Augustine, who developed this theory almost exclusively from Romans 5:12 alone. The problem was, Augustine did not know Greek and used a flawed Latin text that said "in WHOM all sinned" which he thought referred to Adam. Almost all scholars admit this Latin text was flawed and should correctly say "because all have sinned" or "for that all have sinned" as the KJB says. This says death passed on all men because they PERSONALLY sinned.

There is much more to it, it takes much study to fully understand all the various theories.

Biblicist thinks that Adam represented all men, and thus when he sinned, we sinned "in him". There is no support for this in scripture. God clearly says in Ezekiel 18 that each man bears his own sin, the son does not bear the iniquity of his father, neither does the father bear the iniquity of his son, but each man dies (spiritually) for his own personal sin. This is scripture that directly addresses the subject of whether one man can bear another's sin.

Eze 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

Scripture simply presents Adam as the man who introduced disobedience and sin into the world, while Jesus introduced obedience and righteousness into the world.

Men (and babies) do physically die as a consequence of Adam's sin. When Adam and Eve sinned, God barred them from the tree of life. If they (and us) would have eaten of this tree they would live PHYSICALLY forever.

Physically dying is not a sign of moral corruption, animals die, and they cannot sin.

It is actually a blessing that we physically die, as it is our greatest incentive to turn from sin and trust Jesus, thus we live spiritually forever. If man could live physically forever in a sinful state, there would be little incentive to repent.

 

[The Biblicist]

But basically put, Original Sin teaches that you are conceived dead in sin. You are guilty of Adam's sin the moment you are conceived, just as if you had eaten the forbidden fruit yourself. Thus, if you die, you would go straight to hell for eternity for the sin you committed "in Adam". This is why the Catholics and others baptize babies, to wash away this "original" sin you carry.

This is a perversion of our true position. We do not believe that infants upon death go to hell. We don't believe anyone goes to hell for Adam's sin simply because where sin abounded grace did much more abound and Christ paid for the eternal condemnation of the adamic sin. Hence, dying infants are not subject to eternal judgement as on the day of judgement all are judged "according to his works" none of which characterize dying infants. Hence, dying infants are in no danger of eternal judgment.

Neither do we believe "the moment you are conceived" one is guilty of the Adamic sin but rather they are guilty at the moment Adam sinned because the whole human nature existed in and acted when Aam acted. Thus "by one man's offence many were made......"

Almost all scholars admit this Latin text was flawed and should correctly say "because all have sinned" or "for that all have sinned" as the KJB says. This says death passed on all men because they PERSONALLY sinned.

You are excluding dying infants, and mentally impaired in this "all" under the first Adam and so must exclude them equally in the "all" of the second Adam and hence, such would be excluded from salvation altogether. However, dying infants and such are included in this "all" under the first Adam just as they are included in the "all" of the Second Adam.

Second, the Aorist tense "sinned" points to a singular completed act just as the repeated "by one man's offence" points to a singular completed act.

Third, no parent has to teach infants to sin - it is part of their NATURE - instead parents must teach them to do right. That SINFUL nature is "passed" down to them through birth.

God clearly says in Ezekiel 18 that each man bears his own sin, the son does not bear the iniquity of his father, neither does the father bear the iniquity of his son, but each man dies (spiritually) for his own personal sin. This is scripture that directly addresses the subject of whether one man can bear another's sin.

Eze 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.

This is such an irrational argument for several reasons.

1. Romans 5:12-19 refers to ONE MAN and the FALL of a representative man whereas Ezek. 18 refers to the POST-FALLEN condition of individuals men.

2. Romans 5:12-19 has in view TWO MEN whose individual actions and consequences effect "all" for whom they REPRESENT as the first and last Adam whereas Ezek. 18 refers to personal individual actions of all men AFTER the fall.

3. Fallen man is individually responsible for their own sins in their fallen state and no one can be judged for their own individual sins - Ezek 18. However, their fallen condition is due to "one man's offence many were MADE...."

Winman is pitting a text that deals with the CAUSE of sin within humanity (Gen. 3) against a text that deals with the CONSEQUENCES of the fall. He is pitting a text that deals with a REPRESENTATIVE man's action and consequences for "all" with a text that deals with post-fallen individual actions and consequences. This is like mixing apples and oranges as they have no similarities with each other but are in a cause and consequence relationship rather than a parallel relationship.

Scripture simply presents Adam as the man who introduced disobedience and sin into the world, while Jesus introduced obedience and righteousness into the world.

If you believe this, then I can sell you beach front property in downtown Saint Louis!!!!!!

The repeated "by one man's offence many were made.....all...." should make Winman's above conclusion absurdly rediculous.

If you have children, did you have to train them to do evil? That is part and parcel with their nature and from whence does that nature originate? It is "passed" down to them from Adam and that nature consists of indwelling sin as both a condition and as soon as they are able it becomes their expression as well as condition and anyone with eyes who has children can see that.

Men (and babies) do physically die as a consequence of Adam's sin. When Adam and Eve sinned, God barred them from the tree of life. If they (and us) would have eaten of this tree they would live PHYSICALLY forever.

Find any scripture that states this? There is none! Romans 5:12 does not say "by God cutting men off from the garden death entered into the world." This is absurd! Genesis 3:16 demands that "dying" instantly occurred at the point of disobedience rather than being the result of not being able to eat of the tree of life. They were separated from the tree of life so that the present corruption at work in their bodies (death) would not be reversed and thus give them eternal life as spiritual dead sinners.

Eternal life in our bodies and removal of the prinicple of corruption (death) occurs at the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:50-57) and thus tree of life in the New heaven and earth (Rev. 22:1-3) AFTER death is cast into the lake of fire (Rev. 20:15-17) has nothing to do with sustaining physical life whatsoever.

 

[Winman]

This is a perversion of our true position. We do not believe that infants upon death go to hell.

Who is "We"? I have no idea who "we" is to you, you say you are not a Calvinist, I have no idea how you identify yourself.

The truth is, many teach that babies who die without baptism go to hell, many Calvinists and Reformed teach that non-elect babies go to hell. Some say all babies are elect.

There is the famous statement of Calvin himself; THERE ARE BABIES A SPAN LONG IN HELL.

So, don't tell me that all Reformed do not believe some babies go to hell. As far as your "we" is, I have no clue who that is, I hate to think there are more like you. :laugh:

Neither do we believe "the moment you are conceived" one is guilty of the Adamic sin but rather they are guilty at the moment Adam sinned because the whole human nature existed in and acted when Adam acted.

A distinction without a difference, the result is the same, the moment you exist you are a sinner. But we are told in Romans 9:11 that unborn children have done no evil.

Rom 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; )

You just said that Esau and Jacob sinned when Adam sinned, because the whole human nature existed in and acted when Adam acted, but the word of God said Esau and Jacob had done no evil.

You just don't get that your doctrine is not scriptural do you?

You are excluding dying infants, and mentally impaired in this "all" under the first Adam and so must exclude them equally in the "all" of the second Adam and hence, such would be excluded from salvation altogether.

Saved from what? If Esau and Jacob had died in their mother's womb, what would they need to be saved from? Jesus saves us from SIN.

Now go and read about the elder brother in Luke 15 who never transgressed his father's commandment at any time. Maybe now you might have a clue who Jesus was speaking of.

Luk 15:29 And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends:
30 But as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf.
31 And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine.
32 It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.

Remember it was Jesus himself who told this story, and Jesus knows doctrine better than you (I know that is almost impossible for you to believe).

When the elder son claimed to have never transgressed his father's commandment, did the father correct him? NO, the father actually verified this was true, he called the boy "Son", he said that he was "EVER" with me (no separation, no death), and ALL that he had was his. He also points out that only the prodigal son was "dead" and "lost" in contrast to the elder son.

Now put your thinking cap on and try to figure out who has never sinned like this elder son. I bet if you think real hard you can figure it out now.

But, knowing you, you will say Jesus was making up some imaginary persons who never existed. You simply deny scripture that refutes you.

1. Romans 5:12-19 refers to ONE MAN and the FALL of a representative man whereas Ezek. 18 refers to the POST-FALLEN condition of individuals men.

2. Romans 5:12-19 has in view TWO MEN whose individual actions and consequences effect "all" for whom they REPRESENT as the first and last Adam whereas Ezek. 18 refers to personal individual actions of all men AFTER the fall.

I agree that Romans 5 is comparing Adam and Jesus. Where you err is that you apply death UNCONDITIONALLY to all men, where you apply justification to life CONDITIONALLY (actually, you tried to argue that justification is uncondtional, an absolute error that all reject. Justification is dependent upon believing on Jesus and is CONDITIONAL).

Romans 2 had already explained how men without law (which would include all men from Adam to Moses) die. They die because they have the law written on their hearts and conscience. This destroys your false interpretation of Romans 5:12-14.

1. Romans 5:12-19 refers to ONE MAN and the FALL of a representative man whereas Ezek. 18 refers to the POST-FALLEN condition of individuals men.

2. Romans 5:12-19 has in view TWO MEN whose individual actions and consequences effect "all" for whom they REPRESENT as the first and last Adam whereas Ezek. 18 refers to personal individual actions of all men AFTER the fall.

Now you argue an OBVIOUS FALLACY, that a person dies as a result of Adam's sin AND their own personal sin. You want your cake and to eat it too.

No, God is not unjust. Even the Calvinist authors I showed you had serious problems with Original Sin because they saw it as unjust, and these guys are a lot smarter than you.

God said every man dies for his own sin, and that the son does not bear the iniquity of his father. You come along and say the exact opposite. Wow.

 

[The Biblicist]

Who is "We"? I have no idea who "we" is to you, you say you are not a Calvinist, I have no idea how you identify yourself.

The truth is, many teach that babies who die without baptism go to hell, many Calvinists and Reformed teach that non-elect babies go to hell. Some say all babies are elect.

There is the famous statement of Calvin himself; THERE ARE BABIES A SPAN LONG IN HELL.

So, don't tell me that all Reformed do not believe some babies go to hell. As far as your "we" is, I have no clue who that is, I hate to think there are more like you. :laugh:

"We" are not Calvinists, and "we" are not Reformed. "We" are among those called "Baptists."

But we are told in Romans 9:11 that unborn children have done no evil.

Rom 9:11 (For the children being not yet born,[COLOR"Blue"] neither having done any good or evil,[/COLOR] that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth; )

You just said that Esau and Jacob sinned when Adam sinned, because the whole human nature existed in and acted when Adam acted, but the word of God said Esau and Jacob had done no evil.

He is obviously speaking "good or evil" after birth as individuals as he qualified it "being not yet born." That is true of all who sinned in Adam. None have done good or evil as INDIVIDUALS until after birth.

However, what "purpose of God according to election"? Election is "to salvation" - 2 Thes. 2:13

Saved from what? If Esau and Jacob had died in their mother's womb, what would they need to be saved from? Jesus saves us from SIN.

"the purpose of God ACCORDING TO ELECTION" and eletion is "to salvation" - 2 Thes. 2:13

Now go and read about the elder brother in Luke 15 who never transgressed his father's commandment at any time. Maybe now you might have a clue who Jesus was speaking of.

Luk 15:29 And he answering said to his father, Lo, these many years do I serve thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandment: and yet thou never gavest me a kid, that I might make merry with my friends:
30 But as soon as this thy son was come, which hath devoured thy living with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calf.
31 And he said unto him, Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine.
32 It was meet that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found.

Remember it was Jesus himself who told this story, and Jesus knows doctrine better than you (I know that is almost impossible for you to believe).


When the elder son claimed to have never transgressed his father's commandment, did the father correct him? NO, the father actually verified this was true, he called the boy "Son", he said that he was "EVER" with me (no separation, no death), and ALL that he had was his. He also points out that only the prodigal son was "dead" and "lost" in contrast to the elder son.

Now put your thinking cap on and try to figure out who has never sinned like this elder son. I bet if you think real hard you can figure it out now.

First, who is he speaking to?

Luk 15:2 And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.
3 And he spake this parable unto them, saying,

Second, it is a "parable" and parables do not contain real historical persons but fictious characters who are characterized to fit the speakers point

Third, Put on your on thinking cap considering your rediculous analogy! The elder son was OLDER than he prodigal son who was in fact of age TO SIN and DID sin. So it is rediculous to imagine the "elder" son was below the age of accountability. No such human exists EXCEPT in the figment of a Pharisee's mind and guess who he is speaking to in context?

Second, the overall context and purpose of these parables is to illustrate the necessity for repentance and that there are none righteous that never need to repent. The 99 sheep, the 9 coins and the elder son by context all represent the PHARISEES who believed they NEED NO REPENTANCE and believed they were RIGHEOUS and WITHOUT SIN and were NEVER LOST.

Note the repeated phrase "7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.......there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth......"

The elder son represented those beyond the age of any accountability, mature adults who believed they NEVER SINNED and NEVER NEED REPENTANCE (1 Jn. 1:8-10) perhaps like you!

Look at the first three verses of this chapter and see who he is speaking to. That might give you a clue how false your interpretation is.

Romans 2 had already explained how men without law (which would include all men from Adam to Moses) die. They die because they have the law written on their hearts and conscience. This destroys your false interpretation of Romans 5:12-14.

Absolutely and completely false! Romans 2 provides absolutely no explanation about the origin of death at all. It simply describes the basis for judgement which is individual sin.

Romans 5 describes the origin of death due to ONE MAN's disobedience and the effects of that ONE MAN'S act upon "all" he represented.

Now you argue an OBVIOUS FALLACY, that a person dies as a result of Adam's sin AND their own personal sin. You want your cake and to eat it too.

False! One has to do with death as a result of ONE MAN's singular sin and the other has to do with final judgement in regard to individual plural sins.

 

[Winman]

Biblicist, it is obvious you would argue with a fence-post, so you just go on and believe whatever you want. I will leave it to the readers to decide who has made a scriptural argument.

 

[The Biblicist]

Biblicist, it is obvious you would argue with a fence-post, so you just go on and believe whatever you want. I will leave it to the readers to decide who has made a scriptural argument.

I think that is a fine idea indeed!