What Changed?

[Mem]

I have yet to see you address verse 12 that says all men die BECAUSE they sin. I'm starting to think the significance of babies being under their parents' authority and covering is the missing piece in your paradigm if I'm understanding you.

I'd like to interject a novel view that I've yet to see, my belief that the statement, "all men die BECAUSE they sin," would be most accurate to read, "all men die BECAUSE of sin." This would leave the statement inclusive of the full spectrum of innocence.

 

[Mem]

As an example of the above edited statement:
A fetus dies of its mother's exercise of her 'choice.'

 

[PaulThomson]

not a far fetched assumption on a christian chat

psalm 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me.
ephesians 2:1-3 And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.
romans 6:20 When you were slaves to sin you were free in regard to righteousness

these are stated in the bible, and notice in ephesians 2:1-3 not only were we by nature children of wrath just as the others. but also notice in the beginning it says "and you HE made alive, who were dead". so its God who makes us alive. the dead dont raise themselves.

Clearly, the redeemed were walking in sin and conducting themselves in the lust of the flesh, that is, doing sin, when they were called "dead in trespasses and sins." There is no indication in those verses that they were born or conceived "dead in trespasses and sins".

Romans 9 makes it clear that children in the womb have not yet done nothing good or bad.

I was conceived in a hotel room and born in a hospital does not mean I had a hotel room in me at conception and a hospital in me at birth. You are stretching beyond the usual use of language to read original sin and total depravity into the Bible when it simply is not there.

 

[PaulThomson]

I still think you have an oversimplification there. Romans 5 seems to be arguing both sides, but clearly can't be. Maybe I missed it but I have yet to see you address verse 12 that says all men die BECAUSE they sin. I'm starting to think the significance of babies being under their parents' authority and covering is the missing piece in your paradigm if I'm understanding you.

BTW, thank you very much for doing your part on raising up the next generation. My calling thus far has been different but it is sad to see the people that are simply unwilling to pay the cost. Even the secular world is starting to be concerned at the current baby bomb - that is the troubling and problematic lack of babies!

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon (eis: to) all men, for that all have sinned: (eph'On pantes hEmarton: upon which all [men] sinned.)
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Eph'On means "upon which". I take the referent of this "which" to be "death passed to all men". Upon death passing to all men, all sinned.

How does that work? Well, once men became physically mortal without access to the tree of life, they began to feel the need to give their temporary life significance and meaning. Some did this by developing technologies. Some did this by gaining fame or infamy through building cities and waging war. Some did this by accruing to themselves resources and pleasures. Sin offered shortcuts to attaining these marks of significance and meaning. In this way mortality enslaved carnally-minded people into sinful behaviours. Some like Enoch chose to be spiritually minded in the main, and in the main sought significance and meaning in pleasing God. But most chose sinful shortcuts to carnal-minded goals. Hence, upon death passing to all men, all sinned. This may be why Hebrews 2:14-15 says-

"Forasmuch then as the children re partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same, that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil. And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage."

So death is ubiquitous. but sin as a consequence of the fear of death comes as a result of an awareness of one's mortality, and sin does not necessarily come to those who have not yet become afraid of death.

 

[Rufus]

Let's try to be even-handed here. This same structure (Qal infinitive absolute + Qal imperfective/uncompleted) is used in Exodus 18:18

Ex. 18:17 And Moses' father-in-law said to him, "The thing that you are doing is not good.

18. You will surely wear away, i.e. to wear away (Qal infinitive absolute) you will be wearing away (Qal imperfective/uncompleted); both you, and this people that is with you: for this thing is too heavy for you; you are not able to perform it yourself alone.

Is this predicting an instantaneous complete collapse for Moses and the people, if Moses continues on his present course in the next five minutes? Or is it predicting a gradual movement towards wearing out, over months or years, until Moses eventually becomes completely worn out and ineffectual? Personally, I think the latter.

So, in the case of Gen 2:17, "... for in the day that you eat it to die you shall be dying," is also a prediction of a gradual movement towards physical death, which will one day result in complete physical death.

But again, the vast majority of independent teams of language experts don't see Gen 2:17 that way. Plus you have to explain just when do human beings die spiritually? After all, the bible speaks to spiritual life in this age in terms of "resurrection" and "new birth" language, both of which presume antecedent spiritual death.

 

[JohnRH]

So when someone is almost dead, they are still 100% alive. You are redefining the English language according to what is needed for Total Depravity an/or original sin to survive on life support.

No, just letting the text speak for itself.

 

[PaulThomson]

No, just letting the text speak for itself.

Someone who is practising sin is not being responsive to God, and are in that sense dead. To the degree that they stop being carnally-minded and become spiritually-minded, set their mind on things of spirit, they become capable of being responsive to God.

 

[Magenta]

I'd like to interject a novel view that I've yet to see, my belief that the statement, "all men die BECAUSE they sin," would be most
accurate to read, "all men die BECAUSE of sin." This would leave the statement inclusive of the full spectrum of innocence.

Or we can simply say as Jesus did, "You must be born again."

 

[PaulThomson]

But again, the vast majority of independent teams of language experts don't see Gen 2:17 that way. Plus you have to explain just when do human beings die spiritually? After all, the bible speaks to spiritual life in this age in terms of "resurrection" and "new birth" language, both of which presume antecedent spiritual death.

I see you are not interested in being even-handed, and are unwilling to think through the implications of the Ex. 18:18 passage having exactly the same Hebrew verbal structure as Gen 2:17. You are unwilling to allow Gen 2 to be understood in a similar sense to Ex 18 despite them having exactly the same verbal structure. So, what is your actual agenda? Are you seeking the truth, or defending what you have presupposed is the truth.

If a kind of death is being unresponsive to a certain class of stimuli, spiritual dying would begin when a person chooses to be unresponsive to the influence of the Spirit. This would be a process like when a deadly deisease takes hold and over time gains increasing control over the body until complete death ensues. During the progress of the disease, the person may resort to influences that counteract the disease, and the dying may reverse to revivifying. Spiritual death likely happens when there is absolutely no responsiveness at all left to the influence of the Spirit.

Resurrection seems to refer to revivifying of the physical body.
The new birth would be receiving a new, pure spirit that is sealed by the Holy Spirit and indwelt by the Father, Son and Spirit. It may be more akin to a heart transplant rather than a resurrection.

 

[Rufus]

So when someone is almost dead, they are still 100% alive. You are redefining the English language according to what is needed for Total Depravity an/or original sin to survive on life support.

So when someone is almost dead, they are still 100% alive. You are redefining the English language according to what is needed for Total Depravity an/or original sin to survive on life support.

The only thing that is needs to be understood re Total Depravity is that man's heart is desperately wicked, and therefore ALL man's four faculties therein are corrupt. All = Total. Easy to understand.

 

[Rufus]

[QUOTE="PaulThomson, post: 5345352, member: 327121"]Death is when something no longer can do what it is supposed to do when alive/live. .[/QUOTE]

Now, you're catching on. Death = Inability. Conversely, Life = Ability. This is why a person MUST be born again. It's the only spiritual remedy for death's inabilities.

 

[Rufus]

[QUOTE="PaulThomson, post: 5345809, member: 327121"]I see you are not interested in being even-handed, and are unwilling to think through the implications of the Ex. 18:18 passage having exactly the same Hebrew verbal structure as Gen 2:17. You are unwilling to allow Gen 2 to be understood in a similar sense to Ex 18 despite them having exactly the same verbal structure. So, what is your actual agenda? Are you seeking the truth, or defending what you have presupposed is the truth.

If a kind of death is being unresponsive to a certain class of stimuli, spiritual dying would begin when a person chooses to be unresponsive to the influence of the Spirit. This would be a process like when a deadly deisease takes hold and over time gains increasing control over the body until complete death ensues. During the progress of the disease, the person may resort to influences that counteract the disease, and the dying may reverse to revivifying. Spiritual death likely happens when there is absolutely no responsiveness at all left to the influence of the Spirit.

Resurrection seems to refer to revivifying of the physical body.
The new birth would be receiving a new, pure spirit that is sealed by the Holy Spirit and indwelt by the Father, Son and Spirit. It may be more akin to a heart transplant rather than a resurrection.[/QUOTE]

It might have the same "verbal structure" but the structure applies to two different activities. The fact that Adam died spiritually on the day he disobeyed squares with the rest of scripture. And it most especially harmonizes with the fact that God did not save Adam after he sinned! Adam is definitely not of the "woman's seed" in Gen 3:15! The woman's seed = the children of God; the Serpent's seed = the children of the devil. And no child of the devil is spiritually alive!

 

[Rufus]

I'd like to interject a novel view that I've yet to see, my belief that the statement, "all men die BECAUSE they sin," would be most accurate to read, "all men die BECAUSE of sin." This would leave the statement inclusive of the full spectrum of innocence.

Or to even put a finer point on it: "all men die because of Adam's sin". After all, he is the federal head of the human race.

 

[FollowerofShiloh]

Legions of demons, unless you think after the resurrection and the four gospels ending. Satan and the demons were locked up, shows over no more demon possessions nothing to see anymore. They are not around today?

When did this happen before the Second Coming?

 

[Rufus]

I see you are not interested in being even-handed, and are unwilling to think through the implications of the Ex. 18:18 passage having exactly the same Hebrew verbal structure as Gen 2:17. You are unwilling to allow Gen 2 to be understood in a similar sense to Ex 18 despite them having exactly the same verbal structure. So, what is your actual agenda? Are you seeking the truth, or defending what you have presupposed is the truth.

If a kind of death is being unresponsive to a certain class of stimuli, spiritual dying would begin when a person chooses to be unresponsive to the influence of the Spirit. This would be a process like when a deadly deisease takes hold and over time gains increasing control over the body until complete death ensues. During the progress of the disease, the person may resort to influences that counteract the disease, and the dying may reverse to revivifying. Spiritual death likely happens when there is absolutely no responsiveness at all left to the influence of the Spirit.

Resurrection seems to refer to revivifying of the physical body.
The new birth would be receiving a new, pure spirit that is sealed by the Holy Spirit and indwelt by the Father, Son and Spirit. It may be more akin to a heart transplant rather than a resurrection.

It's both! New heart and being raised from the dead! In fact, it's also referred to as being "born again" or "born from above". Are you totally oblivious to all the passages that speak to the spiritual resurrection?

 

[PaulThomson]

But again, the vast majority of independent teams of language experts don't see Gen 2:17 that way. Plus you have to explain just when do human beings die spiritually? After all, the bible speaks to spiritual life in this age in terms of "resurrection" and "new birth" language, both of which presume antecedent spiritual death.

You prove yourself unable to think critically for yourself. You simply take whatever experts say that confirms your bias, and hand wave away facts that blow a hole in that bias. Read Ex 18. Is it even possible to interpret the Hebrew verb form used regarding Moses and the people becoming worn out as if Moses would instantly be full exhausted if he spent one more second following his present methodology? No it doesn't. So, why insist that the same verb form in Gen 2 must mean that Adam would immediately die the second he ate from the tree. Both texts make perfect sense when "to die you will be dying" and "to wear out you will be wearing out" are interpreted as progressive conditions resulting in a resultant complete death or exhaustion. Why go with experts whose judgment is so contrary to the evidence of the texts and their contexts?

 

[blueluna5]

What Changed?
Assuming that you are a child of God, What was the event that resulted in this change?
All people are conceived in sin and are born children of wrath, unfit for any saving good, inclined to evil, dead in their sins, and slaves to sin; without the grace of the regenerating Holy Spirit they are neither willing nor able to return to God, to reform their distorted nature, or even to dispose themselves to such reform.

Something had to change
Did you overcome this condition in your own strength, or were you drawn to Christ by the power of the Spirit? If you were drawn, were you able to resist being drawn?

I was saved for as long as I can remember, but I bounced back and forth between a luke warm Christian and hopefully a good Christian. I remember sitting on my mom's dresser at 3 and looking at the stars outside praying as my earliest memory.

I've had hundreds of spiritual dreams and even met an angel in a dream. Sometimes I'm a child in my dreams with God and other times I'm just me as an adult. I have lucid dreams and use to astral project.

I tried to be an atheist at one point in my life. I was very angry with God. He would push me...I kept saying give me a sign then. He would make the TV talk about it "are you looking for a sign? I'm here to tell you Jesus Christ is real!" I said, if you're so powerful get rid of this horrible weather. He made a thunderstorm on the left and a double rainbow on the right. We drove on the sunny road. It was so beautiful people were pulling over and taking pictures. For whatever reason he would not let me be an atheist.

I remember being so scared in different situations and screaming at him for help in my head. He always came to my rescue. I was around a child m as a kid and some dangerous people. I did many dangerous things. He always got me out of it. I owe him my life and he has blessed me beyond measure.

Of course there are many bad things that happen in the world. I don't have an answer for that. I just know he's always been with me. I assume he is like that for his people.

 

[Mem]

Or to even put a finer point on it: "all men die because of Adam's sin". After all, he is the federal head of the human race.

And if we put a microscopic point on it:

Romans 5: 12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, so also death was passed on to all men, because all sinned. 13For sin was in the world before the law was given; but sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who did not sin in the way that Adam transgressed.

I keep running into instances where one must choose between applying "all" to everyone and when it is just speaking of a particular section of everyone, but I won't let that prevent me from trying to sort out the logic...
Sin entered through Adam, and death through sin...Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who did not sin in the way that Adam transgressed.

If sin was not taken into account until Moses (the time come when there is law), then all that died up to then died solely on the account of death being in the world, yet death passed on to all men because all sinned... This begs the question then, who was or was not doing any accounting? The fact that, after entering through Adam's sin, death reigned may provide an answer for that. Adam rendered all men subject to death, but would it require a leap over a gap in logic to claim that Adam rendered all men subject to sin? I'm not so sure that it does. Susceptible, surely, I can't find reason to argue that. But as long, as there was one man that did not bow his knee to sin, then I can't confidently claim that "all men are subject to sin." Jesus was 100 percent man, born under the law but, though He was tempted in all ways as we are, He was never subject to sin, nor did He ever make Himself subject to sin.

Or we can simply say as Jesus did, "You must be born again."

We can simply say as Jesus did, of course. But Nicodemus needed it to be spelled out for him as he, by default, that of emerging from the womb, and Jesus replied with a proverbial facepalm. "Are you not a master of Israel...?"

Can we be certain that, when Jesus said, "you must be born of water and spirit," he wasn't speaking of passing through any sort of heavenly birth canal as much as He was speaking that you must be born in a sense of being 'carried by' water and spirit, that is be carried into the kingdom in order to see it. And so, as we were carried by our mother before we were born into the kingdom of this world so must we be carried in our Lord to be born into the kingdom to come.

I'm just not as ready to discard that as an impossibility as others think I should be so, consequently, I' can't discard the possibility that infants can't be carried into the kingdom with being 'born again' in the otherwise common sense of its understanding.

 

[Magenta]

We can simply say as Jesus did, of course. But Nicodemus needed it to be spelled out for him as he, by default,
that of emerging from the womb, and Jesus replied with a proverbial facepalm. "Are you not a master of Israel...?"
Can we be certain that, when Jesus said, "you must be born of water and spirit," he wasn't speaking of passing through any sort of heavenly birth canal as much as He was speaking that you must be born in a sense of being 'carried by' water and spirit, that is be carried into the kingdom in order to see it. And so, as we were carried by our mother before we were born into the kingdom of this world so must we be carried in our Lord to be born into the kingdom to come.

I'm just not as ready to discard that as an impossibility as others think I should be so, consequently, I can't discard the possibility that infants can't be carried into the kingdom with being 'born again' in the otherwise common sense of its understanding.

That is it exactly, for we escape the second death by being in Him,
the incorruptible indestructible Word of God. All else passes away.

1 Peter 1:23 plus 1 John 5:4

 

[PaulThomson]

And if we put a microscopic point on it:

Romans 5: 12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, so also death was passed on to all men, because all sinned. 13For sin was in the world before the law was given; but sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who did not sin in the way that Adam transgressed.

I keep running into instances where one must choose between applying "all" to everyone and when it is just speaking of a particular section of everyone, but I won't let that prevent me from trying to sort out the logic...
Sin entered through Adam, and death through sin...Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who did not sin in the way that Adam transgressed.

If sin was not taken into account until Moses (the time come when there is law), then all that died up to then died solely on the account of death being in the world, yet death passed on to all men because all sinned... This begs the question then, who was or was not doing any accounting? The fact that, after entering through Adam's sin, death reigned may provide an answer for that. Adam rendered all men subject to death, but would it require a leap over a gap in logic to claim that Adam rendered all men subject to sin? I'm not so sure that it does. Susceptible, surely, I can't find reason to argue that. But as long, as there was one man that did not bow his knee to sin, then I can't confidently claim that "all men are subject to sin." Jesus was 100 percent man, born under the law but, though He was tempted in all ways as we are, He was never subject to sin, nor did He ever make Himself subject to sin.



We can simply say as Jesus did, of course. But Nicodemus needed it to be spelled out for him as he, by default, that of emerging from the womb, and Jesus replied with a proverbial facepalm. "Are you not a master of Israel...?"

Can we be certain that, when Jesus said, "you must be born of water and spirit," he wasn't speaking of passing through any sort of heavenly birth canal as much as He was speaking that you must be born in a sense of being 'carried by' water and spirit, that is be carried into the kingdom in order to see it. And so, as we were carried by our mother before we were born into the kingdom of this world so must we be carried in our Lord to be born into the kingdom to come.

I'm just not as ready to discard that as an impossibility as others think I should be so, consequently, I' can't discard the possibility that infants can't be carried into the kingdom with being 'born again' in the otherwise common sense of its understanding.

Interesting. I appreciate your openness to options in the meaning of texts when options potentially exist.

I could not follow the argument in your last paragraph though. What were you trying to communicate.