Death

[praise_yeshua]

This thread is to discuss "death" relative to Adam's sin.

Gen 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”

1. Notice the appeal to death and "day" of that death ( I will reference the "day" a little later)

2. Adam did not have Eternal Life when He was created. He came from the ground. Earthly. Adam was never Eternal when God created him.

First the earthly....

Gen 18:27 Abraham answered and said, “Behold, I have undertaken to speak to the Lord, I who am but dust and ashes.

1Co 15:47 The first man is of the earth, earthy:

Gen 3:22 Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—”

3. The "tree of life" sustained Adam indefinitely and that could no longer remain true with Adam's sin.

4. The "day" of Adam death would be within 1000 years.

2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
Gen 5:27 Thus all the days of Methuselah were 969 years, and he died.

5. Death was an appointment for Adam and thusly, his offspring.

Heb 9:27 And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment,

The "concept" presented in many theologies that seek to prove that Adam died "spiritually" when he sinned is not accurate and is nothing more than conjecture. Adam was appointed to death and thusly, he died. Even the new birth doesn't prevent natural death.

2Co 5:1 For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
2Co 5:2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven:

 

[civic]

I heard matt slick get pummeled by an open theist in a recent debate when he tried using Gen 2:17. I was truly embarrassed for him at how weak his argument was and how emotional he became and started with the usual ad homs. The open theist cleaned his clock.

 

[TomL]

I heard matt slick get pummeled by an open theist in a recent debate when he tried using Gen 2:17. I was truly embarrassed for him at how weak his argument was and how emotional he became and started with the usual ad homs. The open theist cleaned his clock.

He often becomes emotional and resorts to ad hominem

BTW that podcast on Dynamic omniscience was interesting, but I still do not have a good handle on it. As such, I do not understand the answer to Matt's question.

From what I understand of it God knows all the past, all the present, all facts, but the future in not a thing. It does not yet exist so it is not a fact God can know unless he determined it-(God does determine somethings. The future is partly open, partly closed) though God can know what all the possibilities are.

 

[civic]

He often becomes emotional and resorts to ad hominem

BTW that podcast on Dynamic omniscience was interesting, but I still do not have a good handle on it. As such, I do not understand the answer to Matt's question.

From what I understand of it God knows all the past, all the present, all facts, but the future in not a thing. It does not yet exist so it is not a fact God can know unless he determined it-(God does determine somethings. The future is partly open, partly closed) though God can know what all the possibilities are.

God is dynamic in the sense He operates in real time interacting with man. God also answers prayer and will go another direction from what He had said previously. He listened to Moses and did not wipe out the Israelites. He listened to Abraham when He pleaded with Him in Genesis 18. And God repented that He made man and brought the flood and several other examples.

 

[TomL]

God is dynamic in the sense He operates in real time interacting with man. God also answers prayer and will go another direction from what He had said previously. He listened to Moses and did not wipe out the Israelites. He listened to Abraham when He pleaded with Him in Genesis 18. And God repented that He made man and brought the flood and several other examples.

I understand all that but i do not understand the answer to Matt's question

BTW Warren had a podcast on Idol killer with Dr John Sanders

 

[civic]

I understand all that but i do not understand the answer to Matt's question

I'm slow this morning the coffee has not kicked in yet. What was Matts question again lol ?

 

[TomL]

I'm slow this morning the coffee has not kicked in yet. What was Matts question again lol ?

About how God knew what sins to impute to Christ

Note I do not believe Christ was actually imputed a sinner (see below) but Warren did not challenge that point

And seemed to reply it was not inconsistent with dynamic omniscience



For he hath made him to be sin for us—Τον μη γνοντα ἁμαρτιαν, ὑπερ ἡμων ἁμαρτιαν εποιησεν· He made him who knew no sin, (who was innocent), a sin-offering for us. The word ἁμαρτια occurs here twice: in the first place it means sin, i.e. transgression and guilt; and of Christ it is said, He knew no sin, i.e. was innocent; for not to know sin is the same as to be conscious of innocence; so, nil conscire sibi, to be conscious of nothing against one's self, is the same as nulla pallescere culpa, to be unimpeachable.

In the second place, it signifies a sin-offering, or sacrifice for sin, and answers to the ‏חטאה‎ chattaah and ‏חטאת‎ chattath of the Hebrew text; which signifies both sin and sin-offering in a great variety of places in the Pentateuch. The Septuagint translate the Hebrew word by ἁμαρτια in ninety-four places in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, where a sin-offering is meant; and where our version translates the word not sin, but an offering for sin. Had our translators attended to their own method of translating the word in other places where it means the same as here, they would not have given this false view of a passage which has been made the foundation of a most blasphemous doctrine; viz. that our sins were imputed to Christ, and that he was a proper object of the indignation of Divine justice, because he was blackened with imputed sin; and some have proceeded so far in this blasphemous career as to say, that Christ may be considered as the greatest of sinners, because all the sins of mankind, or of the elect, as they say, were imputed to him, and reckoned as his own. One of these writers translates the passage thus: Deus Christum pro maximo peccatore habuit, ut nos essemus maxime justi, God accounted Christ the greatest of sinners, that we might be supremely righteous. Thus they have confounded sin with the punishment due to sin. Christ suffered in our stead; died for us; bore our sins, (the punishment due to them), in his own body upon the tree, for the Lord laid upon him the iniquities of us all; that is, the punishment due to them; explained by making his soul—his life, an offering for sin; and healing us by his stripes.



Adam Clarke's Commentary.

 

[praise_yeshua]

He often becomes emotional and resorts to ad hominem

BTW that podcast on Dynamic omniscience was interesting, but I still do not have a good handle on it. As such, I do not understand the answer to Matt's question.

From what I understand of it God knows all the past, all the present, all facts, but the future in not a thing. It does not yet exist so it is not a fact God can know unless he determined it-(God does determine somethings. The future is partly open, partly closed) though God can know what all the possibilities are.

If you add the fact that God is intelligent enough to predict certain aspects of the future. You basically have my personal position. I do get into more of the details of "time".

 

[praise_yeshua]

About how God knew what sins to impute to Christ

Note I do not believe Christ was actually imputed a sinner (see below) but Warren did not challenge that point

And seemed to reply it was not inconsistent with dynamic omniscience



For he hath made him to be sin for us—Τον μη γνοντα ἁμαρτιαν, ὑπερ ἡμων ἁμαρτιαν εποιησεν· He made him who knew no sin, (who was innocent), a sin-offering for us. The word ἁμαρτια occurs here twice: in the first place it means sin, i.e. transgression and guilt; and of Christ it is said, He knew no sin, i.e. was innocent; for not to know sin is the same as to be conscious of innocence; so, nil conscire sibi, to be conscious of nothing against one's self, is the same as nulla pallescere culpa, to be unimpeachable.

In the second place, it signifies a sin-offering, or sacrifice for sin, and answers to the ‏חטאה‎ chattaah and ‏חטאת‎ chattath of the Hebrew text; which signifies both sin and sin-offering in a great variety of places in the Pentateuch. The Septuagint translate the Hebrew word by ἁμαρτια in ninety-four places in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, where a sin-offering is meant; and where our version translates the word not sin, but an offering for sin. Had our translators attended to their own method of translating the word in other places where it means the same as here, they would not have given this false view of a passage which has been made the foundation of a most blasphemous doctrine; viz. that our sins were imputed to Christ, and that he was a proper object of the indignation of Divine justice, because he was blackened with imputed sin; and some have proceeded so far in this blasphemous career as to say, that Christ may be considered as the greatest of sinners, because all the sins of mankind, or of the elect, as they say, were imputed to him, and reckoned as his own. One of these writers translates the passage thus: Deus Christum pro maximo peccatore habuit, ut nos essemus maxime justi, God accounted Christ the greatest of sinners, that we might be supremely righteous. Thus they have confounded sin with the punishment due to sin. Christ suffered in our stead; died for us; bore our sins, (the punishment due to them), in his own body upon the tree, for the Lord laid upon him the iniquities of us all; that is, the punishment due to them; explained by making his soul—his life, an offering for sin; and healing us by his stripes.



Adam Clarke's Commentary.

Christ dealt with SIN period. They didn't have to exist for Christ to deal with SIN.

Matt is ignoring verses such as....

Heb 9:25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others;
Heb 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

As sin progressed the order of Aaron had to continually present an offer for sin. Christ did not. He dealt with the issue of SIN period.

 

[Grace ambassador]

The "concept" presented in many theologies that seek to prove that Adam died "spiritually" when he sinned is not accurate and is nothing more than conjecture.

Then, I will have to ignore Bible Passages such as:

"And you hath He quickened [ made alive ], who were dead in trespasses and sins"​

(Ephesians 2:1 AV)

"And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath He​

quickened [ made alive ] together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses"​

(Colossians 2:13 AV)​

Because I was still 'physically' alive when I "was dead", eh?

Amen.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Then, I will have to ignore Bible Passages such as:

"And you hath He quickened [ made alive ], who were dead in trespasses and sins"​

(Ephesians 2:1 AV)​

Adam was never an "Eternal" spirit". Adam didn't lose Eternal Life. He never had it.

Pointing to Ephesians 2:1 doesn't establish your premise. You're assuming your conclusion in your response.

"And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath He

quickened [ made alive ] together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses"​

(Colossians 2:13 AV)​

Because I was still 'physically' alive when I "was dead", eh?

Amen.

The "new birth" is a NEW BIRTH. Yes. Men are physically alive when they experience the "New Birth".

It is difficult to have this discussion if you're going to insist that you're right instead of actually establish that Adam somehow lost Eternal life. He never had Eternal life. In fact, God drove Adam away from the Tree of Life so he would could NOT continue to live and actually die based upon the judgement of God.

I'll be glad to have this discussion with you but I don't see that you're establishing your premise from the Scriptures.

Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

 

[praise_yeshua]

1Co 15:45 Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
1Co 15:46 But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual.
1Co 15:47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven.