ECT Two Deaths on the Cross
- Thread starter Jerry Shugart
- Start date
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
You just contribute so much on this forum and I believe that must be your best post of all time.
We all applaud your brilliance!
See, Jerry, you have to defend this position because you deny the doctrine of Original Sin. You deny the plain Biblical teaching that men are fallen because of their union with Adam (Ps. 51:5 for example). You have to twist and distort the plain and obvious meaning of the text with some ridiculous eisegetical gymnastics.
Your interpretation of Romans 5:12 is a perfect example. It is OBVIOUS that Paul means that since Adam fell, men were subjected to BOTH physical and spiritual death. It is a plain teaching of Scripture that men physically die because of their status as sinful creatures. Keep on reading through Romans 5. In fact, verse 14 completely repudiates your claim (because that's all it is) that men die for their own sins. People die because Adam was our Federal Head, and death reigned even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam.
At the end, you are taking away meaning and purpose from the suffering of the Lord Jesus Christ, and that is dangerous ground to go on. You are twisting the plain meaning of Scripture to fit your thoughts, instead of vice versa.
Your interpretation of Romans 5:12 is a perfect example. It is OBVIOUS that Paul means that since Adam fell, men were subjected to BOTH physical and spiritual death. It is a plain teaching of Scripture that men physically die because of their status as sinful creatures. Keep on reading through Romans 5. In fact, verse 14 completely repudiates your claim (because that's all it is) that men die for their own sins. People die because Adam was our Federal Head, and death reigned even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam.
At the end, you are taking away meaning and purpose from the suffering of the Lord Jesus Christ, and that is dangerous ground to go on. You are twisting the plain meaning of Scripture to fit your thoughts, instead of vice versa.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
td,
Why didn't you answer my questions?:
How does sin affect anything but the soul? When a soul sins then that soul is separated from the LORD and that is spiritual death. And then when he believes his soul is saved.
In what way does sinning affect any other part of a man?
Augustine is credited with formulating the theory of Original Sin and he said this:
"Our bodies would not have been born with defects, and there would have been no human monsters, if Adam had not corrupted our nature by his sin, and that had not been punished in his posterity. Op. Imp. I. 116; II. 123; III. 95,104; V. 8. The sickly and dying nature of the human body, proceeds from the lapse of the first man. De Gen. ad Lit. XI. 32" [emphasis added] (G.F. Wiggers, An Historical Presentation of Augustinism and Pelagianism From the Original Sources [Andover, MA: Gould, Newman & Saxton, 1840], 97; A Reproduction by Forgotten Books).
There is absolutely no evidence that when Adam ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that his body was changed in any way but the theory of Original Sin is totally dependent on that piece of fiction. Albert Barnes wrote the following:
"The tree of the knowledge of good and evil effected a change, not in the physical constitution of man, but in his mental experience - in his knowledge of good and evil" (Albert Barnes, Barnes Notes on the Bible, Commentary at Gen.3:22)
Here is the death which results when a person sins:
"And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses" (Col.2:13).
Paul does not say that they were dead as a result of Adam's sin but instead dead because of their own sin.
When a sinner is made alive together with the Lord Jesus he is made alive "spiritually." That can only mean that previously he was dead "spiritually"--as a result of his own sin and not the sin of Adam.
Furthermore, since a person dies spiritually as a result of his own sin that can only mean that before he sins he is spiritually alive. After all, it is impossible to die spiritually unless a person is first alive spiritually. From this we can understand that all people emerge from the womb spiritually alive.
Not spiritually dead, as the proponents of the theory of Original Sin teach.
None of what you said makes any sense. Instead of providing any logical and exegetical reading of Scripture, you quoted Augustine (who said the same thing I did), then quoted some other theologian (which is not a final authority), and then referenced a verse in Colossians. You said nothing about Romans 5:14.
You are defending a heretical position. You have to prove that the orthodox, historical teaching of the Scriptures and the Church is wrong. Which you cannot do without twisting the Scriptures.
You are defending a heretical position. You have to prove that the orthodox, historical teaching of the Scriptures and the Church is wrong. Which you cannot do without twisting the Scriptures.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Unfortunately, Jerry Shugart has quite a lot of heretical baggage, for example:
http://theologyonline.com/showthread.php?74351-Our-triune-God&p=4353361&viewfull=1#post4353361
AMR
Yes, he eventually died. That was not supposed to happen if he did not sin.
nikolai_42
Well-known member
So you would say that Jesus giving right to the Tree of Life in Revelation was merely offering physical life?
nikolai_42
Well-known member
Now that you mention it :
But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.
I Corinthians 11:28-30
Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:
And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.
James 5:14-15
Not that sin always leads to physical ailments, but it can...
genuineoriginal
New member
I don't agree that death means separation.
Does “death” mean “separation?”
In the classic Greek authors, the pagan notion of death was the soul separating from the body. Perhaps the most influential Greek texts was Homer’s Odyssy which described, “the appointed way with mortals when one dies. For the sinews no longer hold the flesh and the bones together, but the strong might of blazing fire destroys these, as soon as the life leaves the white bones, and the spirit, like a dream, flits away, and hovers to and fro.” The Greek philosopher Plato also had a major influence on the classic Greek period for pagan thinking. In Plato: “Death is frequently defined precisely in terms of the separation of soul and body, seen as something to be desirable.” Plato writes in Gorgias 524b: “death, as it seems to me, is actually nothing but the disconnection of two things, the soul and the body, from each other.”
According to N. T. Wright, this pagan view of death is quite contrast to the Jewish view as identified in the Hebrew Scripture. “Death itself was sad, and tinged with evil. It was not seen, in the canonical Old Testament, as a happy release, an escape of the soul from the prison-house of the body. This, of course, is the corollary of the Israelite belief is the goodness and god-givenness of life in this world.” Interestingly, BDB Hebrew lexicon never indicates “separation” as a definition for מוּת “die” or מָוֶת “death.”
In the classic Greek authors, the pagan notion of death was the soul separating from the body. Perhaps the most influential Greek texts was Homer’s Odyssy which described, “the appointed way with mortals when one dies. For the sinews no longer hold the flesh and the bones together, but the strong might of blazing fire destroys these, as soon as the life leaves the white bones, and the spirit, like a dream, flits away, and hovers to and fro.” The Greek philosopher Plato also had a major influence on the classic Greek period for pagan thinking. In Plato: “Death is frequently defined precisely in terms of the separation of soul and body, seen as something to be desirable.” Plato writes in Gorgias 524b: “death, as it seems to me, is actually nothing but the disconnection of two things, the soul and the body, from each other.”
According to N. T. Wright, this pagan view of death is quite contrast to the Jewish view as identified in the Hebrew Scripture. “Death itself was sad, and tinged with evil. It was not seen, in the canonical Old Testament, as a happy release, an escape of the soul from the prison-house of the body. This, of course, is the corollary of the Israelite belief is the goodness and god-givenness of life in this world.” Interestingly, BDB Hebrew lexicon never indicates “separation” as a definition for מוּת “die” or מָוֶת “death.”
genuineoriginal
New member
An animal died in place of Adam in the first instance of substitutionary death.
Genesis 3:21 21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them. |
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
The discussion is if Adam suffered any damage to his physical body when he ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
From what I can understand if Adam had not eaten of the forbidden tree he would have lived forever physically. And I see no evidence that he would have been moved from the Garden of Eden or changed bodies.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
What kind of death do you think that Paul is referring to in the following verse?:
"And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses" (Col.2:13).
You've read right past the obvious: the fact that babys are born in Uncircumcision - or "sinners of the Gentiles."
:think:
Rom. 5: 6-8.