Posted on 09/19/2005 9:13:46 AM PDT by xzins
That's fair. I just think the Apostle's Creed is neutral on the millenial position.
Good question! Both are on dictionary.com, so I suspect either reading would be considered acceptable. But "gads" was not listed as an acceptable alternative for either one, not was it listed by itself.
:o)
Blessings
2 Pet 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.
Adam almost made it to the second day before he died the first death. First must come before second.
I am not equating the "second death" with "spiritual death". The scriptures describe being thrown into the lake of fire as "the second death". I am only saying that the "death" that was thrown into the lake of fire in the "second death" was "spiritual death", not "physical death".
While it's clearly not explicit, I think it's a big strain to argue that the Church fathers believed Christ was coming from the right hand of God the Father Almighty to first set up a 1,000 year kingdom and then judge the living and the dead.
I Cor 15:46 may apply here.
Why did Christ need to die physically if He only came to deal with "spiritual death"?
"Most assuredly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God; and those who hear will live. For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself, and has given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of Man. Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth--those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation." (John 5:25-29)
How do you deal with the spirtual and physical implications of this passage?
1 Cor.15:45 So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven.
This passage you quoted, in its context, is referring to Adam, the physical Adam, who came first. The second ("last") Adam is referring to Jesus, the spiritual Adam, the one who cam second. Verse 46, properly understood in its context, means:
"The spiritual [Adam] did not come first, but the natural [Adam], and after that the spiritual [Adam].
It does not refer to spiritual nor physical death, which is what you and are are discussing.
The pattern of natural, then spiritual, had long been established in scripture before Paul pointed it out in I Cor 15. If this were the only evidence, I should leave the discussion now, but I point your attention to the myriad examples in scripture, where the pattern is followed. There are easily thousands of them, Cain then Able and so on.
There are two deaths. Christ died, not so that we could skip the natural death but the Spiritual death. You can't skip the second death, because the second death would become the first.
You can't skip the FIRST death, because the second death would become the first.
Because God set up His Covenant such that without the shedding of blood there is no remission for sin.
Hebrews Chapter 9 lays this out beautifully.
I'm unclear as to what you are driving at in your last two posts.
Spiritual death occurred in the garden when God cursed Adam because he sinned, did it not? Wasn't Adam (and mankind) separated from God at that time? Was not this separation from God the spiritual death of Adam AND mankind? Did not God promise at that time to send His Son ("her Seed") to crush the serpent's head? Wasn't that Christ's mission, to redeem mankind from the spiritual death caused by sin? To restore mankind back to a right relationship with God?
Are you saying that the spiritual death did NOT occur prior to Adam's physical death?
Please clarify. Thanks!
That only begs the question. Why does there need to be shedding of blood if Christ only came to deal with spiritual death?
This all some very gnostic.
I'm not sure how it's "begging the question", as you say.
You asked, why the shedding of blood, my answer, because the Bible says so.
I mean, why did God have to send His Son to die anyway? Why did He not just forgive our sins, and that's that?! Surely He has the power to forgive sins without the shedding of blood; yet, He requires it. I don't have the answer to that for you.
"The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever" (Deut. 29:29)
I see this question as one that God may not have revealed an answer for in the Bible. If you have a biblical answer, would you kindly share it?
As far as gnosticism, I haven't studied it in depth; needless to say, I believe that Scripture teaches Jesus was fully human and fully divine, so that when He did die on the cross, He physically died. I'm unclear as to how the shedding of Jesus' blood as the perfect sacrifice ends up sounding "very gnostic" to you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism#Theology
Blessings,
I have a problem with the second part of this statement. I think that there are two and only two deaths, “natural” and “spiritual”. When Christ died, it was not to bring us back from the spiritual death, but to keep us from even going through it. Thus, when Christ said, “He that believeth in me shall never die,” it was spiritual death that he was talking about.
Please don’t think that I have all the answers, there are many objections here. Some I can answer to my satisfaction, some I cannot, at least not yet.
As for Adam, why would he even have to die spiritually? Why would he die twice? When Adam and Eve sinned, God didn’t kill them, he killed an animal, and covered their shame with skins. Why a sacrifice? What significance would a sacrifice have if Adam and Eve died anyway? Where does it say that Adam died spiritually?
Seven
Wow! That is not much of a victory. You know, it had not occured to me just how gnostic full Preterism was. I mean, there is no complete redemption for all of creation. It is like the physical world has something wrong with it. It does seem to me that placing creation under the subjection of decay is completely without hope for redemption.
"It should already be clear that there is no convergence between preterism and this Gnosticism. To my knowledge, preterists all believe in the goodness of God's original creation (including the body), in the unity of God as revealed in Scripture, in the fall of humanity in Adam, and the need for Jesus Christ, God incarnate in hypostatic union, to redeem sinners by his substitutionary atoning death upon the cross. Moreover, preterists in general uphold the resurrection of Christ and of humanity in a transformed body, their primary divergence with traditionalists being over the nature of the resurrection body."
In Genesis 3, God's reaction to Adam's sin was to promise to send Messiah. I see nowhere in Gen. 3 where He promises to redeem the physical creation. In fact, He curses the ground after He gives His promise to send the Messiah.
Appeals are usually then made to Romans 8.
Here is an excerpt from an e-mail from Dr. Kelly Birks, pastor of Messiah Reformed Church in Omaha, Nebraska:
"On Romans 8, this passage too is also speaking of human beings and Christians in particular. Check out the word for "Creature" there. It's KITISIS. Look up the places where it occurs in the NT. Mk. 16: 15, Col. 1:23, 2 Cor. 5: 17. It is often used for "people", and Christians in particular. Also, notice the context of the statement surrounding the KITISIS or "creatures" in Rom. 8: 18-23. You will see that in V. 18b, Paul is speaking of the glory that is about to be revealed in "us." So he is introducing a discussion about believers, and not inanimate objects like mountains, dirt , trees, etc. In V. 19, the creature WAITS for the manifestation of the Sons of God. How does an inanimate object WAIT for something? This context is not even a metaphorical one, so no reason to understrand this in a poetic way. In V. 20 mankind (creatures) were made subject to vanity or emptiness by Adam. In V. 21 people (creatures) are delivered from the bondage of corruption. Now we're getting into 1 Cor. 15:42, 50-54. In the resurrection at the parousia, the believer is delivered from the "corruptable" earth bound body. In Rom. 8: 22, only people can groan and travail, not inaminate objects. It's wrapped up very nicely in V.23 which you should compare to 2 Cor. 5: 1-4. Also, in Rom. 8: 23b, it says that the believers that Paul was writing to ("the glory which is about to be revelaed in US"-V. 18...) were waiting for the adoption which Paul defines as "the redemption of our body." The Greek word for "redemption" is APOLUTRO, which means to be "loosed from" something, or "freed from" something. Here, it is clear that Paul is defining the adoption as being an act that frees, or looses the believer from their earthly bodies which is the "groaning and travaling" that is going on earlier in Rom. 8: 21-22."
So, if one wants to construct an entire systematic theology of the redemption of the physical creation from this one Bible passage, they can go for it, but I personally don't think the Biblical evidence in Romans 8 is that strong.
Blessings
You have completely lost me...
Are you suggesting that Adam did not die spiritually?
In Gen. 2:17, God promised Adam that in the day he ate of the fruit, he (Adam) would die. Yet Adam did not physically die in that day--he physically died 900 + years after that. But God did sent Adam out from His presence that very day. He was removed from God's presence--this is where Adam (spiritually) died "in that day". Is this not where mankind was separated spiritually from God, resulting in the need for Messiah's redemption? Is it not sin that separated us spiritually from God?
You wrote: "When Christ died, it was not to bring us back from the spiritual death, but to keep us from even going through it. Thus, when Christ said, “He that believeth in me shall never die,” it was spiritual death that he was talking about."
I would say that when Christ died, it was indeed to bring mankind back from the spiritual death (i.e., separation from God) that Adam's sin had caused. And that from that point forward, believers are no longer subject to it. For them (us), it has been "thrown into the lake of fire"...i.e., it has been put away as far as we are concerned. We are redeemed! Praise Messiah!
Again, either Christ fulfilled ALL things as He promised...or He didn't. I believe He did because that's what the scriptures teach.
As far as the need for a sacrifice, please read my post # 714.
(And I don't understand everything either!)
Blessings
Yes, tenuously. I am suggesting that the order of "natural" then "spiritual" should be applied to birth, death and resurrection. There are two births, two deaths, and two resurrections. The natural always teaches the spiritual.
Or do you mean spiritual "rebirth"? How can you have spiritual rebirth without spiritual death?From post 699.
With birth, it is straightforward, we are first born in Adam, then we are born in Christ. Earlier you directed my attention to John 3. Spiritual rebirth would be akin to resurrection. Do you think God would use the natural birth to illustrate resurrection?
Basically, what I am saying is that the ‘”second death” is another name for “spiritual death,” just as the “second birth” is another name for “spiritual birth.” The spiritual death did not happen in the beginning in Genesis, but at the end in Revelation.
I am not exaggerating when I say that there are thousands of examples where the order “‘natural” then “spiritual” occurs. Try to find a first born son in Christ’s geneology.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.