Posted on 04/26/2002 9:01:52 AM PDT by WhatNot
Woody, it would be a nice change of pace if you actually thought through something for once. Spiritual death is defined in the Scofield notes as separation from God and that is how I am using that term. Man when born is in a state of total separation from God, unable to reach him by his own efforts. Hence, the child is both spiritually dead and physically alive, even though his human spirit is active at birth, it is in a darkened unusuable state. Thus, the need for the light of the Gospel (2Cor.4:6)
You need to decide if man is spiritually alive or spiritually dead. Is the baby born a sinner or is a baby merely born with the imputation of sin?
If a baby has the imputation of sin that means he is a sinner, since he has both the nature and the sin to go with it.
And you need to explain how out of a perverse and rebellious heart that a man submits to God and speak righteousness.
I do not know what you are talking about here. However, God did give even unregenerate man a conscience and if he does not darken it (Rom.1) he can still have integrity on the human level (Gen.20, Acts.10, Abimelech and Cornlius)
Protestantism leads to reductionism even if that reductionism needs defending by TONS of false and leaden pedantry.
Besides, folks are free to accept or reject the fullness of Life that Jesus offers them. Having rejected His Catholic Church (Matt 16:18) all the Doctrines are easy to reject. One only has to accept what they desire to accept. One's personal intellect is the measure of everything. "Hard" Teachings are rejected. See? Christianity ain't "hard." It's easy. Salvation is but one sentence spoken. I guess the "narrow" way isn't really narrow :)
I have even run into "christians" on here proclaiming that Baptism is unnecessary.
He claims that it is our bodies that are sinful, not our souls (i.e. not the 'whole' person).
Actually, he sounds quite gnostic (i.e. the physical body is bad, the seperate (an unbiblical separation I might add) soul is 'good' and 'alive'. He claims that when we 'die' we lose our 'sinful nature' by losing our bad 'bodies'.
Even though the glorified body Christ came out of the grave with was the very same 'renewed' body complete with the holes in his hands and the hole in his side, he claims we get brand new different bodies.
I don't know if there is a specific heresy he belongs to. I think he simply grabs a little from many.
Jean
Here is my observation on that Dec...using the scripture as a guide how did the sin affect Adam and Eve?
Gen 3:8 And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the LORD God amongst the trees of the garden.
That Dec is IMHO the reprobate mans reaction to God..they run and hide from Him ..they do not run to him...God has to come and cover them himself! The pitiful leaves cover them from each other ..which is mans only real interest...God has to initate the relationship
No argument here. Scripture only states that man can and should seek God, not that he does (Acts 17:10).
The Salvation plan is God seeking the Lost (Lk.19:10) which includes everyone (1Tim.2:4,4:10 Jn.12:32)
"Man at every point in his history - embryonic as well as foetal - is a union of soul and body, of mind and matter. He is both psychical and physical. There is no instant when he is [or ever was] a mere brute. An embryo without a rational principle in it, would be brutal - not human....".
"The erroneous theory of "the creation of the soul subsequently to the conception of the body -- is CONTRARY TO ALL THE ANALOGIES OF NATURE.
Under the common providence of God, AS SEEN IN NATURE, one portion of a living organism is not first propagated and then a second part created and added to it.
Composition and juxtaposition of parts is not the method in propagation. But [the method of propagation is] generation and growth of the whole individual creature - at once, and altogether...."
"Propagation implies continuity of substance and sameness of properties between the producing and the produced individuals - between theparents and the child.... In every instance of bodily conception, a certain amount of cellular substance which has been secreted and prepared by the invisible physical life, issues [forth] and is transformed into a child's embryo. The child, physically considered, is a part of the specific human nature transmitted through the parents - and by their instrumentality formed into a separate individual body. It is an offspring from them.... The soul of the child is derived simultaneously with his body - psychically, out of the common human nature which is both psychical and physical."
"...the origin of the soul is supernatural.... The human soul, as specific, was not an evolution from physical substance but a creation ex nihilo of spiritual substance." Therefore "the 'conception' of the first individual of the species was also supernatural. Genesis 2:7." Ditto the second and third individuals. Genesis 2:21f & 4:1.
Tha above was excerpted from: Page 87: W.G.T. Shedd: bodies and souls are created together (web site shown below this):
492. Several excerpts on our subject from the important writings of the great Union Theological Seminary's Dogmatician Rev. Professor Dr. William G.T. Shedd (1820-94), will be very helpful precisely at this particular point. For Shedd declares44 that our own bodies and souls are created together - just as were the body and the soul of the first man, in the way described in "Genesis 2:7."
493. For, explains Shedd, "God breathed into man's nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul." Indeed, Shedd further declares that the creation of the body and the soul of the first woman - was similar in that regard. For "the same creative act which produced the body of Eve out of a rib of Adam, produced her soul also [Genesis 2:22]. By a single divine energy, Eve was derived from Adam psychically as well as physically
494. "This goes to show that when a child of Adam is propagated, the propagation includes the whole person - and is both psychical and physical. For the connection between a child and its parents is nearer and closer than was the connection between Adam and Eve at creation.... Eve is 'the mother of all living.' Genesis 3:20. Adam 'begat a son after his own image.' Genesis 5:3.
495. "In John 1:13," continues Shedd,45 "the regenerate are said to be 'begotten (egenneetheesan) not of blood [alias human seed], nor of the will of the flesh [alias sexual appetite], nor of the will of man [alias human decision].' This implies that the unregenerate are 'begotten of blood, and of the will of the flesh, and of the will of man.' But an unregenerate man is an entire man, consisting of soul and body. His soul and body, therefore, were 'begotten and born of blood, and of the will of the flesh, and of the will of man.' In this passage, the soul sustains the same relation to generation and birth that the body does. Both come under one and the same category." Consequently, the body and the soul originate contemporaneously.
W.G.T. Shedd: "the embryonic and foetal life...includes the mental"
496. "In Psalm 139:15-16," continues Shedd further,46 "there is a description of the mysterious generation of man. 'My substance was not hid[den] from You, when I was being made in secret.' Though the reference is to the embryonic and foetal life, yet it includes the mental and moral part of man with the physical. The clauses 'I was made' and 'my substance' certainly denote the speaker as an entire whole.
497. "The same is true of the passage Job 10:10, 'have You not poured me out like milk and curdled me like cheese?' The 'me' here, is the whole person. The total ego is described as begotten [or conceived] in Jeremiah 1:5 - 'before I formed you in the belly, I knew you.' In Psalm 22:9-10, David says: 'You are He Who took me from the womb. I was cast upon You, from the womb. You are my God - from my mother's belly!'"
498. Now "original sin, propagated in every individual" - continues Shedd,47 "rests upon original sin inherent in every individual." Shedd goes on:48 "Man at every point in his history - embryonic as well as foetal - is a union of soul and body, of mind and matter. He is both psychical and physical. There is no instant when he is [or ever was] a mere brute. An embryo without a rational principle in it, would be brutal - not human....
Most early fathers accepted the creationist view that God created each individual soul at the moment he gave it a body....Arguments cited in favor of Creationism were (1) Scripture distinquishes the origin of the soul and body (Eccl. 12:7, Isa.42:5,Zech.12:1; Heb.12:9) (2) that Creationism preserves the idea of the soul as a simple, indivisible substance better then traducianism, which requires the idea of the division of the soul and it derivation from the parents, and (3)it makes more crediable Christ's retention of a pure soul than does traducianism (Concise Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, p.480).I think both views have certain strengths and believe that soul life is given at birth, while the format soul is formed with the body. Thus, you might say I am either a moderate Creationist or a moderate traducianist.
The "format soul"?????????? That sounds like another one of those UNbiblical Arminian concepts like "prevenient grace".
^^^^^^^^^
The Sovereign God ALREADY chose his "elect", and wrote their names in "The Book of Life" before the foundation of the earth. His "elect" persons (body and soul/spirit) are already "saved" to eternal life before they are ever actually formed in the flesh (body/soul/spirit) at the moment of conception.
Therefore, IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE, whether those elect souls die in the womb, are aborted, are born mentally retarded, are born normal and then develop problems, suffer brain damage, etc., etc., on and on ad infinitum.
Those who refuse to admit that, do it because it doesn't fit with the man-centered "religion" (Arminianism) they embrace.
Here is the Sovereign God's "IN YOUR FACE" answer to man-centered, religious fools:
"Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad--in order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls--she was told, "The older will serve the younger." Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion" [Romans 9:11-15].
*Before* the twins had done anything good or bad God had elected one to salvation and the other to wrath, as He, NOT sinful man, is sovereign in salvation. "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me" [Psalm 51:5].
Ideas about an "age of accountability" or any other ideas that suggest that fallen man --- DEAD in sin --- should have a second chance and should still have the *ability* (another opportunity) to "choose" the Truth of God, are totally UNBIBLICAL.
"Men" exchanged the Truth of God for The Lie. "Men" PREFERRED THE LIE.
God is under no compulsion to save any of the men who rejected him because of preferring the lie.
Every man receives either justice or mercy - none receive injustice.
But, of course, relativistic, fallen men believe themselves to be MORE "caring, compassionate and just, than God, himself.
Of course such wonderful souls "DESERVE paradise", *IF* they choose to accept it.
The Sovereign God is an UNJUST God in the eyes of those who hate him.
This is new?? :D
"Therefore .... [spiritual and physical] DEATH CAME to ALL MEN, because *ALL* SINNED" [the sin of Adam] [Romans 5:12].
Note that it doesn't use the present tense by saying, "..death comes to all men because all sin."
"All sinnED" is past tense. It is the sin of Adam that is being talked about. That only occurred once. (One can only exchange what one possesses).
"...For ALL have sinned...." [Rom.3:23]
Note that Paul is talking about the past, otherwise he would have said, "...all sin...". He is talking about *the* sin in Eden.
It is THE sin in Eden, that resulted in spiritual death for *ALL* who sinned.
The article you quoted said:
...but it is primarily a description of the existential situation of man throughout history. 18 ~
There is no evidence whatsoever to support this offhand statement. The aorist grammar actually militates against this reading.
No, it is an attempt to reconcile two views that both have some validity to them.
#873-"There is no instant when he is [or ever was] a mere brute. An embryo without a rational principle in it, would be brutal - not human...." "The fact that there is no manifestation of mind, does not prove that there is no mental principle in the human embryo. The newborn child reveals moral and mental traits [almost] as little as does the unborn child [which also possesses them].... In the foetal state, the soul 'sleeps'" - without being totally unconscious - just "as it does in the infant or the adult. Only it [the foetal 'sleep'] is a continual sleep. But the soul is as really existent in its 'sleeping' state - as in its 'waking' state." ~
Yes, that could well occur in a format soul.
^^^^^^^^^ The Sovereign God ALREADY chose his "elect", and wrote their names in "The Book of Life" before the foundation of the earth. His "elect" persons (body and soul/spirit) are already "saved" to eternal life before they are ever actually formed in the flesh (body/soul/spirit) at the moment of conception.
I did not think this post would lead to nonsense about unconditional election!
Therefore, IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE, whether those elect souls die in the womb, are aborted, are born mentally retarded, are born normal and then develop problems, suffer brain damage, etc., etc., on and on ad infinitum.
Well, the problem comes in when you find no Biblical proof for unconditional election. So, those of us who reject it as philisophical doubletalk prefer a more Biblical approach to understanding what happens to those who never have a chance to accept or reject Christ.
Those who refuse to admit that, do it because it doesn't fit with the man-centered "religion" (Arminianism) they embrace.
So, where did this tirade come from?
Here is the Sovereign God's "IN YOUR FACE" answer to man-centered, religious fools: "Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad--in order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls--she was told, "The older will serve the younger." Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated." What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion" [Romans 9:11-15].
Maybe you should do some actual Bible reading instead of reading those theology texts. Both Esau and Jacob represent nations
And the Lord said unto her, two nations are in thy womb and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people, and the elder shall serve the younger (Gen.25:23)
*Before* the twins had done anything good or bad God had elected one to salvation and the other to wrath, as He, NOT sinful man, is sovereign in salvation. "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me" [Psalm 51:5].
No, he selected the nations based on what their preforseen attitude would be to God. Esau despised his birthright (Gen.25:34)
Ideas about an "age of accountability" or any other ideas that suggest that fallen man --- DEAD in sin --- should have a second chance and should still have the *ability* (another opportunity) to "choose" the Truth of God, are totally UNBIBLICAL. "Men" exchanged the Truth of God for The Lie. "Men" PREFERRED THE LIE. God is under no compulsion to save any of the men who rejected him because of preferring the lie.
Here is the Calvinist using Arminian terms rejected as if the unelected had a choice to reject God.
Every man receives either justice or mercy - none receive injustice.
Said like a Calvinist who believes he is one of the Elect. Yea, it is fair if I am elected and everyone goes to hell! After all they deserve it (and you didn't?)
But, of course, relativistic, fallen men believe themselves to be MORE "caring, compassionate and just, than God, himself. >
No, we just look at what the scripture actually says. Just as Calvin himself, in one of his rare moments of sanity stated
Not willing that any should perish. So wonderful is his love towards mankind, that he would have them all to be saved, and is of his own self prepared to bestow salvation on the lost. But the order is to be noticed, that God is ready to receive all to repentance, so that none may perish;
Of course such wonderful souls "DESERVE paradise", *IF* they choose to accept it.
And you deserve it it anymore then the lost do? And they talk about the humility that Calvinistic election results in! LOL!
The Sovereign God is an UNJUST God in the eyes of those who hate him. This is new?? :D
No, the god of Calvin is not the God of the scriptures, that is why we hate that god, not the real God of the Bible.
"Therefore .... [spiritual and physical] DEATH CAME to ALL MEN, because *ALL* SINNED" [the sin of Adam] [Romans 5:12]. Note that it doesn't use the present tense by saying, "..death comes to all men because all sin." "All sinnED" is past tense. It is the sin of Adam that is being talked about. That only occurred once. (One can only exchange what one possesses). "...For ALL have sinned...." [Rom.3:23] Note that Paul is talking about the past, otherwise he would have said, "...all sin...". He is talking about *the* sin in Eden.
Yea, I agreed with that. I said that everyone received the sin of Adam at birth.
It is THE sin in Eden, that resulted in spiritual death for *ALL* who sinned.
Amen! and that condemnation of all led to the possiblity of all being saved by the second Adam (Rom.5:18)
He made many statements in that commentary that have no Scriptural support. RnMomof7 posted his commentary in a separate thread linked here. For instance, this is a very Pelagian statement he made that I've excerpted here: All have turned astray after Adam's example
ORIGINAL SIN AND SANCTIFICATION: A PROBLEM FOR WESLEYANS http://wesley.nnu.edu/theojrnl/16-20/18-16.htm | 5/13/02 | Vern A Hannah --- Posted on 5/13/02 6:41 PM Eastern by RnMomof7
It's called, "cutting to the chase". Your eisegetical tattered and torn slip was showing. :D
Interesting read..but it truely left me wondering how anyone can deny the possibility of the imputation of sin through Adam and yet accept the imputation of salvation grace through Christ..
Since both views are held to be orthodox you had to find something we disagree on so you could pop off about some Calvinistic nonsense.
You wouldn't happen to know Woody would you?
You replied: "Amen! and that condemnation of all led to the possiblity of all being saved by the second Adam (Rom.5:18)"
You'd better watch what you say, ftD ... you might be one of the elect and God just hasn't dealt with you yet. :D
I love it when Calvinists just run to proof texts like they are the only ones in the Bible.
Moreover, you do not even attempt to explain Rom.5:18!
Christ died for all men (1Jn.2:2, Heb.2:9 and Jn.3:16)
The fact that there would be those who would reject the free offer of salvation was also known to Him.(Jn.3:36)
You'd better watch what you say, ftD ... you might be one of the elect and God just hasn't dealt with you yet. :D
Oh, I am one of the Elect I am member of the Body of Christ,(Eph.1:23) the Church, which is His Bride (Eph.5) and have been adopted as His co-heir (Rom.8) which is what Election pertains to, not salvation but adoption
Over SIX HUNDRED POSTS into a thread, David wanders in. He picks up a rhetorical cudgel and starts hammering away. Welcome to the bloodbath, David. Ths is your cup-o-tea. Your antiRoman itch REALLY neeeded scratching, didn't it? I am happy you have found a kindred spirit.
O.P.'s hatred of Catholicism seems as mephitic, irrational and diabolical as yours.
Adam was born from an Uncursed (Sinless) Mother Earth. Jesus was born of a sinless Mother Mary, The Theotokos.
Boy, do I wish I had stuck to my initial decision. I decided to click on a link from an entirely different thread and found myself back on this one. Good Lord...what insanity.
ALL the same OLD charges of "you worship Mary" and "Jesus was speaking in a metaphor when He taught about the Eucharist" and "sola scriptura" ....
What was new was the vile, mephitic hatred and the self-righteous defense of the personal assaults...
Folks, EVERYONE should back away from this rapidly before a whirlpol of hatred is created that drags us all down...
On Earth, Peace to men of Goodwill. This time, link or no link, I am off this kind of thread permanently
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.