Law of sin

All that is true but nevertheless Adam had a disposition that Jesus did not have having a natural mind and not a spiritual mind
You cannot make statements like that and expect people to agree if there's not scriptural support provided. The fact of scripture is God looked at Adam and God Himself deemed Him good. I am unaware of any scripture dichotomizing "natural" and "spiritual" prior to Genesis 3:7. Even in the post-disobedient state God saw fit to have sinful men filled with His Spirit (albeit not in a redeemed manner but filled nonetheless). The pre-disobedient Adam was not a 1 Cor. 2:14 natural man.
He did not have spiritual life like Jesus did.
No one has a spiritual life the way Jesus has! Jesus is God! Don't start sounding like Gary thinking you can be Jesus. Jesus could actually consider equality with God something to be grasped. He has never known sin in any way but you and I will always bear the mark of disobedience and only in our glorification of Christ resurrected will that mark become mark of honor testifying to God's great power of grace, mercy, forgiveness, redemption, reconciliation, etc. One day we will be raised incorruptible but that won't change the fact a price was paid.

Adam not being Jesus does not mean he was a natural man to the exclusion of also being a spiritual man.

You'll have to show me the scripture - correctly rendered - to make that case.
God bless you.
Thanks. You too ;):cool:
He was in darkness because he hid not have spiritual life.
That's a post-Genesis 3:7 condition. That's not a pre-disobedient condition. That's not the way God made him. The 1 Corinthians 15 Adam is not the Romans 5 Adam. There's nothing inherently sinful or dead about the living soul Adam (1 Cor. 15). The Romans 5 Adam that has acted disobediently is dead in sin. That guy has fallen under the domain of the law of sin and death (see my op-reply on Post #18). Paul's 1 Corinthian 15 "living soul" Adam is the Genesis 2:7 Adam, not the Genesis 3:6-7 Adam. The two should not be conflated or confused.
As you know Adam need Jesus to save him even before he sinned.
Yes, he did, but it was not because he was inherently sinful or because the natural and spiritual are mutually exclusive conditions.


Make your case. I'll read it. I'll give credit where warranted, affirm what is correct, refute what is wrong, and ask about what is either not understood or what is not made clear.
 
Based upon the conditions you have laid out? Show us where the Scriptures use the term "Trinity."
Nope. Shifting onus. I don't do fallacy. I don't do red herrings, straw men, ad hominem, tu quoques, or attempts at shifting onuses. I call them what they are (fallacious) and move on.


Answer the question asked.
 
........except those who are spiritually mature when Christ returns there is a new spiritual body................
Right there is one of the nuts of the issue.

How can a dead in sin but redeemed person be spiritually mature if he has no Spirit? If he has the Spirit then how can he not be a spiritual man? Being a spiritual man, how can he then become a spiritual man in a spiritual body if the resurrected body still has flesh (as Jesus' body still had)? These are the kinds of distinction I don't read being address, the kinds of questions I don't see being asked or answered.

As another poster noted, not all deaths are alike. Neither are all lives. Nor or all "spiritualities" (for lack of a better term ;)). The life of the pre-disobedient Adam, the glowing Moses, the prophetic Daniel, the summoning Elijah, the healing pre-Calvary disciples..... all of these are examples of the diverse manifestation of God in men, and none of them are identical to the post-Calvary and post-Pentecost Christian (who will be much different on the other side of resurrection).
 
Right there is one of the nuts of the issue.

How can a dead in sin but redeemed person be spiritually mature if he has no Spirit? If he has the Spirit then how can he not be a spiritual man? Being a spiritual man, how can he then become a spiritual man in a spiritual body if the resurrected body still has flesh (as Jesus' body still had)? These are the kinds of distinction I don't read being address, the kinds of questions I don't see being asked or answered.

As another poster noted, not all deaths are alike. Neither are all lives. Nor or all "spiritualities" (for lack of a better term ;)). The life of the pre-disobedient Adam, the glowing Moses, the prophetic Daniel, the summoning Elijah, the healing pre-Calvary disciples..... all of these are examples of the diverse manifestation of God in men, and none of them are identical to the post-Calvary and post-Pentecost Christian (who will be much different on the other side of resurrection).
We need more understanding on these things, Josheb. God bless you. :)
 
You cannot make statements like that and expect people to agree if there's not scriptural support provided. The fact of scripture is God looked at Adam and God Himself deemed Him good. I am unaware of any scripture dichotomizing "natural" and "spiritual" prior to Genesis 3:7. Even in the post-disobedient state God saw fit to have sinful men filled with His Spirit (albeit not in a redeemed manner but filled nonetheless). The pre-disobedient Adam was not a 1 Cor. 2:14 natural man.

No one has a spiritual life the way Jesus has! Jesus is God! Don't start sounding like Gary thinking you can be Jesus. Jesus could actually consider equality with God something to be grasped. He has never known sin in any way but you and I will always bear the mark of disobedience and only in our glorification of Christ resurrected will that mark become mark of honor testifying to God's great power of grace, mercy, forgiveness, redemption, reconciliation, etc. One day we will be raised incorruptible but that won't change the fact a price was paid.

Adam not being Jesus does not mean he was a natural man to the exclusion of also being a spiritual man.

You'll have to show me the scripture - correctly rendered - to make that case.

Thanks. You too ;):cool:

That's a post-Genesis 3:7 condition. That's not a pre-disobedient condition. That's not the way God made him. The 1 Corinthians 15 Adam is not the Romans 5 Adam. There's nothing inherently sinful or dead about the living soul Adam (1 Cor. 15). The Romans 5 Adam that has acted disobediently is dead in sin. That guy has fallen under the domain of the law of sin and death (see my op-reply on Post #18). Paul's 1 Corinthian 15 "living soul" Adam is the Genesis 2:7 Adam, not the Genesis 3:6-7 Adam. The two should not be conflated or confused.

Yes, he did, but it was not because he was inherently sinful or because the natural and spiritual are mutually exclusive conditions.


Make your case. I'll read it. I'll give credit where warranted, affirm what is correct, refute what is wrong, and ask about what is either not understood or what is not made clear.
Let us rest in God and leave it with him and test the Spirit teach us. As God shows us more we can discuss this together. . I hope that is okay with you. God bless you.
 
All that is true but nevertheless Adam had a disposition that Jesus did not have having a natural mind and not a spiritual mind He did not have spiritual life like Jesus did. God bless you. He was in darkness because he fid not have spiritual life. As you know Adam need Jesus to save him even before he sinned.

Adam had to have a spiritual mind in order to fellowship with the Lord and to do his will, which Adam had done up to the point of eating the forbidden fruit. He died spiritually when he ate. Then he became a "natural mind."
 
Nope. Shifting onus. I don't do fallacy. I don't do red herrings, straw men, ad hominem, tu quoques, or attempts at shifting onuses. I call them what they are (fallacious) and move on.


Answer the question asked.
You are doing it again.... I asked an honest question.. One that demanded an honest answer.

By your fruit I keep losing respect for you.
 
Adam had to have a spiritual mind in order to fellowship with the Lord and to do his will, which Adam had done up to the point of eating the forbidden fruit. He died spiritually when he ate. Then he became a "natural mind."
No, Adam gave into his carnal mind and therefore sinned. Jesus did not do that. The first Adam was formed with a natural mind not a spiritual one.

1Co 15:45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

1Co 15:46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

Stick with the scriptures! God bless you.:)

 
You are doing it again.... I asked an honest question.. One that demanded an honest answer.

By your fruit I keep losing respect for you.
No, you did not. There is no truth in attempting to change the subject away from its origins. The truth is another poster already asked this question and I have already answered and addressed it more than 100 posts ago! (see post #166) There is no truth in acting like that's not the case.

The original question should have been answered when it was asked. Now, many exchanges later the question has still not been answered, and complaints of stonewalling are not only untrue; they are self-indicting. Just answer the question!






Go back to post #36, and post #54. That's where this all began. From the outset the answer was avoided and not forthcoming. At some point it was apparently assumed I didn't know something and in what was, at that time, probably a good-faith effort on your part, an attempt was made to answer something that was not asked and something that did not need answering or explaining. That, in turn, led to an appeal to extra-biblical sources, one of which may not have been realized as a cult source; one claimed not to have considered for many years even though it is stated at the top of the source. Along the way other mistakes ensued and what I received turned from defense to adversary. Unnecessarily so, because all that was requested was a straight answer to a simple question upon which we all should have agreement. No reason for suspicion at all. Maybe I'll be forgiven for exploiting the opportunity, maybe I won't, but the wholesale ignoring of the question proves my point: the language of "spiritual death" is dubious at best until its scriptural foundation is established, and some semblance of a uniform definition is available. People using the same term with different meanings leads to people talking past one another, meaningless exchanges, and potentially greater problems of ambiguity. At worst it leads to bad doctrine and possible deception. Think I'm way off base? Then consider what you or I mean when we use words like "God," Jesus," and "Son of God," compared to what an LDS means. The JWs, LDS, and orthodox Christians all use the same language but mean vastly different things when we do so. Since you've apparently learned from Local Church resources you may have already fallen prey to that problem and don't realize it, or maybe like Gary (a sinless perfectionist) or SD (a universalist) Lee was posted knowingly aware his views are outside of the pale. I don't know. I didn't know whether that's the case because I don't yet know your views well enough. What I do know is the question asked was not answered when asked. I am not stopping anyone from doing so. We wouldn't be having any of this mess now and it has reached the point where I am now being asked questions I have already answered and addressed, and you're acting as if that's not the case and calling it honest! I, apparently, MUST answer every question I am asked and never expect parity. I have explained my purpose in several posts and still there is no answer to the question asked.




Just answer the question!
You are doing it again....
The facts in evidence prove otherwise.


Just answer the question!
 
......let's lay some groundwork questions.

1. Do you believe humans have a spirit that is the spiritual side of them wherein they know and experience God?
Certainly. It is true of those who are dead in sin, those most consider "spiritually dead". How then can we use such a phrase?
2. Do you think the human spirit is incapable of anything considered death or dying?
You might consider me the antithesis of SD. He's a universalist and I lean towards the J. I. Packer view of annihilation so, yes, the human spirit can not only die; it can be destroyed to the point of no longer existing. Very real and important problems arise when we start to say God creates things that He cannot kill or undo. The problem is the use of the phrase "spiritual death" when the spirit is not actually dead on this side of the grave. Spiritual faculties may be dulled but they are not dead. I have already provided a sampling of Old and New verses proving that to be the case. No one asked me for them; I volunteered them. Yet when I ask my question.....







(crickets chirping)
3. If you do consider the human spirit capable of dying, when do you think that would be possible to happen?
I don't consider it literally dead on this side of the grave. This is evidenced by the fact all humans know of God's existence. Even the God denier of Romans 1 knows this.

And had my question been answered when asked we might have had a more collaborative and affirming conversation.
4. If you do consider the human spirit capable of dying, what do you think that would mean or represent?
Already answered in prior posts.
5. If you do not consider the human spirit capable dying, do you believe the term "spiritual life" can mean something still?
Scripture certainly testifies this is the case. All of the disciples were dead in sin prior to Calvary. None of them had the Pentecost experience and yet they were granted the keys to the kingdom (and even then remained dull). Hebrews 11's list of people of faith were all dead in sin yet they saw something they never received, longing for its promise.
They way I see it, our spirit is capable of being dead in sins separated from the grace of God, or alive in Christ through his Person and Work, and those are the two fundamental states.
Great.

Show me the scripture?

Define your terms.

Why use the phrase "spiritually dead" when that's not actually the case and there are better, more scripturally consistent alternatives (you just used some of them!)? Is it not because we hear that phrase from the pulpit, the latest best-seller, or the radio and accept it uncritically as veracious? Then when someone comes along and asks about that division ensues. Do you think that is how it is supposed to work?

I did not show up to throw a grenade into the forum. I've asked this same question of many Church leaders, not just my peers. I've heard some very astute answers as well as some very stupid ones (and I do not use that label lightly). How well do you think your peers are doing in response to this particular inquiry? Can you now see the problem to be solved?


What's this op's topic?
 
1Co 15:46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
You are out of the right context. That is not speaking of Adam before he fell being 'natural.' That is speaking of having a body from earth (natural) vs having a body from heaven (spiritual). We are not there yet. None of us are. Not until we receive our resurrection body.

Yet? While on earth? Paul, by means of the Holy Spirit filling him, was a spiritual person. But, with a body yet of this earth.

You are getting oranges mixed in with some apples.

Now here is the context of what Paul spoke of. (1 Corinthians 15:42-48)

So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable;
it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural
body, it is raised a spiritual body.
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven.


"Natural and spiritual" in that case was about the state of the body. For, the soul when being filled with the Spirit is now spiritual, even though we yet be in a natural body of this earth!
This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit,
explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words." 1 Corinthians 2:13​
 
Just answer the question!
Just tell the truth. Can you admit you do not know as much as you dogmatically assert you do?

Insight involves what is not spelled out in black and white as you demand it to be.


"And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight." Philippians 1:9

"Reflect on what I am saying, for the Lord will give you insight into all this." 2 Tim 2:7​


And, once again.. show us where in the Bible we find the term "Trinity?" You lose in hypocrisy every time you refuse to be honest with that question.


Just answer the question!!! Show us where in the Bible we find the term "Trinity?"

You're being hypocritical. You want to bully the narrative with demands that are not Scriptural.


grace and peace! :)
 
You are out of the right context. That is not speaking of Adam before he fell being 'natural.' That is speaking of having a body from earth (natural) vs having a body from heaven (spiritual). We are not there yet. None of us are. Not until we receive our resurrection body.

Yet? While on earth? Paul, by means of the Holy Spirit filling him, was a spiritual person. But, with a body yet of this earth.

You are getting oranges mixed in with some apples.

Now here is the context of what Paul spoke of. (1 Corinthians 15:42-48)

So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable;
it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural
body, it is raised a spiritual body.
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man is of heaven. As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the heavenly man, so also are those who are of heaven.


"Natural and spiritual" in that case was about the state of the body. For, the soul when being filled with the Spirit is now spiritual, even though we yet be in a natural body of this earth!
This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit,
explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words." 1 Corinthians 2:13​
 
It is discussing mind and body because those who have spiritually bodies have a spirituel disposition and matured in their spiritual growth. Easy to understand right? God bless you. :)
 
So what fruit did you have at that time? For the outcome of those things results in disgrace and death.
But the gracious gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Rom 6:21-23


That's a long-winded way of saying, whatever is not of faith is sin. (Rom 14:23)
But to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure, but both their mind and their conscience are defiled. Titus 1:15
I suppose one could say what is not of faith is sin. Most cant muster enough faith to even exercise the least of the gifts let alone faith to be saved by God to be like Him and walk as He walks in His same light with the same signs following just as Jesus walks in His light starting in Matt 3:16.
 
Adam had to have a spiritual mind in order to fellowship with the Lord and to do his will, which Adam had done up to the point of eating the forbidden fruit. He died spiritually when he ate. Then he became a "natural mind."
Actually it is just the opposite. He didnt become like God at all until God opened up His knowledge in Adam. See Gen 3:22, Everyone who has receieved from God His mind, Spirit, knowledge, are like Him. Jesus became like Him in Matt 3:16 just as Adam did in Gen 3:22. Abraham, Moses, 120 and all today do the same who God is manifest in us to have His same mind, the mind of Christ, a mind that is anointed of God, Christ in you.
 
Romans 7



Many use chapter 7 in Romans to state the Law of God is done away with. And to prove that we will always sin because we can’t help ourselves. Both these statements are a lie. Please follow along.



Paul says in chapter 7 verse 7 that he would not have known sin if it were not for the law. Then in verse 8 it states that this sin, not the commandment or law. But this sin that he would not have known if it were not for the law, used the law as a starting point and produced in him all many of covetousness. Because without the law he did not know sin. Therefore sin was dead. But when the commandment came that showed him his sin. Sin became alive and he died. Then in verse 10 he states the commandment that was meant to be for life he found it to be unto death. Why? Because it showed him that he was sinning according to the context. Then in verse 11 it says that sin that deceived him and through the commandment that showed him what sin is he was slain. Therefore the Law is Holy just and good. Then so as we do not get confused he asks a question. He asked, “ was that which is good, the commandment making death unto him? He says no, let it never be. But sin showing itself to be sin by the death that it is working in Me through that which is good, the commandment might become extremely sinful.



So you see sin is the issue not the law. However All the law does is it shows us the wrong we do. But once we done wrong, the wrong keeps working more wrong in us even though we know the law. Knowing the law does not help us. Because Even if we do good evil is present with us. And the evil we would not that we do. So then it is no longer we that do it but that sin that is in us. I find that this issue is also a law. And this other law that brings death wars against the Law of God in which we serve with our mind.



So Who shall deliver us from this body of death. Thank you God for Jesus Because I can’t help myself even though I serve God through the law with my mind my flesh still serves sin. Thank you God because there is now no condemnation to us who are in Christ Jesus. For the Law of the Spirit of life that is in Christ Jesus has set us free from the law of sin, the evil that we would not but do, and the death in which it causes. For God sent His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and condemned sin in the flesh that the righteousness of the law be fulfilled in us who walk after the Spirit of life that is in Christ Jesus not after the flesh that sin is condemned in.
 
JonHawk said:
So what fruit did you have at that time? For the outcome of those things results in disgrace and death.
But the gracious gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Rom 6:21-23


That's a long-winded way of saying, whatever is not of faith is sin. (Rom 14:23)
But to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure, but both their mind and their conscience are defiled. Titus 1:15
I suppose one could say what is not of faith is sin. Most cant muster enough faith to even exercise the least of the gifts let alone faith to be saved by God to be like Him and walk as He walks in His same light with the same signs following just as Jesus walks in His light starting in Matt 3:16.
I say, by the grace that is given me, that you ought to be sound-minded, as God given to each a measure of faith: Rom 12:3
For though we are many, we all partake of the one loaf. 1 Cor 6:17

There is one body [of believers] one Spirit just as you were called to salvation; One Lord, one faith...Eph 4:4-5
 
Last edited:
Just tell the truth. Can you admit you do not know as much as you dogmatically assert you do?
I have never dogmatically asserted I know anything. You're off base and arguing a red herring in another attempt at avoiding the question.
Insight involves what is not spelled out in black and white as you demand it to be.
Another red herring. No one has been black or white about anything, or demanding. If I am demanding it is with you, and it because you're troll. Read your last ten posts. They contain nothing more than content intended to provoke. If you do not want to be that guy then don't be that guy. Just answer the question asked. Of course, if this is a stronghold within you then everyone here knows you will be unable to change and we'll read more of the same failure to answer the question asked and I'll be able to string you along with the same exact response post after post ad nauseam: Just answer the question! ;)
"And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight." Philippians 1:9

"Reflect on what I am saying, for the Lord will give you insight into all this." 2 Tim 2:7
You might try practicing what you preach and love me. Start by answering the question.
And, once again.. show us where in the Bible we find the term "Trinity?" You lose in hypocrisy every time you refuse to be honest with that question.

Just answer the question!!! Show us where in the Bible we find the term "Trinity?"
Already answered and addressed. Once again. Your turn: Answer the question.
You're being hypocritical. You want to bully the narrative with demands that are not Scriptural.


grace and peace! :)
No, you're the one being dogmatic, hypocritical, and bullying, ungracious and adversarial. This would be over in a minute if the question asked were answered.


Just answer the question.
 
Back
Top