Are we born spiritually dead?

So, you believe if I can teach my children not to sin, they will not be subject to death?

This is MUMBO JUMBO.

Bro. Dallas

 

actually, Brother Bill, the law was not simply being a tutor. the key word to look at this is "imputed". as it is stated in Romans 5: "...For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law....

you see, without law, there is actually no sin! we will not be imputed of sin if there is no law. why? because the law is not simply a tutor for us to know which is sin or not. the law actually makes certain deeds to be sin. thus, without the law, man will not be imputed of sin. so you see, it's not the simply the knowledge that the law brings, but imputation.

if there is no law, there is no sin. this does not mean there is no knowledge of sin. rather this means that there is no imputation of sin, as stated in Romans 5.

when we look at the logic, we should say yes, since God will not have anything to do with someone who does not meet His standard of righteousness.

 

No, your not understanding my argument Dallas. All men are subject to death because all men sin, but my question is are they born already dead. That is the question that you seem to be avoiding.

"Mumbo Jumbo" is a term I made up to address those who ignore the argument while attacking personally, changing the subject, or dragging the debate into the mud. This doesn't qualify for Mumbo Jumbo because I'm merely asking you to clarify your position on my original question. Thanks for understanding. </font>[/QUOTE]From this argument, Brother Bill, your premise falls, the only way it could stand that man is not born depraved would mean that man is not born subject to death, as the wages of sin. To me this is obvious, I don't know why others cannot see the connection. From the moment of birth man is dying, why? Because of the sin nature he is born into, this nature thus proclaims the depravity of man and is beared out by the fact that some infants die, never having 'committed' sin.

Though my earlier post does not explain to this depth, I thought perhaps the connection was obvious. I guess not.

Bro. Dallas

 

Brother Bill:

there is a difference with Paul's approach in Roman as against Galatians. yup, in Galatians he said that the law was our schoolmaster (or tutor in other versions). but in Romans he explains that the law was given to make certain things sin.

in the Galatians Paul said that the law was our schoolmaster to lead us to Christ. what this means is that the law was given to prove to man that he is not right with God. if God will give a law, definitely there will be more chances for man to sin and thus know that he is not acceptable to God. this is what the law teaches as a tutor/schoolmaster.

the law was not given to clear things up for man so that man will know that certain deeds are worthy of spiritual death! but without any law there will be no disobedience and there will be no sin. in effect, the law was given to make certain deeds sin. this lead to man committing more sins. and this had a purpose of getting each man realize that he is not worthy of salvation. with this, he tries to find grace, which he does in Christ. this is the concept of the law being a tutor/schoolmaster - the realization!

in Romans: Paul established that the law made certain things sin - it made sin possible.

in Galatians: Paul explained that the law was to teach man his depravity - he stated the purpose of the law.

actually, the people from Adam to Moses had the sin nature with them. they also had the original sin imputed to them. thus, they are worthy of spiritual death. this is why even without the law, even without anythig to break, they are under the curse of death. i think that when the scriptures said that when there was no law between Adam to Moses, you interpreted it as that the sin nature was not passed from Adam to Moses. but it isn't the case. what it means is that there was nothing to disobey, since there is no law. yet with this, people at that time are subject to death. why? it's because of the sin they did not do, but Adam did, and that was sovereignly imputed by God to each born child without consideration of their volition. this, then, resulted to the death (both spiritual and physical) of each person even at that time when there was no law.

when a child is born, he is imputed of the sin of Adam. this caused him his spiritual death. it was not the giving of the law that cause imputation of Adam's sin to each born person. rather it is the sovereign act of God. it may sound cruel, but it is only cruel for the non-elect if you are a Calvinist, since the non-elect had no choice but to accept God's sovereign decision to impute Adam's sin/guilt to him, without any choice to be saved, since his ability to accept God was also taken away due also to something which he is not to be blamed for.

 

Dallas, look at what you wrote. We agree.

You have gone from saying what most Calvinist say, "We are born dead." To saying what I've been arguing, "From the moment of birth man is dying." There is a difference! One is born dead, the other dies as a result of his behavior over a period of time. That is a huge step away from traditional Calivinism but don't let that stop you.

How long before someone dies after they are born? How long does the "dying" process take? </font>[/QUOTE]Bro. Bill,

We are born spiritually dead and when we are saved we pass from death to life. The flesh remains dead; death, physical is a process, but it is sure to all who live that they will either die or be raptured if saved, either way, this corruptible must put on incorruptible. To be corruptible you think means a graduated scale, but it does not it speaks of the completeness of the degradation into which man is born into. If not then it could be said, in view of your question to Aki, that some men would be able to live a sinless life, deliver themselves and thus have no need of the Christ of God; they would become their own redeemer.

Man is born wholly dead in the spirit and dying in the flesh. This is so because not one is able to add a moment beyond the bounds God has set for him, if we could do so many would, I won't say all would, but many would. To assume mad did not know the act of Cain was sin is to disregard the plea of Cain with God that resulted in the mark being put on Cain.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

ok now, Brother Bill, i see where you are going. i can give answers for each of your questions, but it will only lead me to some more questions that are new to me, as per the direction of this discussion.

 

Thanks </font>[/QUOTE]actually they do not contradict. it is true that without the law man cannot be imputed of sins since there has been no disobedience (for there is nothing to disobey). Adam, however, disobeyed a law that was given in his time. that sin of his was the one imputed to all men.

so what i am saying is that man is imputed of a sin he did not do, but Adam did. and those from Adam to Moses, though having no law, and thus having no personal sins to be imputed to them, was still imputed of Adam's sin.

 

Again you are attempting to prove a righteousness of man apart from the righteousness of God in Christ that would make the man no longer subject to death. The bottom line is that our physical death makes total depravity a reality, like it or not. this is made evident as we have discussed previously in the fact that death does not come only to those who have experienced a life in this world, but also to those who are conceived, where ever there is the miracle of life there is the reality of death, this reality is not something we are made subject to because we chose to sin, as Yelsew points out, what sin does a newborn choose, what sin have those who are aborted chosen?

The premise that man is born essentially good and then falls into enmity with God is disproven by the very Word of God and by the reality in which we live and breath in our present world.

Bro. dallas

 

Yes, you're wrong, and that's surprising since you are a self-professed expert on what the Bible doesn't say. Actually, I guess that explains your error, since what you don't know is what it does say, which is something that doesn't seem to concern you nearly as much.

It says:

Genesis 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.

So while it doesn't say "moment" it says "day" (yowm). Since Adam did not physically die that day, well, you can figure out the rest...

 

Excellent post Nepetreley oops mispelled your name again

Bro.Dallas

 

Yes, you're wrong, and that's surprising since you are a self-professed expert on what the Bible doesn't say. Actually, I guess that explains your error, since what you don't know is what it does say, which is something that doesn't seem to concern you nearly as much.

It says:

Genesis 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.

So while it doesn't say "moment" it says "day" (yowm). Since Adam did not physically die that day, well, you can figure out the rest... </font>[/QUOTE]

AND

Though long lived, Adam died!