Is Physical Death the Penalty for Sin?

If I may presume to answer for another pastor, I think my brother was making reference to Hebrews 11:5, "By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death."

 

The wages of sin is death. That is physical death, which comes to all until the rapture and resurrection, spiritual death which is true of all in their natural state, and eternal death which is the experience of all who die in unbelief.

I don't think Enoch and Elijah's case really make any difference to the truth that death in all its forms are part and parcel of the curse. Adam did not physically die the day he disobeyed God, but he did die spiritually. God, as Sovereign over His own affairs, is perfectly within his rights to allow Enoch and Elijah to by pass physical death if He so chooses, this does not alter the general rule that the soul that sinneth it shall die.

 

We do always err when we try to fit God into a box. The Scripture is clear that God’s ways are not our ways and His thoughts are not our thoughts. God is God and He can do whatever He wants to do. If He chooses to exempt a man from the penalty of death, that is certainly His prerogative. If He chooses to allow certain men to experience death twice, as did Lazarus, then He has that right as well.

It has been stated, numerous times, that death is the separation of the soul and body. The physical, sin-cursed body cannot enter heaven. Therefore, in the case of Enoch, Elijah, and the future New Testament saints taken in the rapture, at some point mortals will put on immortality and corruption will put on incorruption. That would certainly classify as physical death.

Regardless, Hebrews 11:5 is given to typify the saints who will be living when Jesus comes. They will be caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord and will not see death as do most men. It is most definitely not a contradiction of Romans 5:12.

 

I am not sure why you are asking "Are you honestly taking the position that unbelief is not sin?" I know you will be able to explain why you have the right to ask the question, but it appears that you are merely being contentious in asking. Of all the things I have recently posted on this topic zeroing in on this seems trivial.

But to answer the question to clear up the record for you and anybody else that would have ever seriously considered asking, unbelief is sin. My point in saying "it is not sin that makes us lose our salvation" is that there are false teachers out there saying you lose you salvation if you "sin". As you are very aware, there are true, weak believers out there that are in fear of God's love and forgiveness due to them stumbling in any way.

They need to be reminded that they have an advocate:

I John 2:1 "My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: 2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for our's only, but also for the sins of the whole world."

I John 2:12 "I write unto you, little children, because your sins are forgiven you for his name's sake."

Your use of "Does not Scripture state that “ANYTHING not of faith IS sin?” is not helpful in this context. The previous verse makes it clear that it is not God that condemns him, rather it is himself .

HP asked "Was the death of Christ unable to succor that for which it was intended, or is double jeopardy in play?" This reminds me of the poll about the 10 Commandments. It is obviously neither and the question appears to be loaded. Christ died to gain victory over death. He did that, and I know thatit is no longer my enemy.

I Cor. 15:36 Thou fool(Paul's words, not mine :thumbs: ), that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die:

So in reality death is something to look forward to by believers. Paul did. If a seed could, it would look forward to being sown even though it were about to die. It would be how it could be changed into a more glorious form.

I Cor. 15:42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: 43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit. 46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. 47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. 48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. 49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

Physical death is nothing to be feared for believers for it the avenue for us to be glorified. No double jeopardy and Christ has defeated death.

 

The wages of sin is death - Romans 6:23
Death is the result of sin - Romans 5:12
God told Adam that the day he eats the fruit (disobedience = sin) that he would die - Genesis 2:17
Sin, when it is finished, brings death - James 1:15

So, then, had Adam not sinned, his descendants would still have died a physical death? God clearly states that, through Adam, sin entered the world. Death entered the world at the same time. Before the fall there was no death. After the fall, death passed to all men. As I stated above, only God Himself can make exceptions to His rule. It matters not that our finite minds cannot comprehend His ways.

My take is that there is no scriptural support for your opinion. You have to disregard many scriptures to arrive at this erroneous conclusion.

 

This scripture in no way supports the notion that the penalty of Adam's sin is not physical death. This passage merely explains the final judgment on those who reject God's Son. This penalty is the second death which is suffered only by the lost. Physical death is a penalty suffered by all men - saved and lost alike.

 

All suffer the decaying-tent problem Paul speaks to in 2Cor 5 even the ones who are translated without seeing death as Paul says of Enoch in Heb 11. I agree with all that you have said except that I would not describe the event of being translated as dying.

If God zaps your arm or leg and makes it like it was brand-new zero defects do you then say that your arm or leg has died?

in Christ,

Bob

 

If this is the penalty for sin, how would Jesus have paid it for us? A just God requires a just payment. A weekend in hell would not have sufficed.

 

Now and then I detect times when Trustit and I almost agree on something! (Or maybe I am up too late past my bedtime - so to speak).

The Penalty Christ paid is the penalty of sufferring we owe -- He took the stroke that was due us -- He took our penalty our debt of suffering and nailed it to the cross with the stamp "paid in full" according to Col 2.

The reason that Christ can do that without ALSO having to be tormented infinitely for each sin of each person - is that infinite suffeirng is NOT the debt owed for each sin we FINITE beings commit.

The reason that Christ could pay the FINITE debt for FINITE sins and THEN did not also have to endure the suffering of INFINITE death -- is that "the dead do not SUFFER anything!"

The "living know that they will die -- but the dead know not anything". If eternal death were the only penalty then there would be no need to raise the wicked after the 1000 years and send them into the suffering and torment of the Lake of Fire - the "second death".

in Christ,

Bob

 

all true -- Enoch was translated -- taken bodily to heaven without dying.

 

Great question! One I just love to answer!

"Payment" as we see in God's Gospel model of atonement given in Lev 16 is NOT of the grocery store model - nor is it in the pagan propitiation model where God get's paid and then your debt is settled..

It is the "substitutionary atonement model" where God does NOT get paid ANYTHING! Instead the penalty that God's Law demands is paid --

Christ pays that debt of sin but He does not "pay God the Father". God does not watch His Son "suffer on the cross until He feels really really good about it, or gets to a point of feeling satisfied, nor until He starts to feel appeased as He watches the torture and torment of His Son".

NONE of that happened on the cross!

Instead we see a Loving God SUFFERING for the sins of others! That is NO PAYMENT AT ALL TO God.

Think about it -- if you OWE your neighbor 10,000 dollars for bashing in his car -- then you owe him MUCH MORE for torturing and bashing his SON-- you do not "owe LESS"!!

In the ATONEMENT we see God self-sacrificing to satisfying the penalty of the Law and because He did it by HIS OWN suffering. For our part (if anything) we owe Him MORE! The Roman soldier, the Jew, the defecting disciple betraying Christ are all SINNING! EACH of their sins demands that MORE sin debt be paid -- not LESS!

Becuase it is God WHO PAID rather than God who "got paid" Then it is HE alone who get's to decide WHO to apply that payment to -- and under what conditions that payment may be used.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Those who did not die - were not "paying the penalty of sin by not dying". Your argument is that they DID pay the full penalty of their sins and since they did not die physically then that must mean that the penalty is really only spiritual death. But I would argue that Adam was not going to "normally die at age 1000" yet all those preflood humans were dying off at about 1000 years of age. Then post-flood that shrunk down to 120 years and then down to 80. So surely that was not "Adam's condition".

But I don't see how you can argue that Enoch (for example) DID pay the full penalty of his sin and that since he did not die that means the penalty must "really" be only spiritual death.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Quote:
BR: God does not watch His Son "suffer on the cross until He feels really really good about it,

In Is 53 -- Christ the one who cries out "my God my God why hast though forsaken me" and who prays "If it be possible let this cup pass from me" is said to "be satisified" when he views the suffering he endures for the sake of accomplishing salvation for the lost.

But that satisifaction like the notion of "God is pleased" in Isaiah 53 is not a statement saying that "God was happily torturing Christ" or that Christ was simply "satisfying himself by enduring torture". This is not God being pampered it is God "suffering".

This is not the way "God get's paid".

As i said -- each sin committed against Christ on the cross simply ADDED to the debt of sin that had to be atoned for.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Isaiah 53 says he "took the stripes for us to whom the stroke was DUE" --God paid the debt we owe according to the Law of God. But since God is paying - he is not the one "getting paid" -- in the atonement model no "being" is getting paid anything.

I agree if what you are saying is that Christ fully satisfies the debt that the law defines as being owed in our place so that we do not have to -- if we accept Gospel salvation.

Agreed. This upholds the law "the penalty the law demands" and it satisfies both justice and mercy.

justice because the Law is satisifed AND the sinner is killed in the form of dying to self and being "created" as a new creation.

Justice would not be satisified if someone simply let the murderer back out onto the streets to "murder some more".

You seem to be trying to have it both ways.

It is like saying that all my bills add up to some huge amount. So now a rich benefactor steps in a pays the entire lump sum debt without actually paying off any of the debts owed?? Or are you saying that even the lump sum debt is not paid -- just abolished?

IF the debts could be abolished instead of paid then the economy collapses since debts are not actually payable.

in Christ,

Bob