Was Man Created Mortal?

We don't need to take his words as "Gospel"... :laugh:

Seriously though Cyril wasn't so heavily enfluenced by Platonism as some of the 'others' coming out of the Alexandrian School. Could you tell me what you don't like about Cyrils quote?

 

This verse is pulled way out of context. It comes from the Mosaic law, almost a millenia and a half after Adam. It has nothing to do with Adam as being the head of the Adamic race.

This verse comes from Ezekiel, another verse quoted out of context. The context is the fall of Adam, not judgement on the sin of Israel or the sins of mankind in general.

If we stop his sentence here, he is correct. We have become sinners because of Adams disobedience--period. This is what is taught in Romans 5:12,19.

He surrendered nothing. all of that was a consequence of his rebellion against God. God said: "In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Adam ate. Adam died--both physically, and spiritually, though his death was prolonged it was the degeneration of the body that set in and it slowly decayed until death finally ocurred. That is the second law of Thermodynamics which God set in motion at that time.

This statement is ambiguous. Adam's nature did not contradict "the disease of sin." Our inherited sin nature is contrary to doing good, so that we automatically do evil. David said that we do evil (lie) as soon as we be born (Psalm 58:3) BTW to call sin a disease is a modern philosophy where one doesn't call sin, sin anymore, but a disease to make it less offensive. Apparently Cyril seems to be doing the same thing.

They inherited the same nature of Adam.

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

Call sin for what it is; but it is not simply a weakness. Cyril was from the school of Alexandria which was permeated wity Greek philosophy and no doubt was influenced by it.
~ Cyril of Alexandria: Explanation of the Letter to the Romans. (Migne PG 74 cols. 788–89)​

 

Grace and Peace DHK,

Ah, the other side....

I believe it is fair to say that our good Cyril is enfluenced by the Alexandrian School. If you've been keeping up with several threads I've been discussing this with Heavenly Pilgrim for a few days now. I'm very familiar with the Alexandrian Schools Neo-Platonist enfluences but what I would say is that it is only an error when such enfluences draw them from a normative interpretation of the Scriptures. For example, if not for Athanaisus and his deep knowledge of Hellenism coupled with his reliance and trust in the Scriptures he wouldn't have been capable of articulating the Doctrine of the Trinity against the error of those who allowed Hellenist Philosophy to dictate Scripture (i.e. Arianism). If Greek was Christian, it would most surely be Arianism but such a claim cannot blind us to the debt we surely have to those early Fathers of the Faith who 'purified' their Hellenist Education with the 'Word of God' to express it's truths to the Gentiles. Amen!

With regard to your criticism of Cyril, I will only say that a applaud the gentile Father for his words and I believe it fair to say they are an honest struggle 'in the Faith'. If you do an exhaustive study of Patristics, you will find that they rarely care about 'context' especially concerning matters of morality and ethics as they did not think God used 'situational ethics'. Do you?

 

This I know of the ECF.
They (as a whole) had many strange and aberrant doctrines.
As a whole, they did not agree with each other on many doctrines.
In general I put my trust in the Word of God and not the word of man--whoever that man may be.
And probably most important of all, The RCC uses the ECF as a defence for much of their aberrant and unscriptural doctrine. If that be so, then by default the writings of the ECF must not be too Scriptural. I thus stay away from them and stick with the Scriptures instead.

 

You never did answer my question... Do you believe God is arbitrary in His exercise of 'moral and ethical' matter? Is there any value in examining situations throughout the Scriptures where God mine have revealed the inner working of his moral or ethical processes?

When you say you put your trust in the Word of God and not in the word of man. From whom did you learn your exegesis from? Men at Sunday School? Baptists, by there distinction, teach a tradition of exegesis. Perhaps, you and I, might agree that it would appear to be the most reasonable but even then we draw from two distinct emphasis's within the the Greater Baptist Tradition (you are Calvinist and I am Arminian). Thus the whole of the history of Christianity has been a pairing down within the Greater Tradition as a whole. I have no problem examining the evidence of that Greater Tradition and testing everything even my own Traditions presuppositions.

 

Where does it say that?
Jesus could be seen and he was and is eternal.

 

God is sovereign, and thus not arbitrary in anything that he does. He, by his foreknowledge and omniscience knows the end from the beginning. He is both moral and ethical. There is always value in examining the Scriptures no matter what the situation is, even if concerns how God may or may not have revealed the inner working of his moral and ethical processes.
Some things to keep in mind:
How can a finite mind understand an infinite God.
His ways are higher than our ways.
His thoughts are higher than our thoughts.
The secret things belong unto the Lord.
There are some things that we will never know, but that shouldn't keep us from studying the Scriptures.

Exegesis is technical. It doesn't really matter where I learned it from. It is a way of examing the Scripture. I could have learned it from a Presbyterian or a Baptist, and it wouldn't have made much difference. It is technical in nature.

Now you are talking of Bible study in general. When I study the Bible, I study the passage first, prayerfully. If their are words that I want to study or know more about I will consult the Greek, or books that will tell me more about them, no matter what their background is--Anglican, Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, etc. I will progress to further Bible study to get an overall picture of the passage. I will consult a number of commentaries. Some will be fundamental Baptist, but others will not. Albert Barnes is a good help, but he wasn't a Baptist. That is only an example.
The only place Tradition comes in is either illustrative or historical. For example it is tradition that tells us that the Apostle Thomas went to India and was martyred for his faith.
History is a small part of exposition if it has any part at all.
I don't rely on tradition. I expound the Word of God. It is my authority. Sometimes I don't need any help from any other book--commentary, etc. The Bible is all sufficient. Why shouldn't it be. Many times I have preached a sermon without consulting any other source but the Bible. Perhaps we need more of that, and certainly less of going to the ECF. What saith the Lord?

 

Adam was the creation of a God of limitless perfection. Adam thus 'was Perfect'. As death was a product of sin, Adam was created outside of such a state of change or decay as would be defined as 'mortal' (i.e. one that dies).

Death is separation from God, and spiritual death is spiritual separation from God, Isaiah said, "Your iniquities have separated you from your God; your sins have hidden his face from you, so that he will not heart" (Isa. 59:2). The instant Adam sinned, he experienced spiritual isolation from God; this is evidenced by his shame and his hiding from his Creator.

Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves. Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden. - Gen. 3:7-8

Every descendant of Adam - every person born of natural parents since the Fall - is spiritually dead as well.

As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins... [We who are saved have been] made... alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions - it is by grace you have been saved. - Eph. 2:1,5

Thus, Jesus said to Nicodemus,

I tell you the truth, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again... No one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, "You must be born again" - John 3:3, 5-7

The new birth of which Jesus speaks is the act of regeneration, whereby God imparts spiritual life to the believer's soul )1 Peter 1:23). Paul says of this,

He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Saviour, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life. - Titus 3:5-7

Without this regeneration, every human being is spiritually dead in sin.

 

What gives you the notion that David was born in a sinful manner, out of wedlock or in any other manner. God himself ordained marriage. He said that it was holy. Do we go against what God has said? How was David speaking of his sinful way in which he was conceived by his mother?

 

Wow, I'm once again impressed by DHK's understandings. The rest of you too. There seems always to be areas we can't agree on, and that just seems to be the way it is. For instance treating the two trees as completely symbolic. I have to look into that. I can see a case for that for the tree of the knowledge, but not yet the TOL.
Much food for thought and study.

 

Or we could just accept scripture.

Eve really ate from the real tree of knowledge of good and evil.

God really kicked Adam and Eve out of the real Garden and stated that they were really to be denied access to the real tree of life.

God really created the world in 6 real days and really sanctified the Seventh-day.

Adam was really created sinless and called "the son of God" -Luke 3 (as in family relationship not ontologically God as is the case with Christ)

It is so much easier just to believe the text.

in Christ,

Bob

 

That is not what it states in Psalms 51:5. That is your interpretation thereof.

Then you haven't answered my question. How was the birth of David? Please show through the Scriptures how the marriage of David's parents was sinful or how the birth of David was sinful. If you cannot do that then you are reading into the Scripture something that is not there, and obviously misinterpreting Psalm 51:5.

Consider:
Ruth 4:17 And the women her neighbours gave it a name, saying, There is a son born to Naomi; and they called his name Obed: he is the father of Jesse, the father of David.

And from David came the Messiah. The full lineage is recorded in Matthew chapter one. God promised that the Messiah would sit on David's Throne. How could this be possible if David had a sinful birth as you say? If that had happened he would have been cast out of his family, and rejected by his brethren as Jehphthah was:

Judges 11:1-2 Now Jephthah the Gileadite was a mighty man of valour, and he was the son of an harlot: and Gilead begat Jephthah. And Gilead's wife bare him sons; and his wife's sons grew up, and they thrust out Jephthah, and said unto him, Thou shalt not inherit in our father's house; for thou art the son of a strange woman.

Yes, how? The Scriptures don't say, because he wasn't. We are only going on your word here, not the Scripture. Demonstrate through the Scripture (not your interpretation of this one verse) that David actually born in sin. You are not accepting the facts at face value. You are refusing to study this verse and are only accepting a superficial misunderstanding.

 

This is a quote from Spurgeon