Adam's Flesh Could Not Be Saved

The Liturgist · Feb 6, 2021

1an said:
I often notice the American posters have a different pov. I think it stems from the time they were expelled from England for hearsay.
.

First of all, Americans were not “expelled from England” for heresy. The oldest colony, Virginia, was primarily settled by Anglicans, and Delaware and New Jersey were Swedish colonies, and New York a Dutch colony, that the British appropriated. The only colonies founded on the basis of religious persecution were Massachussets, Rhode Island and Conneticut, which were settled by Puritans, Pennsylvania, which was created for among other purposes to serve as a haven for Quakers, and Maryland, which tolerated Roman Catholics. The only colony to which persons were forced to emigrate to, in the form of penal transportation, was Georgia; after Britain lost the War of Independence penal transportation shifted to Australia.

Secondly, the Church of England and the Church of Scotland, the two remaining established churches in the United Kingdom, profess a belief in the bodily resurrection. For that matter, the former established churches, those being the Roman Catholic Church, disestablished under King Henry VIII, and the Church of Ireland, and the Church in Wales, disestablished under Queen Victoria, also profess a belief in the bodily resurrection, as does the Scottish Episcopal Church, which the Stuarts attempted to establish in Scotland.

Thirdly, this belief in bodily resurrection is shared by the other major churches, including the United Reformed Church, the Methodist Church, the Lutheran Church, the Free Church of Scotland, all English Baptists I know, the Greek, Russian, Antiochian, Serbian, Romanian and Bulgarian Orthodox, and other Eastern Orthodox, and by the Oriental Orthodox (Coptic, Ethiopian, Eritrean, Syriac, Indian and Armenian). It is also believed in by those Quaker meetings which are explicitly Christian and Evangelical.

1an · Feb 6, 2021

The Liturgist said:
First of all, Americans were not “expelled from England” for heresy. The oldest colony, Virginia, was primarily settled by Anglicans, and Delaware and New Jersey were Swedish colonies, and New York a Dutch colony, that the British appropriated. The only colonies founded on the basis of religious persecution were Massachussets, Rhode Island and Conneticut, which were settled by Puritans, Pennsylvania, which was created for among other purposes to serve as a haven for Quakers, and Maryland, which tolerated Roman Catholics. The only colony to which persons were forced to emigrate to, in the form of penal transportation, was Georgia; after Britain lost the War of Independence penal transportation shifted to Australia.

Secondly, the Church of England and the Church of Scotland, the two remaining established churches in the United Kingdom, profess a belief in the bodily resurrection. For that matter, the former established churches, those being the Roman Catholic Church, disestablished under King Henry VIII, and the Church of Ireland, and the Church in Wales, disestablished under Queen Victoria, also profess a belief in the bodily resurrection, as does the Scottish Episcopal Church, which the Stuarts attempted to establish in Scotland.

Thirdly, this belief in bodily resurrection is shared by the other major churches, including the United Reformed Church, the Methodist Church, the Lutheran Church, the Free Church of Scotland, all English Baptists I know, the Greek, Russian, Antiochian, Serbian, Romanian and Bulgarian Orthodox, and other Eastern Orthodox, and by the Oriental Orthodox (Coptic, Ethiopian, Eritrean, Syriac, Indian and Armenian). It is also believed in by those Quaker meetings which are explicitly Christian and Evangelical.

Then get back on topic and explain bodily resurrection with reference to Genesis 3:19.

19 By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.
.

Davy · Feb 6, 2021

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
You keep repeating the same thing as if that's going to convince anyone.

Do I consider that a gnostic statement by our Lord? No.

Now can you answer my question? Why has the Church been so wrong on this matter for the last 2000 years until you arrived?

That's really a silly question, since we well know that the 'dead in the ground' idea that dead brethren are literally asleep in a casket is only a tradition, as the many Scriptures I have shown proves differently.

And I certainly am not... the first believing Christian that has not believed in that 'dead in the ground' theory you're pointing to.

Davy · Feb 6, 2021

throughfireytrial said:
Point is, Scripture does not say that the flesh was created sinful as I understand you to have stated in your OP. It was the first transgression which gave birth to sin which Romans makes clear ...as well as the Genesis account.

Point actually is... that Scripture does not always reveal a Truth directly. The fact that all the kingdoms of this world having become those of The Father and His Christ is not a direct statement showing Christ's 2nd coming, but that's what it's about. God expects us to sharpen up when studying His Word, because He does not reveal all Truths in a direct manner, the deeper ones are often only by allegory, parable, proverb, etc. So the Bible student who refuses to grasp that will miss out on a lot of God's Truth that is for those on the "strong meat", and not for those still sucking the 'milk' of His Word (Hebrews 5).

Davy · Feb 6, 2021

Maria Billingsley said:
It's still deception.

Yes, it's definitely about deception. This is why there are so many warnings to the brethren about the coming pseudo-Christ at the end of this world who will play Messiah in Jerusalem. It's what Apostle Paul called "strong delusion" in 2 Thessalonians 2.

Davy · Feb 6, 2021

ViaCrucis said:
The translators of the KJV believed in the resurrection of the body. So I don't know what kind of game you are trying to pull here.

-CryptoLutheran

You are definitely confused about this being some game. Likewise, you are confused with what God's Word teaches about it also, as I have shown plenty of Scripture that proves that the resurrection body is to a "spiritual body", and not another flesh body.

1 Cor 15:49-50
49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.

50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
KJV

You simply choose to believe men's traditions instead of what Apostle Paul said above. I choose to believe Apostle Paul, and my Lord Jesus Who said in Matthew 22:30 that those of the resurrection are "as the angels of God in heaven".

So you can play the devil's advocate all you want by going against those written Scriptures, but it's not going to make the tradition of man you hold to any more true.

Davy · Feb 6, 2021

Clare73 said:
Your use of "transfigured" is not Biblical.

"Flesh and blood" in Paul's usage does not mean human tissue, it means the physical natural body--corruptible, weak, sinful (1Co 5:42-44), the unregenerate state of man (Ro 7:5, 8:8, 9). That's the "flesh and blood" which cannot inherit the kingdom of God.

I'm sorry, I did not know that "flesh and blood" does not mean... flesh and blood! I must have missed that in school biology class. I'm sorry, but that's how silly your theory sounds. Paul was referring directly to the flesh body with "flesh and blood". The NT Greek for "flesh" is 'sarx'...

NT:4561
sarx (sarx); probably from the base of NT:4563; flesh (as stripped of the skin), i.e. (strictly) the meat of an animal (as food), or (by extension) the body (as opposed to the soul [or spirit], or as the symbol of what is external:

KJV - carnal (-ly, -ly minded), flesh ([-ly]).
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003, 2006, 2010 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

Davy · Feb 6, 2021

fhansen said:
The "law of sin" is not innate to our bodies. And we also don't possess a "sin nature" before or after the Fall. The problem with fallen man is that he's separated from God, from belief in Him, even, let alone subjugation to Him. This is the state sometimes referred to as "original sin", a state realized for all humanity by Adam by his act of disobedience. Once that rift, that separation, was done, all other sin that followed in human history was inevitable. Man had now become lawless in any real sense, following his own 'law" doing whatever was right in his own eyes, becoming his own "god" so to speak. He had lost the self-mastery that was part and parcel of the way he was created, in union with God and subjugated to God.

We begin to regain that control, as we're now enabled by the Spirit, once we enter relationship with God via faith. But the struggle against sin, against the "concupiscence" that seeks to draw us all into sin, isn't over. We're still tempted by the same question that Adam had, "Would life be better without God, would I be better, happier, more fulfilled, satisfied, whatever?" The more we know God the more this question is answered, and the more we love Him as well which then increasingly excludes sin as He because our first love, above all else. And, incidentally, to the degree that we love Him with our whole heart, soul, mind, and strength our justice or righteousness would be complete, which is why the greatest commandments are what they are. All of this is possible only via grace, within that communion established by faith IOW. However, weak as we are this is probably not fully achievable until the next life, when we meet Him "face to face".

Please, no philosophy of man needed to understand the simplicity in God's Holy Writ. There is no idea of a "sin nature" written in God's Word. What His Word refers to is a law of sin located in... the flesh:

Rom 7:18-25
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.

22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:

23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
KJV

Apostle Paul made it plain above that there is a law of sin in our fleshy members. In 1 Timothy 1 and Galatians 5, Paul even outlined sins of the flesh in contrast to doing the good things of The Spirit by walking in The Spirit. Thus Paul revealed by that why he also said "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, neither doeth corruption inherit incorruption." (1 Corinthians 15:49) It's because for this present world God has placed the law of sin in our fleshy members. And in Romans 8:18-25, Paul showed how God also placed the whole creation in a state of bondage to corruption, for this present world time. Paul even said there that the whole creation groans as we do, waiting for the 'redemption' of our body. What body? Our spiritual body, not another flesh body.

So what is sin then, and how did it start, and what did it do?

1 John 3:8
8 He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
KJV

Hebrews 2:14 reveals that the power of death has been assigned to Satan. That is because Satan, the devil, was who sinned from the beginning, like Apostle John said there. That means the very 1st sin, ever. But Satan did that in the previous world, not this present one. God's parable about Satan using the prince and king of Tyrus in Ezekiel 28 reveals that God originally created Satan perfect in his ways until iniquity was found in him, and he rebelled in wanting to be GOD. That was the very first original sin, not what Adam and Eve did later.

Thus sin entered in because of what Satan did originally. And by sin came 'death'.

This is why Satan and those who rebelled with him have already been judged and sentenced to perish in the future "lake of fire", while no one born flesh has been judged to perish yet. It is also why that "lake of fire" we are told has been prepared for him and his angels (Matthew 25:41). And like Apostle John said as the definition of sin, that it is "transgression of the law" (1 John 3:4).

So how did God's Plan correct this matter of sin and death entering in?

Heb 2:14-15
14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself likewise took part of the same; that through death He might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
KJV

That is why God ordained Lord Jesus Christ before the foundation of this world, to be born through flesh woman and die on the cross, that through that death He might redeem those who believe on Him, and give them eternal life, His having conquered death and the devil for us through His Blood.

This is why in Revelation 21, it says in final there will be no more death, and at the end of Rev.20 it shows that death will go into the "lake of fire" and perish with the abode of hell.

This all points to the fact that by the time of Adam and Eve, which is part of this PRESENT WORLD, that sin and thus death was already manifest because of what Satan did. This is why it is impossible to assign the condition of Adam and Eve before they sinned as if it were like Christ's future Salvation state.

And I am very surprised at my fellow-Christian brethren who want to try and associate Adam and Eve's state in the flesh before they sinned as an example of Christ's future Salvation, for in the world to come under Christ Jesus, as one of His, it will be IMPOSSIBLE for us to have sin. With the state of Adam and Eve before they sinned, we know the ability was in them even when they were innocent, because God warned them about that very thing. So I'm surprised that brethren can't understand this per God's Word.

Davy · Feb 6, 2021

The Liturgist said:
No, I am trying to tell you that you messed up and put words in our savior’s mouth. Nowhere in Matthew 22:30 does he deny the bodily resurrection. He merely states that in our resurrected flesh, we will not be sexual.

And with regards to 1 Corinthians 15 and Job 19, it appears you are saying that you are rejecting the obvious interpretation of Job 19 because it clashes with your interpretation of St. Paul. But this is not how we do exegesis. If Job 19 contradicts your interpretation of St. Paul, and of our Lord as recorded by St. Matthew, then you have made an error. And Job 19 makes it very clear that we will be raised incorruptible, and in our flesh see God. First, here is the Authorized Version (KJV):

25For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter dayupon the earth:

26And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:

27Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.

The KJV Old Testament is translated from the Hebrew Textus Receptus, which is sourced from the 9th century Masoretic Text, and was cross checked against the Syriac Peshitta and the Latin Vulgate, which were also translated from pre-Masoretic Hebrew texts. However, 200 years before Christ, a group of 70 Jewish scholars translated the Tanakh into Greek, a translation called the Septuagint, or referred to by the Roman numeral LXX, and while very similiar to the later Hebrew text, this earlier Greek translation, which has been validated by the discovery of corresponding variant Hebrew texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls, is often more intense and contains more obvious Christological prophecy, so I make a point to always check the Septuagint when studying the Old Testament.

Here are the same verses, Job 19:25-27, from the LXX:

25For I know that he is eternal who is about to deliver me,

26and to raise up upon the earth my skin that endures these sufferings: for these things have been accomplished to me of the Lord;

27which I am conscious of in myself, which mine eye has seen, and not another, but all have been fulfilled to me in my bosom.

Thus, we can say, based on both the Masoretic and Septuagint, that Job 19 is clearly promising a bodily resurrection. And we are not reading Job in isolation; there are many more texts in the Old Testament, in Ezekiel for example, which support and even, in the case of Ezekiel, depict, the resurrection of the Body. And there is also Jesus eating fish in the Gospel of Luke, which requires a body, and being touched physically by Thomas.

This makes it plain that you have misread Paul, and the words of our Savior, and your quasi-Docetic error is by the way one that was refuted in the First Century, and indeed, is even referenced by St. John the Apostle in his Epistles (Cerinthus was the leader of the Docetic sect).

And this takes us to the main thrust of the argument poignantly raised by @ViaCrucis , that being why should we accept your novel doctrine instead of that which has been believed by all Christians everywhere for the past 2,000 years? What makes you right, and everyone else wrong?

And by everyone else, I mean everyone, from Irenaeus of Lyons, to Athanasius, to Thomas Aquinas, to Martin Luther, to John Calvin, to John Wesley, and to the leading theologians of all major churches of the past century, including but not limited to Karl Barth, John Zizoulas, NT Wright, CS Lewis, Thomas Merton, Fr. John Behr, RC Sproul, Albert Mohler, Rev. Billy Graham, and Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, to name just a few.

See my post #128.

Davy · Feb 6, 2021

zoidar said:
"are as angels" can mean many different things. Be without a sinful body is one of them. There is not that much description of heaven in the Bible. We won't marry, but it will be more like we are all married to Jesus. Exacly how, we don't know. We will be one big family.

See my post #128.

Davy · Feb 6, 2021

Philip_B said:
In the beginning God created man in His own image, and man has been trying to repay the favor ever since.
Voltaire

See my post #128.

Davy · Feb 6, 2021

Philip_B said:
The doctrine of the Incarnation is entirely Biblical. John 1:1-18 and most especially John 1:14.

See my post #128.

Davy · Feb 6, 2021

The Liturgist said:
@Davy - when you say God, which person of the Trinity are you talking about?

See my post #128.

Davy · Feb 6, 2021

zoidar said:
I think God created us with physical bodies for a reason. What would be the reason if there won't be a physical resurrection?

See my post #128.

Davy · Feb 6, 2021

Clare73 said:
Ever seen the body of your Guardian Angel (Mt 18:10; Heb 1:14)?

See my post #128.

Davy · Feb 6, 2021

prodromos said:
It appears that one brother needs to humble himself and admit that he is mistaken.

See my post #128.

Davy · Feb 6, 2021

DamianWarS said:
This doesn't answer the question. Mat 22:30 is framed in the context of marriage after resurrection and the answer should be understood in the same context of marriage not flesh. We won't be converted into angels so there will be distinguishing features but apparently we will be like angels as it applies to marriage. Christ resurrected and amongst many witnesses ascended into heaven in the resurrected flesh. Are you saying Christ is not with that flesh?

See my post #128.

Clare73 · Feb 6, 2021

Davy said:
See my post #128.

Help me out here. . .I see nothing there regarding your Guardian Angel (Mt 18:10; Heb 1:4).

Thanks.

Clare73 · Feb 6, 2021

Jamdoc said:
Flesh is not inherently sinful, it was our spirit that was dead and needed to be regenerated, and that sin that killed our spirit corrupted our flesh but flesh itself before that corruption is not inherently sinful. Animals are flesh, animals do not sin, and most importantly, Jesus came in the flesh.

Paul's use of "flesh" does not mean human tissue. It is first of all a contrast of the natural (corruptible, weak, sinful) body (1Co 15:42-44)
to the regenerated spirit, it is also used for the weaker element in human nature, the unregenerate state of man, the seat of sin in man.

1 John 4

So you may want to reevaluate your doctrines if you believe that flesh is inherently sinful, because Jesus came in the flesh and never sinned.

Davy · Feb 6, 2021

Clare73 said:
Help me out here. . .I see nothing there regarding your Guardian Angel (Mt 18:10; Heb 1:4).

Thanks.

I choose not to get into that. Do they exist? Yes, that I believe, as per Matthew 18:10 and other Scriptures that reveal angels as ministering spirits for the heirs of salvation (Hebrews 1:14).

Adam's Flesh Could Not Be Saved

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Blood-bought

Blood-bought

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency