Original Sin?

[Buggins]

You were born already condemned and headed for hell.

If you were born condemned and headed for Hell what's the point of it all? You might say that God would be justified in wiping us all out, and save a whole lot of sin, suffering and misery.
Even saying that God chooses some to save 'out of His mercy' is hardly comforting. It makes our God no different to Allah who does what he wants without reference to justice or righteousness. No, John 3: 14-16 makes it absolutely clear, and is line with all the other passages of Scripture where God offers forgiveness when men repent..
"And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him."
Those verses spoken by our Lord Himself fit in with the nature of God as revealed through Scripture. Yes salvation comes from a loving and holy God, and yes, the Holy Spirit works on the conscience of a man or woman, but the Lord would not have told His disciples to go out with the good news if men were unable to respond. There's a great dvd doing the rounds at the moment entitled "The Atheist Delusion". Well worth watching if only to see how the Christian shows how the real reason for being an atheist is to avoid bowing the knee to God. That's the power of evangelism, when godly men and women preach the Gospel and men and women come under the conviction of sin.
Think Billy Graham..

 

[katiemygirl]

Thanks Jezmeyah!

I think you are right that the reference is to spiritual death:

"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" (Ro.5:12).
​

Since "all men" die spiritually when they sin doesn't that mean that before they sin "all men" are alive spiritually? After all, in order for anyone to die spiritually he must first be alive spiritually.

The only way which I think that "all men" can be alive spiritually is because all people emerge from the womb spiritually alive.

Do you agree?

​

I agree with you 100%. Verse 21 makes it clear. Paul is saying that sin reigns in spiritual death and grace reigns through righteousness to bring eternal life. The context throughout the chapter is about spiritual reconciliation.

Glad you pointed out that we are all born spiritually alive. It is not until we knowingly disobey God that we spiritually die.

To say babies are born spiritually dead, which is what original sin amounts to, is not taught in the Scriptures.

 

[Don Maurer]

I'm sure some of you will argue with God on this.

Quite a grandiose statement for anyone to make. How is this not a claim to divine infallibility in interpretation? I suspect it is a claim to an infallible interpretation to avoid any response. Yet your use of scripture is out of context as I will explain after quoting the rest of your post.

It seems most of you are saying, ‘Why should the son not bear the guilt of the father?’ Perhaps some of you haven't read Ezekiel 18:20.

The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

No one bears the guilt, nature, nor wrath of the father. If a man is wicked it is upon himself, not anyone else.

Can you point out where I said that the son bears the iniquity of the father? Did you address the multiple contexts that both others and myself posted...? No, you ignored them. Yet you claim some sort of infallible interpretation? Really?

The context of Ezekiel is not about "Original Sin" at all. In fact it is not even about individual sins either. The context is about the national sins of Isreal and their violation of the Mosaic Law as a Nation and the reason that a certain generation went into captivity. The generation that went into captivity complained in verse 2...
"The fathers eat the sour grapes"
"But the Children's teeth are set on edge"
This is a poem which blames proceeding Generations for their captivity. Do you see them blaming Adam for Original Sin? Adam is not even mentioned in the Chapter. Original sin is not the issue.

This same generation also said in verse 29, "Yet saith the house of Israel, The way of the Lord is not equal. O house of Israel, are not my ways equal? are not your ways unequal?" If the current generation going into captivity made such a statement that I put in bold, then they sinned against God themselves. This is the point of the Chapter.

Notice the verse after verse 29... "Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord Jehovah. Return ye, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin." God was not sending Israel into captivity due to the sins of the fathers, but the sins of the current generation going into captivity.

This chapter and the statement you quoted in verse 20 has to do with the captivity of Israel and the cause of that captivity. It is certainly not connected to, or related to any discussion of original sin.

 

[EmSw]

Quite a grandiose statement for anyone to make. How is this not a claim to divine infallibility in interpretation? I suspect it is a claim to an infallible interpretation to avoid any response. Yet your use of scripture is out of context as I will explain after quoting the rest of your post.

So, you're the first to question God's statement. It didn't take long.

Can you point out where I said that the son bears the iniquity of the father? Did you address the multiple contexts that both others and myself posted...? No, you ignored them. Yet you claim some sort of infallible interpretation? Really?

So, you don't believe you bear the iniquity of Adam. When did you change your mind?

The context of Ezekiel is not about "Original Sin" at all. In fact it is not even about individual sins either. The context is about the national sins of Isreal and their violation of the Mosaic Law as a Nation and the reason that a certain generation went into captivity. The generation that went into captivity complained in verse 2...
"The fathers eat the sour grapes"
"But the Children's teeth are set on edge"
This is a poem which blames proceeding Generations for their captivity. Do you see them blaming Adam for Original Sin? Adam is not even mentioned in the Chapter. Original sin is not the issue.

Really? You need to read the whole chapter. It's about son and father, not the nation Israel. Let me help you out here.

14 “If, however, he begets a son who sees all the sins which his father has done, and considers but does not do likewise;
15 Who has not eaten on the mountains, nor lifted his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, nor defiled his neighbor’s wife;
16 Has not oppressed anyone, nor withheld a pledge, nor robbed by violence, but has given his bread to the hungry and covered the naked with clothing;
17 Who has withdrawn his hand from the poor and not received usury or increase, but has executed My judgments and walked in My statutes—he shall not die for the iniquity of his father; he shall surely live!

See, it's not that difficult if you actually read it.

Don't you believe you will die for the iniquity of Adam? Don't you believe you bear the guilt of Adam?

This same generation also said in verse 29, "Yet saith the house of Israel, The way of the Lord is not equal. O house of Israel, are not my ways equal? are not your ways unequal?" If the current generation going into captivity made such a statement that I put in bold, then they sinned against God themselves. This is the point of the Chapter.

The point of the chapter is that the son isn't guilty because his father is. This is the entire point of original sin, no matter how much you want to say it isn't.

Notice the verse after verse 29... "Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord Jehovah. Return ye, and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin." God was not sending Israel into captivity due to the sins of the fathers, but the sins of the current generation going into captivity.[/QUOTE]

How is a man judged according to the 'original sin' theory? Isn't it Adam? Isn't Adam the downfall of mankind?

This chapter and the statement you quoted in verse 20 has to do with the captivity of Israel and the cause of that captivity. It is certainly not connected to, or related to any discussion of original sin.

Why should mankind bear the guilt of Adam? Do you think it's unfair that God says no one bears the guilt of his father? The 'original sin' was not passed down to Cain and Abel.

Now, I wonder why you even compare this to the captivity. This isn't mentioned in the chapter, nor does God allude to it. Does it make you feel better about 'original sin' when you add this?

Now if you don't think mankind bears the guilt of Adam, please tell us what the theory of 'original sin' is. We will be listening.

Here is the Reformed view of 'original sin' -

Reformed Position
Calvin said, "Man is corrupted by a natural depravity, but which did not originate from nature. We deny that it proceeded from nature, to signify that it is rather an adventitious quality or accident, than a substantial property originally innate. Yet we call it natural, that none may suppose it to be contracted by every individual from corrupt habit, whereas it prevails over all by hereditary right" (Institutes, 2:1.11). "On account of the corruption of human nature, man may be justly said to be naturally abominable to God" (ibid., 2:1.11).

"Sin has possessed all the powers of the soul, since Adam departed from the fountain of righteousness. For man has not only been ensnared by the inferior appetites, but abominable impiety has seized the very citadel of his mind, and pride has penetrated into the inmost recesses of his heart" (2:1.9).

In tracing Paul's doctrine of original sin, Calvin concludes "that man is so totally overwhelmed, as with a deluge, that no part is free from sin: and therefore whatever proceeds from him is accounted sin; as Paul says that all the affections or thoughts of the flesh are enmity against God, and therefore death (Rom. 8:6–7)."

Hence, though sin in man is not a material principle in human nature (as Manicheism holds) or an original, or necessary part of it, the soul of fallen man "is not only wounded, but so corrupted, that it requires not merely to be healed, but to receive a new nature" (2:1.9). Calvin thus safeguards the doctrine against Pelagianism of every degree. Furthermore, he does not make corruption something in our nature but yet in some way distinct from our nature. He acknowledges that in its first state human nature was holy, but he proves from Scripture that it has degenerated from that state. Now it is not merely overcome by corruption; it is in itself corrupt—"man is of himself nothing else but concupiscence [lust]," and "abominable impiety" is the ruling principle of his unrenewed mind.
Center for Reformed Theology and Apologetics

Sure sounds like mankind is guilty from Adam to me.

 

[Buggins]

I agree with you 100%. Verse 21 makes it clear. Paul is saying that sin reigns in spiritual death and grace reigns through righteousness to bring eternal life. The context throughout the chapter is about spiritual reconciliation.

Glad you pointed out that we are all born spiritually alive. It is not until we knowingly disobey God that we spiritually die.

To say babies are born spiritually dead, which is what original sin amounts to, is not taught in the Scriptures.

Just to stir the pot a little more....:0)
May I refer all my fellow Christians to a post by a Hebrew Christian chap by the name of Arthur Katz, now with the Lord, and whom I had the pleasure to hear speak some years ago. It's about righteousness in the Old Testament and what constitutes that righteousness. If like me you love the stories of Avram of Isaac and Jacob, and Joseph you will agree with me that these men had the same kind of relationship with God as we Christians do through our Lord Jesus Christ. So in relation to the meaning of original sin/physical death/spiritual death, we might ask how do these men in their time have this close walk with God??
Righteousness in the Old Testament | Art Katz Ministries

 

[LadyCrosstalk]

You were born already condemned and headed for hell.

I disagree. Yes, you were born and already physically dying because death had entered Creation at the Fall. (Indeed, the Genesis Curse in Hebrew reads, "Dying, you will die..."). But I believe that one is not condemned spiritually until the first conscious sin. Babies and young children are not condemned, if they die before they know right from wrong. The Blood of Jesus redeems them too. They will be resurrected to eternal life.

If you look at Adam and Eve as an example: At first they were innocent and presumably living in a heaven on earth. There was no separation between them and God. Who knows how long they existed in heavenly perfection with Him before the Fall? Because sin infected the world, we now all die spiritually as well as physically, because we all become infected with sin. That is why we need our Redeemer.

 

[EmSw]

You were born already condemned and headed for hell.

Why is a man born condemned? Let's see what Jesus says.

Matthew 12:37
For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.

Mark 3:29
but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation

Luke 6:37
Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.

A newborn can't talk, so no condemnation. A newborn can't blaspheme the HS, so no condemnation. A newborn can't condemn others, so no condemnation. Everyone is responsible for what he/she does, and not what someone else does.

 

[LadyCrosstalk]

"The Doctrine of Original Sin goes back to Augustine and I believe it was based on his incorrect understanding of several passages. He didn't know Greek and he relied on an inferior Latin translation for much of his theological work."
Yes I read that too. In fact I have been dipping into Eastern Orthodox theology and so far found a couple of articles that give a different perspective to Augustine. They describe it as ancestral sin. Here's a couple of web references -I had to read and re-read to get a hold of what was being said..
ANCESTRAL VS. ORIGINAL SIN: A FALSE DICHOTOMY | Orthodox Evangelical
Archdiocese of Thyateira and Great Britain - Original Sin: Orthodox Doctrine or Heresy?

I very much disagree with the Roman Catholic catechisms (and any other catechisms derived from those of the RCC) on this point. What we inherited from our ancestral parents is a world gone awry and dying and our physical dying along with the rest of Creation--not their sin.

That this world is physically dying is even attested to by science. Plant geneticists tell us that over half of all the plant species which have ever lived are now extinct. We have continuing extinction of animal species (and there is some evidence that the rate of extinction is accelerating). Eminent geneticist, John Sanford, tells us that, with our current level of genetic mutation, we really can't have that many generations left to the human race before it too becomes extinct. From observations, it is theorized that a 3% mutation rate causes an animal to enter the path of extinction. Environmental toxins are contributing to the degradation of all animal genomes (and probably those of plants as well). It is the reason why "all Creation groans" as the Book of Romans tells us. Sanford suggests that many world-class geneticists understand the genetic conundrum we face, but, so far, no one is talking about it. Perhaps they are holding out hope for "gene therapy" but Sanford, in his book, "Genetic Entropy" discusses the reasons why gene therapy can never solve the problem of deteriorating genomes. Because of the complexity of the genomes of life, a "correction" of one gene can lead to the fouling of several other genetic systems and processes. Sanford is an interesting guy. He was an atheist until he rejected the Theory of Evolution while studying plant genomes. Then he became a deist of sorts--believing in a "designing intelligence" and then finally, he has become an Evangelical Christian as the reading of the Bible convinced him of its truthfulness.

What is "disease" (which the article you cite makes into a point) but a "little bit of death"--a foretaste of our mortality? It is a given since the Fall, but our spiritual death comes at our own hand, when we deliberately turn our backs to God in disobedience.

 

[LadyCrosstalk]

Just to stir the pot a little more....:0)
May I refer all my fellow Christians to a post by a Hebrew Christian chap by the name of Arthur Katz, now with the Lord, and whom I had the pleasure to hear speak some years ago. It's about righteousness in the Old Testament and what constitutes that righteousness. If like me you love the stories of Avram of Isaac and Jacob, and Joseph you will agree with me that these men had the same kind of relationship with God as we Christians do through our Lord Jesus Christ. So in relation to the meaning of original sin/physical death/spiritual death, we might ask how do these men in their time have this close walk with God??
Righteousness in the Old Testament | Art Katz Ministries

They looked forward to the Messiah and longed for Him as their Kinsman Redeemer. Jesus noted to the Jewish authorities, "Abraham delighted to see my day."

 

[sdowney717]

If you were born condemned and headed for Hell what's the point of it all? You might say that God would be justified in wiping us all out, and save a whole lot of sin, suffering and misery.
Even saying that God chooses some to save 'out of His mercy' is hardly comforting. It makes our God no different to Allah who does what he wants without reference to justice or righteousness. No, John 3: 14-16 makes it absolutely clear, and is line with all the other passages of Scripture where God offers forgiveness when men repent..
"And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him."
Those verses spoken by our Lord Himself fit in with the nature of God as revealed through Scripture. Yes salvation comes from a loving and holy God, and yes, the Holy Spirit works on the conscience of a man or woman, but the Lord would not have told His disciples to go out with the good news if men were unable to respond. There's a great dvd doing the rounds at the moment entitled "The Atheist Delusion". Well worth watching if only to see how the Christian shows how the real reason for being an atheist is to avoid bowing the knee to God. That's the power of evangelism, when godly men and women preach the Gospel and men and women come under the conviction of sin.
Think Billy Graham..

Don't stop, keep reading in John 3 to get the final message from Christ in this passage, which ends with v21.

18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.

21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.”

The deeds done in God, that is not done according to man. Those who do come to Christ the LIGHT, their deeds were done by God's power at work in them.

John 6:37
All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.

Christ tells us before you come to Him, you must be selected by God, given to Christ. And you will with 100% certainty become a believer in Christ.

Christ tells us if your not enabled by the Father to come to Christ, then you will not come to Christ.
John 6:44 Amplified Bible, Classic Edition (AMPC)
44 No one is able to come to Me unless the Father Who sent Me attracts and draws him and gives him the desire to come to Me, and [then] I will raise him up [from the dead] at the last day.


64 But [still] some of you fail to believe and trust and have faith. For Jesus knew from the first who did not believe and had no faith and who would betray Him and be false to Him.

65 And He said, This is why I told you that no one can come to Me unless it is granted him [unless he is enabled to do so] by the Father.

 

[Buggins]

Don't stop, keep reading in John 3 to get the final message from Christ in this passage, which ends with v21.

18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.

21 But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.”

The deeds done in God, that is not done according to man. Those who do come to Christ the LIGHT, their deeds were done by God's power at work in them.

John 6:37
All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out.

Christ tells us before you come to Him, you must be selected by God, given to Christ. And you will with 100% certainty become a believer in Christ.

Christ tells us if your not enabled by the Father to come to Christ, then you will not come to Christ.
John 6:44 Amplified Bible, Classic Edition (AMPC)
44 No one is able to come to Me unless the Father Who sent Me attracts and draws him and gives him the desire to come to Me, and [then] I will raise him up [from the dead] at the last day.


64 But [still] some of you fail to believe and trust and have faith. For Jesus knew from the first who did not believe and had no faith and who would betray Him and be false to Him.

65 And He said, This is why I told you that no one can come to Me unless it is granted him [unless he is enabled to do so] by the Father.

That's predestination surely, and the Bible does not teach predestination but free will and repentance.
God is actively seeking us, but salvation is open to all.
John 3:16

 

[S. Tellez]

Thank you, but I'm asking if you have some reason for understanding the Greek in this way?

Some reference - where did you hear this?

There are different Greek words for death all with different meanings. Thanatos is always a judgment death (punitive or non) and apothanesko is physical death etc. Context says so.

 

[~Anastasia~]

There are different Greek words for death all with different meanings. Thanatos is always a judgment death (punitive or non) and apothanesko is physical death etc. Context says so.

We can drop it if you like.

I wondered where you got that perspective, but I'm afraid I have to disagree.

We use the Greek Scriptures in our Church, and with all due respect, I see no reason to say that "Thanatos" is always connected to judgement. In many cases it is, but that is given by the context and not inherent in the word itself.

These all use a form of thanatos, having nothing to do with judgement.

Mark 9:1
Luke 2:26
Luke 9:27
John 11:4
Romans 8:38
1 Cor 3:22
1 Cor 15:26
1 Cor 15:54, 55, 56
Phillip 1:20
Phillip 2:27
Rev 1:18
Rev 9:6
Rev 12:11
Rev 13:3


I believe θάνατος/thanatos is derived from
ἀποθνῄσκω/apothanesko and so the meanings are not in contrast with one another.

But I was only curious of your reason/source for saying so. Not looking for an argument.

Peace be with you.

 

[S. Tellez]

We can drop it if you like.

I wondered where you got that perspective, but I'm afraid I have to disagree.

We use the Greek Scriptures in our Church, and with all due respect, I see no reason to say that "Thanatos" is always connected to judgement. In many cases it is, but that is given by the context and not inherent in the word itself.

These all use a form of thanatos, having nothing to do with judgement.

Mark 9:1
Luke 2:26
Luke 9:27
John 11:4
Romans 8:38
1 Cor 3:22
1 Cor 15:26
1 Cor 15:54, 55, 56
Phillip 1:20
Phillip 2:27
Rev 1:18
Rev 9:6
Rev 12:11
Rev 13:3


I believe θάνατος/thanatos is derived from
ἀποθνῄσκω/apothanesko and so the meanings are not in contrast with one another.

But I was only curious of your reason/source for saying so. Not looking for an argument.

Peace be with you.

The court has decreed all things that would happen, when everything happens, when everything is so ordered by the court or is permitted by the court in the case of wrongdoings.

you think when a sparrow falls that God does not know it, decree it or permit it by decree in His court?

Mark 9:1 Judgement of the court, and the king of the court is doing the speaking (all judgment has been handed unto the Son)
Luke 2:26 Judgment of the court that Simon would not die before seeing the Messiah...and the court informed Simon beforehand.
Luke 9:27 Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God. (by judgment and decree of the court)
John 11:14 is a simple reference that Lazarus died physically. In John 11:25 in speaking of Lazarus death Christ once again referred to the fact of physically having died, "the one believing in me, though he physically die...he will live (zao, brought back to physical life), and everyone believing in me living shall in no ways die (apothanesko, physical death) unto the age (eternal state). Christ is simply referring to physically living, dying and living again...PHYSICAL LIFE.
Romans 8:38 is referring to rulers, governments, angelic powers, thanatos in that case is once again referring to being put to death by human courts.
1 Cor 3:22 is referring to judgments of death...it sure isnt referring to natural death.
1 Cor 15:26 "the last enemy to be annulled (to be abolished, or court decrees of death, mortality are permanently ended) is death". (and since the CONTEXT [which doesnt mean much to some people] is physical death and resurrection and Christ taking the reins...it is about mortality being ended by court decree)....THIS IS ALSO PROOF THAT THE RAPTURE IS AT SECOND ADVENT...SINCE HYPOTHETICALLY DEATH WOULD NOT BE ENDED IN A PRE-TRIB RAPTURE (since there would be people still dying in the tribulation period)
Another part of the CONTEXT of 1 Cor 15 is the phrase "as in Adam all die" (apothanesko or physical death), so also will made alive (resurrection).
FOR DEATH [THANATOS] TO BE ANNULLED AND DONE AWAY WITH...HOW IS THAT GONNA HAPPEN IF GOD IN HIS COURT DOES NOT MAKE THAT JUDGMENT AND DECREE??? [and thantos is the judgment of death, non punitive which refers to mortality and PHYSICAL DEATH IS PROOF OF MORTALITY.

thanatos and apothanesko are two different words and do not have the same definition. They are not derived from each other.

definite articles "ho thanatos" started (entered the world) when Adam trespassed and the final enemy to be done away with or annulled is "ho thanatos"<---the same one being talked about. (and that isnt at the pre-trib rapture either) SECOND ADVENT IS WHEN THE RESURRECTION/TRANSLATION OCCURS.

Peace be with you

 

[~Anastasia~]

The court has decreed all things that would happen, when everything happens, when everything is so ordered by the court or is permitted by the court in the case of wrongdoings.

you think when a sparrow falls that God does not know it, decree it or permit it by decree in His court?

Mark 9:1 Judgement of the court, and the king of the court is doing the speaking (all judgment has been handed unto the Son)
Luke 2:26 Judgment of the court that Simon would not die before seeing the Messiah...and the court informed Simon beforehand.
Luke 9:27 Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God. (by judgment and decree of the court)
John 11:14 is a simple reference that Lazarus died physically. In John 11:25 in speaking of Lazarus death Christ once again referred to the fact of physically having died, "the one believing in me, though he physically die...he will live (zao, brought back to physical life), and everyone believing in me living shall in no ways die (apothanesko, physical death) unto the age (eternal state). Christ is simply referring to physically living, dying and living again...PHYSICAL LIFE.
Romans 8:38 is referring to rulers, governments, angelic powers, thanatos in that case is once again referring to being put to death by human courts.
1 Cor 3:22 is referring to judgments of death...it sure isnt referring to natural death.
1 Cor 15:26 "the last enemy to be annulled (to be abolished, or court decrees of death, mortality are permanently ended) is death". (and since the CONTEXT [which doesnt mean much to some people] is physical death and resurrection and Christ taking the reins...it is about mortality being ended by court decree)....THIS IS ALSO PROOF THAT THE RAPTURE IS AT SECOND ADVENT...SINCE HYPOTHETICALLY DEATH WOULD NOT BE ENDED IN A PRE-TRIB RAPTURE (since there would be people still dying in the tribulation period)
Another part of the CONTEXT of 1 Cor 15 is the phrase "as in Adam all die" (apothanesko or physical death), so also will made alive (resurrection).
FOR DEATH [THANATOS] TO BE ANNULLED AND DONE AWAY WITH...HOW IS THAT GONNA HAPPEN IF GOD IN HIS COURT DOES NOT MAKE THAT JUDGMENT AND DECREE??? [and thantos is the judgment of death, non punitive which refers to mortality and PHYSICAL DEATH IS PROOF OF MORTALITY.

thanatos and apothanesko are two different words and do not have the same definition. They are not derived from each other.

definite articles "ho thanatos" started (entered the world) when Adam trespassed and the final enemy to be done away with or annulled is "ho thanatos"<---the same one being talked about. (and that isnt at the pre-trib rapture either) SECOND ADVENT IS WHEN THE RESURRECTION/TRANSLATION OCCURS.

Peace be with you

But in that case, you should simply say "all death is judgement", I n which case there should be no need for a "non-judgement" word for death. After all, what has the sparrow done that God judges it worthy of death?

This is interpretation - we (Orthodox- received from the early Christians) do not view the curse of death as a judgement/punishment upon the cosmos, but rather the natural consequence of separation of a created being (having no life within itself by natural essence) from the Source of Life (God).

God Himself is referred to as "Athanatos" ... immortal, one who does not die. Having nothing to do with judgement, but the nature of God which is life, rather than death.

If you will check commonly available Bible Study tools available online - Strong's Greek: 2288. θάνατος (thanatos) -- death - for "thanatos" they acknowledge it as derived from 2348 /thnḗskō, "to die").

As I said, I have no desire to argue or need to change anyone's mind. We use the Greek Scriptures as written in Church, and I just wondered at what source you were using to claim that meaning within "thanatos" ... if it was some published opinion of official teaching of anyone. My replies are only to explain why I disagree, because I feel it necessary for anyone who might someday look this thread up or be reading now to have perspectives for the sake of completeness, if anyone is so interested.

If you have no such source, that was all I had wondered. Thank you for your reply.

 

[GillDouglas]

he

But I believe that one is not condemned spiritually until the first conscious sin. Babies and young children are not condemned, if they die before they know right from wrong. The Blood of Jesus redeems them too. They will be resurrected to eternal life.

This appears to be a contradiction. If babies and young children are not condemned because they had not the chance to sin, why would they need the redemptive Blood of Christ?

 

[S. Tellez]

But in that case, you should simply say "all death is judgement", I n which case there should be no need for a "non-judgement" word for death. After all, what has the sparrow done that God judges it worthy of death?

This is interpretation - we (Orthodox- received from the early Christians) do not view the curse of death as a judgement/punishment upon the cosmos, but rather the natural consequence of separation of a created being (having no life within itself by natural essence) from the Source of Life (God).

God Himself is referred to as "Athanatos" ... immortal, one who does not die. Having nothing to do with judgement, but the nature of God which is life, rather than death.

If you will check commonly available Bible Study tools available online - Strong's Greek: 2288. θάνατος (thanatos) -- death - for "thanatos" they acknowledge it as derived from 2348 /thnḗskō, "to die").

As I said, I have no desire to argue or need to change anyone's mind. We use the Greek Scriptures as written in Church, and I just wondered at what source you were using to claim that meaning within "thanatos" ... if it was some published opinion of official teaching of anyone. My replies are only to explain why I disagree, because I feel it necessary for anyone who might someday look this thread up or be reading now to have perspectives for the sake of completeness, if anyone is so interested.

If you have no such source, that was all I had wondered. Thank you for your reply.

NOT EVERYTHING IS ABOUT WRATH. And what happened to koine greek? common greek? We got words like executed, capital offense, physically died, dead, murdered...its the same with greek

 

[S. Tellez]

These appears to be a contradiction. If babies and young children are not condemned because they had not the chance to sin, why would they need to redemptive Blood of Christ?

Thats because there is most definitely is contradiction. Babies cannot be held accountable for anything because they are not responsible for anything. What did babies do that they deserve the death Christ got that they are responsible for? The answer is nothing. To those who say "well they are under the age of accountability", that is irrelevant to the question since they are the ones who state that "Christ was punished in place of EVERYONE because EVERYONE deserved that death." In fact, Christ was not punished in anyones place BECAUSE HE WAS INNOCENT AND GOD DOES NOT GO AGAINST HIS OWN LAW AND PUNISHED THE INNOCENT WHICH IS AN ABOMINATION. All false doctrines portray God as unjust. All of them! And that includes Calvinism. We have exhausted this topic extensively in our book The Principled Legal Standard available on Amazon.

 

[~Anastasia~]

NOT EVERYTHING IS ABOUT WRATH. And what happened to koine greek? common greek? We got words like executed, capital offense, physically died, dead, murdered...its the same with greek

I'm not quite sure how to reply.

Indeed, not everything is about wrath. In fact, much less than many people think.

Sparrows dying have nothing to do with punishment by death, was my point.

And yes, Greek has changed over time. We use Koine Greek in services and Scripture, and it has undergone more than one kind of change since then - people speak now in a common Greek (I guess that's what you mean) that is a couple generations removed from Koine.

Like I said we can drop it. My point was that "thanatos" doesn't imply necessary judgement, to a Christian community that has existed since the first century and still uses the same versions and writings received then, and I was curious at your reasons for stating otherwise. I was curious if there was some basis you could point to, and if not, that's ok too. I'm not looking to argue.

 

[S. Tellez]

I'm not quite sure how to reply.

Indeed, not everything is about wrath. In fact, much less than many people think.

Sparrows dying have nothing to do with punishment by death, was my point.

And yes, Greek has changed over time. We use Koine Greek in services and Scripture, and it has undergone more than one kind of change since then - people speak now in a common Greek (I guess that's what you mean) that is a couple generations removed from Koine.

Like I said we can drop it. My point was that "thanatos" doesn't imply necessary judgement, to a Christian community that has existed since the first century and still uses the same versions and writings received then, and I was curious at your reasons for stating otherwise. I was curious if there was some basis you could point to, and if not, that's ok too. I'm not looking to argue.

Your keep saying you don't want to argue yet you keep doing just that. Anyways, thanatos is always a judgement. It is never non judgement. It is either a punitive judgement or non punitive judgement. To say the word is not a judgement is laugable. Btw I never said thanatos was "non judgement". Now why don't you make good on you're desire to "not want to argue".