Romans 5:12

[JohnJones]

So, you are saying that you can not, in such an instance, correlate physical and spiritual death? I see no problem there.

The problem with the Fall bringing physical death is that it would make the work of Jesus' death on the cross ineffective. Jesus' sacrifice was to undo the damage done by the Fall, to provide that bridge. Now, we know that we still die, physically, even after accepting the redemptive gift of that sacrifice.

CONTEXT.

1 Cor 15
20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. 21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. 24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

What you have overlooked is that physical death was conquered by Jesus - that's how His resurrection DID and why the general resurrection of all WILL take place - the resurrection is the conquering of physical death, and here the Scripture plainly says that just as in Adam all die, so in Christ all we be made alive (resurrected) thus showing the conquering of physical death. Death has been conquered, but not yet destroyed - yet it will be destroyed as well. But why is death called an enemy if death (aka, Natural Selection) is God's dear friend who helped him create man? How is death an enemy unless it is the offspring of Adam's sin?

 

[Vance]

CONTEXT.

1 Cor 15
20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. 21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. 24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. 25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

What you have overlooked is that physical death was conquered by Jesus - that's how His resurrection DID and why the general resurrection of all WILL take place - the resurrection is the conquering of physical death, and here the Scripture plainly says that just as in Adam all die, so in Christ all we be made alive (resurrected) thus showing the conquering of physical death. Death has been conquered, but not yet destroyed - yet it will be destroyed as well. But why is death called an enemy if death (aka, Natural Selection) is God's dear friend who helped him create man? How is death an enemy unless it is the offspring of Adam's sin?

Ah, but you have ignored all the other issues I raised with this approach. I think the resurrection is better seen as a Jesus conquering physical death which is symbolic for the conquering of spiritual death and the completion of the bridge between God and Man. The restoration of FULL communion immediately as well as in the future. And, yes, it is also a reference to the fact that physical death will not be the end of our existence, but it never WAS the end of our existence. All men will live forever, regardless of the redemptive gift (ie. heaven or hell). Jesus resurrection does not alter that. What it does is make it possible for us to spend that eternity in spiritual LIFE, in communion with God, if we accept the gift of Jesus' death and believe in the promise of spiritual life symbolized by the resurrection.

This model of exegesis simply fits better with all that is going on in Scripture, I believe. The fact that it ALSO fits what the evidence from God's Creation tells us is simply a clincher, not a reason in itself.

 

[SBG]

John it is probably best if you did not debate in here. As creationists would like to keep the debating out of the creationists only part, so should the same be done here.

You can always take this topic to the open debate in the origins forum. I don't mean any offense, but one side would like that respect and must show it as well.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

SBG - thanks.

 

[tryptophan]

I had always taken the important part from that verse to refer to the redemption that Jesus gave us from Original Sin. However, I guess I'm agnostic on whether a real Adam existed.

Furthermore, why does sin enter through Adam? Didn't Eve eat the fruit first? And wouldn't sin exist before they ate the fruit? I mean, isn't deciding to eat the fruit in the first place a sign that they were sinning? What I'm asking is, was the idea to eat the fruit the first sin, or was it eating the fruit itself?