Original Sin, and its Essence

[ttruscott]

because all sinned

Yes, because we have all sinned, we are born into Adam's death.

The law reveals that everyone is in sin.

...another way of saying, all are sinners, none is righteous, not one but it doesn't say we got that sinfulness from Adam and not from our own free will decision to rebel against HIM.

It is blasphemy against HIS loving kindness, righteousness and justice to teach HE has us die in Adam without our ever making a free will decision to rebel sinfully.

Death is the wages of sin, not a natural consequence of life.

 

[Nick M]

Yes, because we have all sinned, we are born into Adam's death.

...another way of saying, all are sinners, none is righteous, not one but it doesn't say we got that sinfulness from Adam and not from our own free will decision to rebel against HIM.

It is blasphemy against HIS loving kindness, righteousness and justice to teach HE has us die in Adam without our ever making a free will decision to rebel sinfully.

Death is the wages of sin, not a natural consequence of life.

Right. Paul covers all the angles in Romans 5.

 

[Derf]

It is blasphemy against HIS loving kindness, righteousness and justice to teach HE has us die in Adam without our ever making a free will decision to rebel sinfully.

Yet we are told "in Adam all die".
1 Corinthians 15:22 KJV — For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

If that means what it appears to mean, death is guaranteed to all human beings who are "in Adam." So if one is not subject to death, then that one must not be "in Adam". Consider the case of a newborn. Is he "in Adam"? If so, then he is subject to death, possibly even within a few minutes of birth--I think we all agree that death often comes to those who have medical problems immediately after birth, yet they haven't sinned.

If such a one is not "in Adam", and he's not yet "in Christ", what state is he in? Does he need the salvation of Christ to live eternally? Surely he does.

 

[Clete]

Yet we are told "in Adam all die".
1 Corinthians 15:22 KJV — For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

If that means what it appears to mean, death is guaranteed to all human beings who are "in Adam." So if one is not subject to death, then that one must not be "in Adam". Consider the case of a newborn. Is he "in Adam"? If so, then he is subject to death, possibly even within a few minutes of birth--I think we all agree that death often comes to those who have medical problems immediately after birth, yet they haven't sinned.

If such a one is not "in Adam", and he's not yet "in Christ", what state is he in? Does he need the salvation of Christ to live eternally? Surely he does.

I Corinthians 15 is not talking about physical life and death. Do you know of even one single person who has been made physically alive in Christ?

 

[Derf]

I Corinthians 15 is not talking about physical life and death.

Shall I quote it again? And I'll include the next verse to see if it helps.
1 Corinthians 15:22-23 KJV — For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

Do you know of even one single person who has been made physically alive in Christ?

If we're not talking about physical life and death, why does the passage speak of something in the future? Are you saying we aren't even spiritually alive in Christ yet, but must wait until Christ returns?

 

[Clete]

Derf,

The further I went into the following post, the more aware I became of not being certain about just what it is you're trying to argue here. I think it would be a good idea for you to articulate, as clearly as you can, just what it is you're arguing. What is it that you're disagreeing with ttruscott about and what alternative are you putting forward? It wouldn't surprise me if it turns out that we are actually in agreement.

Shall I quote it again? And I'll include the next verse to see if it helps.
1 Corinthians 15:22-23 KJV — For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.

What exactly is the point here? Have you not been made alive in Christ? I know I have?

If we're not talking about physical life and death, why does the passage speak of something in the future?

That is beside the point. Whether its future or not doesn't negate the fact that it's primarily a spiritual matter.

Are you saying we aren't even spiritually alive in Christ yet, but must wait until Christ returns?

NO! That's what it seems like you are saying!

To be clear, my previous post sort of overstated my position, which is my own fault for wanting to post something when I didn't have the time to make the point properly. Physical death is part of what is being spoken of in I Corinthians but only part. The issue of being saved is not primarily a physical issue but a spiritual one. Yes, we all die physically and yes, those who are saved will be physically resurrected but that is quite a separate issue from what you seem to be debating here and to the extent that it is talking about physical death, it seems the passage you are siting doesn't apply. Verse 12 gives the context of what Paul is saying....

12 Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?​

....which is a point that none of us here making! Paul himself states explicitly what my point is at the end of the chapter you are citing.....

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 became a living being.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.​

​

46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are made of dust; and as is the heavenly Man, so also are those who are heavenly. 49 And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man.​

​

You might say then that all of this is yet future! Well, directly in context, it is, but to that extent it means that you've chosen the wrong proof text because it does not support YOUR position - at least as I understand it (I admit that your point is less than crystal clear to me. It seems either way I look at your position, your cited passage doesn't do that job you're asking of it.).

Are you arguing that infants are not 'in Adam' because they haven’t sinned personally? Or are you saying they are in Adam and thus spiritually dead, even without personal sin? I’m still unclear on what conclusion you’re trying to draw from the passage. The passage doesn’t address moral culpability, age of accountability, or the need for personal salvation prior to sin. In that context, it is ENTIRELY about physical death. Is that the point you're making? If so, how would that apply to ttruscott's statement....

"It is blasphemy against HIS loving kindness, righteousness and justice to teach HE has us die in Adam without our ever making a free will decision to rebel sinfully."​

​

...which is very decidedly about moral culpability?

It seems to me like the correct response to his point is to question his premise, not to accept it and try to explain it away, which is what it seems to me like you're doing.

If ttruescott were not on ignore and I were to respond to his statement, I would start by point out that he is assuming that dying ‘in Adam’ implies moral guilt. Scripture, however, presents it more as a consequence of being born into a fallen world. Babies who die aren’t being punished for personal sin, nor is God unjust for allowing them to die physically. Physical death is part of the natural order after Adam’s Fall (Genesis 3), not necessarily a moral judgment on each individual.

Additionally, if we demand that we must personally choose to sin in order to die ‘in Adam,’ do we also demand that we must personally do righteous deeds before we can live ‘in Christ’? Paul says, ‘as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive’! It’s a representative framework, not just an individual one. Just as we inherit the consequence of Adam’s sin by being in him, we inherit the benefit of Christ’s righteousness by being in Him. The justice of being made alive in Christ works the same way; it’s not earned by us personally, but received through union with Him. It is Christ's death (both physically and spiritually) that provides the justice, not the death of children nor our righteousness.

And in response to ttruescott, as with you, I'd feel compelled to emphasize that this issue is not primarily about physical death, but about spiritual death. When Paul writes, "as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive," he is pointing to a reality with profound spiritual implications. The spiritual death that resulted from Adam's sin became universal, not because of inherited guilt, but because the effect cannot be greater than its cause. Just as Adam became spiritually dead (i.e. separated from God), so the race that came from him was likewise spiritually dead. However! Christ’s redemptive work at Calvary intervenes and restores spiritual life to all!

Romans 5:18 “Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.”​

Therefore, a person now only dies spiritually when they personally choose to sin. Physical death, meanwhile, remains the inherited consequence of Adam’s sin, because we - “in the flesh” - have not yet been redeemed (Romans 7:14–25). In short, physical death is inherited from Adam, but spiritual death results only from each individual’s own free choice to sin, not from Adam’s guilt.

 

[ttruscott]

Yet we are told "in Adam all die".

"in Adam all die" cannot replace the definition of death as the wages for sin...it must be seen as an addendum to the definition of death or we get into logical fallacies. Some cannot die in Adam without also being sinners since both are said to refer to death not "either or".

This actually supports the contention that only sinners are sown into Adam to bring all the sinful elect into one death in Christ.

 

[Derf]

"in Adam all die" cannot replace the definition of death as the wages for sin

Neither of those are definitions.

...it must be seen as an addendum to the definition of death or we get into logical fallacies. Some cannot die in Adam without also being sinners since both are said to refer to death not "either or".

The whole idea that people that are "in Adam" receive the wages of sin is a concept that needs to be wrestled with. The Levites paid tithe to Melchizedek while they were "in Abraham":
Hebrews 7:9-10 KJV — And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.

And, in case you missed it, Levi was not in some holding place for souls at that time, but he was in Abraham's loins. This doesn't mean he was residing in Abraham's flesh somewhere, but that he only existed in so much as Abraham existed at that point, and when he began to exist, as a son of Jacob, he was a descendent of Abraham, as Jacob was.

In the same way that Levi paid tithes in Abraham, we could be said to have sinned in Adam.

This actually supports the contention that only sinners are sown into Adam to bring all the sinful elect into one death in Christ.

@Clete: this is the part that you need to understand about @ttruscott's position. He believes that souls were created prior to physical bodies, that those souls could choose to sin or not prior to being transferred into physical bodies, that some souls did and some dud not sin, prior to having physical bodies, and that the ones who receive death as their wages (not sure I've worded that last one correctly--Truscott can correct me).

But we know Adam wasn't a "soul" before his body was created, rather after he (his body) was formed from the dust, then God breathed into him (the body) the breath of life and he (the body) became a living soul. The text explicitly says that God formed man from the dust, calling him "man" while he was still inanimate.
[Gen 2:7 KJV] And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

 

[Clete]

@Clete: this is the part that you need to understand about @ttruscott's position. He believes that souls were created prior to physical bodies, that those souls could choose to sin or not prior to being transferred into physical bodies, that some souls did and some dud not sin, prior to having physical bodies, and that the ones who receive death as their wages (not sure I've worded that last one correctly--Truscott can correct me).

But we know Adam wasn't a "soul" before his body was created, rather after he (his body) was formed from the dust, then God breathed into him (the body) the breath of life and he (the body) became a living soul. The text explicitly says that God formed man from the dust, calling him "man" while was still inanimate.

Yes, ttruescott is a lunatic who seems to make his doctrine up as he goes along. He reads the back of a Froot Loops box and gets inspiration for the next Beavis and Butt-Head endorsed doctrine of "Christianity".

 

[Derf]

Derf,

The further I went into the following post, the more aware I became of not being certain about just what it is you're trying to argue here. I think it would be a good idea for you to articulate, as clearly as you can, just what it is you're arguing. What is it that you're disagreeing with ttruscott about and what alternative are you putting forward? It wouldn't surprise me it turns out that we are actually in agreement.

I think you're correct.

What exactly is the point here? Have you not been made alive in Christ? I know I have?

Yes, we both agree that we have, if we believe that He died and rose again. There are a bunch of side points that go along with that, but that is the basis for the gospel.

That is beside the point. Whether its future or not doesn't negate the fact that it's primarily a spiritual matter.

We might disagree here, but not in much substance.

NO! That's what it seems like you are saying!

To be clear, my previous post sort of overstated my position, which is my own fault for wanting to post something when I didn't have the time to make the point properly.

I appreciate that you relooked at it.

Physical death is part of what is being spoken of in I Corinthians but only part. The issue of being saved is not primarily a physical issue but a spiritual one.

I would agree were the death and resurrection of Christ not purely a physical phenomenon, because it points to our physical resurrection INTO something both physical and spiritual, according to 1 Corp 15.

Yes, we all die physically and yes, those who are saved will be physically resurrected but that is quite a separate issue from what you seem to be debating here and to the extent that it is talking about physical death, it seems the passage you are siting doesn't apply. Verse 12 gives the context of what Paul is saying....

12 Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?​

....which is a point that none of us here making! Paul himself states explicitly what my point is at the end of the chapter you are citing.....

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 became a living being.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.​

Can we agree that "it" is talking about the physical body? And therefore when it is raised a spiritual body, the reference is to the physical resurrection?

​

46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are made of dust; and as is the heavenly Man, so also are those who are heavenly. 49 And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man.​

​

You might say then that all of this is yet future! Well, directly in context, it is, but to that extent it means that you've chosen the wrong proof text because it does not support YOUR position - at least as I understand it (I admit that your point is less than crystal clear to me. It seems either way I look at your position, your cited passage doesn't do that job you're asking of it.).

My point was mainly to discuss why people who have not sinned are still affected by the penalty for sin, meaning death.

Are you arguing that infants are not 'in Adam' because they haven’t sinned personally?

No, they are all born descendants of Adam, and as such they are subject to death. Jesus appears to be an exception, probably because of the virgin birth. Yet He submitted Himself to death for our sakes.

But I was arguing against @ttruscott's position that sin occurred prior to physical existence.

Or are you saying they are in Adam and thus spiritually dead, even without personal sin?

All I'm saying at this point is that infants die (physically) because of Adam's sin. I think you agree with me here. We can discuss further what ramifications that brings. But you can't use the supposed fact that it is blasphemous that such has happened to argue against the actual fact that we experience death even if we don't sin.

I’m still unclear on what conclusion you’re trying to draw from the passage. The passage doesn’t address moral culpability, age of accountability, or the need for personal salvation prior to sin.

Right. That's why I think we can keep conclusions simple regarding that passage. Death, a penalty, resulted from Adam's sin, and it applies to all of Adam's descendants.

In that context, it is ENTIRELY about physical death. Is that the point you're making? If so, how would that apply to ttruscott's statement....

"It is blasphemy against HIS loving kindness, righteousness and justice to teach HE has us die in Adam without our ever making a free will decision to rebel sinfully."​

​

...which is very decidedly about moral culpability?

Death as used in chapter 15 of 1 Corinthians is talking about the part that is corrected with Jesus' death and resurrection, which are both expressly about Jesus physical death (since Jesus didn't die spiritually), else the earlier portion, where we have no hope without the resurrection, is nonsensical.

It seems to me like the correct response to his point is to question his premise, not to accept it and try to explain it away, which is what it seems to me like you're doing.

If ttruescott were not on ignore and I were to respond to his statement, I would start by point out that he is assuming that dying ‘in Adam’ implies moral guilt. Scripture, however, presents it more as a consequence of being born into a fallen world. Babies who die aren’t being punished for personal sin, nor is God unjust for allowing them to die physically. Physical death is part of the natural order after Adam’s Fall (Genesis 3), not necessarily a moral judgment on each individual.

I think we part ways a bit here. Not because death is a moral judgment on each individual, but because it is a moral judgment on Adam that is applied to all that were in Adam, which is all of his descendants.

Additionally, if we demand that we must personally choose to sin in order to die ‘in Adam,’ do we also demand that we must personally do righteous deeds before we can live ‘in Christ’? Paul says, ‘as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive’! It’s a representative framework, not just an individual one. Just as we inherit the consequence of Adam’s sin by being in him, we inherit the benefit of Christ’s righteousness by being in Him.

Agreed.

The justice of being made alive in Christ works the same way; it’s not earned by us personally, but received through union with Him. It is Christ's death (both physically and spiritually)

I might have made a mistake above suggesting Christ didn't die spiritually in your view, but the concept is strange to me.

that provides the justice, not the death of children nor our righteousness.

Correct.

And in response to ttruescott, as with you, I'd feel compelled to emphasize that this issue is not primarily about physical death, but about spiritual death.

Yes, I understand you read it that way. I tend to combine physical and spiritual death into a single thing--that there is no spirit of man without the body, and no functioning of man without the spirit. The spirit isn't a self-sufficient entity, and neither is the body. So if the spirit is dead, so is the body, and if the body is dead, there is no spirit.

When Paul writes, "as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive," he is pointing to a reality with profound spiritual implications. The spiritual death that resulted from Adam's sin became universal, not because of inherited guilt, but because the effect cannot be greater than its cause. Just as Adam became spiritually dead (i.e. separated from God), so the race that came from him was likewise spiritually dead.

Aren't you now arguing for infants being born spiritually dead? Aren't infants part of the race that came from Adam? Or are you saying "Like Adam became spiritually dead when he sinned, so the race that came from him becomes spiritually dead when the individual sins"? If that is the case, then how is it that Jesus fixes the spiritually dead problem we didn't inherit from Adam?

However! Christ’s redemptive work at Calvary intervenes and restores spiritual life to all!

Romans 5:18 “Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.”​

Therefore, a person now only dies spiritually when they personally choose to sin.

Pushing back here: Do persons who are in Christ die spiritually when they personally choose to sin?

Physical death, meanwhile, remains the inherited consequence of Adam’s sin, because we - “in the flesh” - have not yet been redeemed (Romans 7:14–25). In short, physical death is inherited from Adam, but spiritual death results only from each individual’s own free choice to sin, not from Adam’s guilt.

This is a problem with an unclear definition of "spiritual death" across the gamut of Christian thought, and possibly what you have stated above. But I agree that physical death is inherited from Adam, It is a punishment (wages of sin), and it is unclear why a punishment for Adam's sin is morally transferred to his descendants. I'm offering a solution to that problem. If physical death is Adam's punishment, amd Adam had no children before he sinned, then any children conceived after that sin bear the same penalty, since they were "in Adam" in the same way Levi was "in Abraham" when he tithed to Melchizedek. Levi had no choice whether he tithed to Melchizedek, but he reaped whatever reward might have come from it. We had no choice whether we sinned in Adam, but we reaped the penalty, which is (physical) death.

 

[Clete]

I think you're correct.

Yes, we both agree that we have, if we believe that He died and rose again. There are a bunch of side points that go along with that, but that is the basis for the gospel.

We might disagree here, but not in much substance.

I appreciate that you relooked at it.

I would agree were the death and resurrection of Christ not purely a physical phenomenon, because it points to our physical resurrection INTO something both physical and spiritual, according to 1 Corp 15.

Can we agree that "it" is talking about the physical body? And therefore when it is raised a spiritual body, the reference is to the physical resurrection?

My point was mainly to discuss why people who have not sinned are still affected by the penalty for sin, meaning death.

No, they are all born descendants of Adam, and as such they are subject to death. Jesus appears to be an exception, probably because of the virgin birth. Yet He submitted Himself to death for our sakes.

But I was arguing against @ttruscott's position that sin occurred prior to physical existence.

All I'm saying at this point is that infants die (physically) because of Adam's sin. I think you agree with me here. We can discuss further what ramifications that brings. But you can't use the supposed fact that it is blasphemous that such has happened to argue against the actual fact that we experience death even if we don't sin.

Right. That's why I think we can keep conclusions simple regarding that passage. Death, a penalty, resulted from Adam's sin, and it applies to all of Adam's descendants.

Death as used in chapter 15 of 1 Corinthians is talking about the part that is corrected with Jesus' death and resurrection, which are both expressly about Jesus physical death (since Jesus didn't die spiritually), else the earlier portion, where we have no hope without the resurrection, is nonsensical.

I think we part ways a bit here. Not because death is a moral judgment on each individual, but because it is a moral judgment on Adam that is applied to all that were in Adam, which is all of his descendants.

Agreed.

I might have made a mistake above suggesting Christ didn't die spiritually in your view, but the concept is strange to me.

Correct.

Yes, I understand you read it that way. I tend to combine physical and spiritual death into a single thing--that there is no spirit of man without the body, and no functioning of man without the spirit. The spirit isn't a self-sufficient entity, and neither is the body. So if the spirit is dead, so is the body, and if the body is dead, there is no spirit.

Aren't you now arguing for infants being born spiritually dead? Aren't infants part of the race that came from Adam? Or are you saying "Like Adam became spiritually dead when he sinned, so the race that came from him becomes spiritually dead when the individual sins"? If that is the case, then how is it that Jesus fixes the spiritually dead problem we didn't inherit from Adam?

Pushing back here: Do persons who are in Christ die spiritually when they personally choose to sin?

This is a problem with an unclear definition of "spiritual death" across the gamut of Christian thought, and possibly what you have stated above. But I agree that physical death is inherited from Adam, It is a punishment (wages of sin), and it is unclear why a punishment for Adam's sin is morally transferred to his descendants. I'm offering a solution to that problem. If physical death is Adam's punishment, amd Adam had no children before he sinned, then any children conceived after that sin bear the same penalty, since they were "in Adam" in the same way Levi was "in Abraham" when he tithed to Melchizedek. Levi had no choice whether he tithed to Melchizedek, but he reaped whatever reward might have come from it. We had no choice whether we sinned in Adam, but we reaped the penalty, which is (physical) death.

Ezekiel 18, on its own, is positive proof that your proposed solution cannot be correct. The problem lies in a flawed premise. You see no meaningful distinction between physical death and spiritual death, or at best, that any such distinction is irrelevant, but that conflation is precisely where the reasoning breaks down and thereby gives you a problem that needs a solution.

Once you let go of that single premise, the entire issue resolves itself. If, on the other hand, you cling to it, insisting that physical and spiritual death are the same, I don’t see how you can reject either the doctrine of original sin or Truescott’s central argument, which is that if original sin is true, then God is unjust.

The distinction between physical and spiritual death is a super clear and totally undeniable biblical fact...

Genesis 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die​

Adam did not die physically that day. He lived 930 years (Gen. 5:5). Therefore, some other kind of death occurred "that day"; namely, spiritual death, or the breaking of fellowship with God. This alone proves that death is not always physical in nature.

Ephesians 2:1 And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, 2 in which you once walked according to the [a]course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, 3 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.​

​

4 But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,​

​

That passage hardly needs any commentary, but just to state it explicitly, Paul is speaking to people who were physically alive but spiritually dead. Thus, spiritual death is a condition of separation from God, not the cessation of biological life.

Luke 15:24 for this my son was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ And they began to be merry.​

The point is being made here is the form of typology. The prodigal son was clearly not physically dead. The father is describing estrangement, (i.e. spiritual separation), as death.

Ezekiel 18: 20 The soul who sins shall die. 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.​

​

21 “But if a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 22 None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; because of the righteousness which he has done, he shall live. 23 Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?” says the Lord God, “and not that he should turn from his ways and live?​

​

God is not saying there that the man who repents from sin will be physically immortal, right? Of course not! He's saying that the person who repents will live - spiritually! The passage is saying that the righteous man's soul will survive his physical death.

Now, I could go on and on and on here, right? There are dozens, perhaps hundreds of such passages. There can be no doubt about it - physical death and not the equivalent of spiritual death. There is a very clear and deeply important difference between the two and conflating them leads to gross errors, not the least of which is the doctrine of original sin.

There is one additional point that should be made here having to do with the death of Jesus. You stated in your post that "Jesus didn't die spiritually". This is not only a denial of the very gospel itself, it openly contradicts your previous statements in the same post where you stated that "I would agree were the death and resurrection of Christ not purely a physical phenomenon, because it points to our physical resurrection INTO something both physical and spiritual, according to 1 Corp 15."

The death of Jesus physical body cannot undo the spiritual death of Adam's race, Derf! If the issue could have been solved by Jesus merely dying physically, then Jesus could have died painlessly in His sleep at the age of 102 and satisfied justice. The cross, with its emotional, relational, and spiritual agony, would be totally superfluous. The fact that He endured all of it points to a deeper problem than biological death could ever account for. He was remedying the rupture between man and God.

And that's what spiritual death is, by the way. Often the objection people have when confronted with the idea that Jesus died spiritually is that it translates in their mind as "Jesus ceased to exist", which isn't the case at all. None of us will ever cease to exist. The issue of death is not one of existence vs. oblivion, but of being in relationship with God vs. being separated from Him, of spending eternity is God's presence vs. being cast into outer darkness. Spiritual death is not the cessation of existence, but separation from God. It's alienation, exile, and loss of communion with the Source of life itself. To deny that Jesus experienced this on the cross is to gut the very heart of the gospel. He bore not just our physical fate but our spiritual condition, our estrangement from our Creator, and in doing so, He opened the door to reconciliation.

If we fail to distinguish physical from spiritual death, then we cannot understand what Adam lost, what Christ restored, or what salvation actually saves us from.

 

[Clete]

Pushing back here: Do persons who are in Christ die spiritually when they personally choose to sin?

No! Christ's death paid for all of your sin - past, present and future.

Once a person is placed into Christ by the baptism of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:13), they are sealed with the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 1:13–14, 4:30) and made spiritually alive in Christ. Sin can grieve the Holy Spirit and do harm to ourselves and those around us, but it does not reverse the new birth or cause spiritual death for the member of the Body of Christ because our new life isn't our life to lose, it's Christ's life, which has been imputed to us. Just as His death reconciled us, His resurrected life sustains us, for even when we are faithless, He remains faithful for He cannot deny Himself and we are in Him.

Romans 6:1–2 asks: “Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?”

Here, Paul acknowledges that believers can sin, but should not. That’s an exhortation, not a threat. There is never any suggestion that a sinning believer becomes spiritually dead again. If that were the case then the rhetorical question Paul asks wouldn't make any sense. Our identity has changed. We have passed from death to life, and we are not “in Adam” anymore, we are “in Christ.”

 

[Right Divider]

No! Christ's death paid for all of your sin - past, present and future.

Once a person is placed into Christ by the baptism of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:13), they are sealed with the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 1:13–14, 4:30) and made spiritually alive in Christ. Sin can grieve the Holy Spirit and do harm to ourselves and those around us, but it does not reverse the new birth or cause spiritual death for the member of the Body of Christ because our new life isn't our life to lose, it's Christ's life, which has been imputed to us. Just as His death reconciled us, His resurrected life sustains us, for even when we are faithless, He remains faithful for He cannot deny Himself and we are in Him.

Romans 6:1–2 asks: “Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?”

Here, Paul acknowledges that believers can sin, but should not. That’s an exhortation, not a threat. There is never any suggestion that a sinning believer becomes spiritually dead again. If that were the case then the rhetorical question Paul asks wouldn't make any sense. Our identity has changed. We have passed from death to life, and we are not “in Adam” anymore, we are “in Christ.”

Excellent post brother!

 

[Clete]

Excellent post brother!

It should be noted that my post teaches a doctrine that is uniquely Pauline (Of course I know that you know this!). It is Mid-Acts Dispensational soteriology. Peter, James and John taught something quite different. So much so that if one fails to see the unique ministry of the Apostle Paul and thereby fails to distinguish the Body of Christ from Israel, one likely gets the opposite answer to Derf's question.

“For if, after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the latter end is worse for them than the beginning.​

For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered to them.​

But it has happened to them according to the true proverb: ‘A dog returns to his own vomit,’ and, ‘a sow, having washed, to her wallowing in the mire.’” (2 Peter 2:20–22, NKJV)​

 

[Derf]

Ezekiel 18, on its own, is positive proof that your proposed solution cannot be correct. The problem lies in a flawed premise. You see no meaningful distinction between physical death and spiritual death, or at best, that any such distinction is irrelevant, but that conflation is precisely where the reasoning breaks down and thereby gives you a problem that needs a solution.

But Ez 18 isn't on its own. It follows, and must be understood in context of the law, which says:
[Exo 20:5 KJV] Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me;
This is PART OF the ten commandments (though not a part that usually gets included on wall plaques). So both must be true:
1. That God has visited the iniquity of fathers on their children for them that hate Him (Ex 20), and
2. That the people of Israel will no longer have occasion to use the parable that the father has eaten grapes and the children's teeth are set on edge. (Ez 18)
What is the concept that harmonizes the two? That the children that LOVE God are excluded from both the commandment (not "them that hate Him") and the proverb (the children that don't do wickedly, as explained in the following verses in Ez 18).

Once you let go of that single premise, the entire issue resolves itself. If, on the other hand, you cling to it, insisting that physical and spiritual death are the same, I don’t see how you can reject either the doctrine of original sin or Truescott’s central argument, which is that if original sin is true, then God is unjust.

The distinction between physical and spiritual death is a super clear and totally undeniable biblical fact...

Genesis 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die​

Adam did not die physically that day. He lived 930 years (Gen. 5:5).

It doesn't say "on the day you eat of it". It says "in the day you eat of it". Adam indeed died physically "in that day". The phrase does not refer to a single 24 hour day, as shown in an earlier verse of the same chapter, but refers to an era of some sort.
Here is the earlier verse:
[Gen 2:4 NKJV] This [is] the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
If we are to believe what you say about Adam, then we must conclude that God created the heavens and the earth on one single day. But we know that isn't true. Rather, we recognize that Gen 2:4 is refering to the whole creation era, which comprised 7 days. And thus, when God says "in the day you eat of it you shall surely die" He doesn't mean just one day, but some larger number of days, perhaps even 930 years worth.

Now, since you used Gen 2:17 to claim your view is a "super clear and totally undeniable biblical fact", the foregoing has completely dismantled your basis for clarity and undeniable biblical factuality.

Therefore, some other kind of death occurred "that day"; namely, spiritual death, or the breaking of fellowship with God. This alone proves that death is not always physical in nature.

As pointed out above, this statement no longer holds, since "that day" can include more than a single day, spiritual death is no longer required.

Ephesians 2:1 And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, 2 in which you once walked according to the [a]course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, 3 among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.​

​

4 But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus,​

​

That passage hardly needs any commentary, but just to state it explicitly, Paul is speaking to people who were physically alive but spiritually dead. Thus, spiritual death is a condition of separation from God, not the cessation of biological life.

The other thing those people share is that they all were on the road to permanent death. Thus Paul can be understood to be speaking of their lasting physical death (cessation of biological life) as a foregone conclusion, except that Christ has intervened. "We were dead" can refer to the fact of their future permanent death. This kind of language is used elsewhere, as in the case of Abimelech taking Sarah to wife:
[Gen 20:3 NKJV] But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, "Indeed you [are] a dead man because of the woman whom you have taken, for she [is] a man's wife."
The verse is talking about physical death, it is stated in the present tense, and Abimelech was not actually physically dead. It was a foregone conclusion that he would die because of what he had done--unless he repented (which he did).

Luke 15:24 for this my son was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’ And they began to be merry.​

The point is being made here is the form of typology. The prodigal son was clearly not physically dead. The father is describing estrangement, (i.e. spiritual separation), as death.

It is a form of typology, I agree. That form is called "metaphor". The son was obviously metaphorically dead to the father. In all senses that death of a son affects a father, so the prodigal was to his father. They had no relationship, he would not be in his father's future, he would not help out with his father's estate, etc. If this is what you mean by "spiritually dead", I'm completely in agreement. But it seems like you mean something else.

Ezekiel 18: 20 The soul who sins shall die. 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.​

​

21 “But if a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 22 None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; because of the righteousness which he has done, he shall live. 23 Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?” says the Lord God, “and not that he should turn from his ways and live?​

​

God is not saying there that the man who repents from sin will be physically immortal, right? Of course not! He's saying that the person who repents will live - spiritually! The passage is saying that the righteous man's soul will survive his physical death.

I don't see why the passage can't be talking about physical death, just like in Abimelech's case. It wasn't that he would never die, but that he would die prematurely. Same with those who don't repent. They die prematurely--they don't necessarily get to see their grandchildren and great-grandchildren, as is promised as a reward to those who are faithful, because there will be peace in the land:
[Psa 128:6 NKJV] Yes, may you see your children's children. Peace [be] upon Israel!

Now, I could go on and on and on here, right? There are dozens, perhaps hundreds of such passages. There can be no doubt about it - physical death and not the equivalent of spiritual death. There is a very clear and deeply important difference between the two and conflating them leads to gross errors, not the least of which is the doctrine of original sin.

There is one additional point that should be made here having to do with the death of Jesus. You stated in your post that "Jesus didn't die spiritually". This is not only a denial of the very gospel itself, it openly contradicts your previous statements in the same post where you stated that "I would agree were the death and resurrection of Christ not purely a physical phenomenon, because it points to our physical resurrection INTO something both physical and spiritual, according to 1 Corp 15."

The death of Jesus physical body cannot undo the spiritual death of Adam's race, Derf!

True. It requires the resurrection of Jesus' body.

If the issue could have been solved by Jesus merely dying physically, then Jesus could have died painlessly in His sleep at the age of 102 and satisfied justice.

Neither of us know that. We also don't know whether Jesus would have died naturally at the age of 102. There is sufficient evidence to suggest that He would NOT have ever died naturally as long as He never sinned, because there is something different in His conception compared to every other human being in history. And if the father's sin causes the physical death of the son (true in Adam's descendants, as you agreed earlier), then Jesus was exempt because of His Father.

The cross, with its emotional, relational, and spiritual agony, would be totally superfluous. The fact that He endured all of it points to a deeper problem than biological death could ever account for. He was remedying the rupture between man and God.

Sure. The deeper problem is sin, which biological death is the result of.

And that's what spiritual death is, by the way. Often the objection people have when confronted with the idea that Jesus died spiritually is that it translates in their mind as "Jesus ceased to exist", which isn't the case at all.

If Jesus has a dead spirit and a dead body, and souls die, too, what is left? But I don't really have a problem with Jesus dying in such a way that no part of Him was active and alive. That seems to be what is expressed in the gospels.

None of us will ever cease to exist.

This is perhaps the root of the disagreement. What you are saying is that God created us so that we will never cease to exist, that we have immortal souls. But the whole concept of a "soul" seems to allow that it could cease to exist. Adam became a living soul when God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. And God told him he would returned to what he was before (dust) when the breath of life was taken away, i.e., when he died.

The issue of death is not one of existence vs. oblivion, but of being in relationship with God vs. being separated from Him, of spending eternity is God's presence vs. being cast into outer darkness. Spiritual death is not the cessation of existence, but separation from God. It's alienation, exile, and loss of communion with the Source of life itself. To deny that Jesus experienced this on the cross is to gut the very heart of the gospel. He bore not just our physical fate but our spiritual condition, our estrangement from our Creator, and in doing so, He opened the door to reconciliation.

I know that's how you believe it worked. I'm saying it isn't near as clear as you are saying it is. Physical death on the cross is what seems to be necessary to reconcile the world to God. Otherwise, IT wouldn't be necessary, as you were saying. Christ could have died spiritually without all the fuss of His physical death.

If we fail to distinguish physical from spiritual death, then we cannot understand what Adam lost, what Christ restored, or what salvation actually saves us from.

I agree with this completely.

 

[7djengo7]

It doesn't say "on the day you eat of it". It says "in the day you eat of it". Adam indeed died physically "in that day". The phrase does not refer to a single 24 hour day, as shown in an earlier verse of the same chapter, but refers to an era of some sort.

I would think that to begin to die is to die; I mean, you can't begin dying without dying. Perhaps he began dying, bodily, at the very moment he ate the fruit, and his dying went on for the next 930 years. So that, for Adam to have died, bodily, within the same 24-hour period in which he ate the fruit, wouldn't necessitate that he had entirely "given up the ghost" by the end of those 24 hours.

 

[Derf]

I would think that to begin to die is to die; I mean, you can't begin dying without dying. Perhaps he began dying, bodily, at the very moment he ate the fruit, and his dying went on for the next 930 years. So that, for Adam to have died, bodily, within the same 24-hour period in which he ate the fruit, wouldn't necessitate that he had entirely "given up the ghost" by the end of those 24 hours.

Yes, that seems like a reasonable possibility, but the point was that the very chapter the text is in refutes the limitation of it being only 24 hours. And I don't know of any other mention in the whole bible that confirms the 24-hour day model for Adam's death. I'm not saying the idea of spiritual death is precluded by the passage, but that the other option I'm proposing isn't either.

 

[Right Divider]

But Ez 18 isn't on its own. It follows, and must be understood in context of the law, which says:
[Exo 20:5 KJV] Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me;

What this does NOT mean... it does NOT mean that the children are accountable for their fathers sins.

What this DOES mean... the effects of the fathers sins have long term ramifications.

 

[Clete]

But Ez 18 isn't on its own. It follows, and must be understood in context of the law, which says:
[Exo 20:5 KJV] Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth [generation] of them that hate me;
This is PART OF the ten commandments (though not a part that usually gets included on wall plaques). So both must be true:
1. That God has visited the iniquity of fathers on their children for them that hate Him (Ex 20), and
2. That the people of Israel will no longer have occasion to use the parable that the father has eaten grapes and the children's teeth are set on edge. (Ez 18)
What is the concept that harmonizes the two? That the children that LOVE God are excluded from both the commandment (not "them that hate Him") and the proverb (the children that don't do wickedly, as explained in the following verses in Ez 18).

It doesn't say "on the day you eat of it". It says "in the day you eat of it". Adam indeed died physically "in that day". The phrase does not refer to a single 24 hour day, as shown in an earlier verse of the same chapter, but refers to an era of some sort.
Here is the earlier verse:
[Gen 2:4 NKJV] This [is] the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,
If we are to believe what you say about Adam, then we must conclude that God created the heavens and the earth on one single day. But we know that isn't true. Rather, we recognize that Gen 2:4 is refering to the whole creation era, which comprised 7 days. And thus, when God says "in the day you eat of it you shall surely die" He doesn't mean just one day, but some larger number of days, perhaps even 930 years worth.

Now, since you used Gen 2:17 to claim your view is a "super clear and totally undeniable biblical fact", the foregoing has completely dismantled your basis for clarity and undeniable biblical factuality.

As pointed out above, this statement no longer holds, since "that day" can include more than a single day, spiritual death is no longer required.

The other thing those people share is that they all were on the road to permanent death. Thus Paul can be understood to be speaking of their lasting physical death (cessation of biological life) as a foregone conclusion, except that Christ has intervened. "We were dead" can refer to the fact of their future permanent death. This kind of language is used elsewhere, as in the case of Abimelech taking Sarah to wife:
[Gen 20:3 NKJV] But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, "Indeed you [are] a dead man because of the woman whom you have taken, for she [is] a man's wife."
The verse is talking about physical death, it is stated in the present tense, and Abimelech was not actually physically dead. It was a foregone conclusion that he would die because of what he had done--unless he repented (which he did).

It is a form of typology, I agree. That form is called "metaphor". The son was obviously metaphorically dead to the father. In all senses that death of a son affects a father, so the prodigal was to his father. They had no relationship, he would not be in his father's future, he would not help out with his father's estate, etc. If this is what you mean by "spiritually dead", I'm completely in agreement. But it seems like you mean something else.

I don't see why the passage can't be talking about physical death, just like in Abimelech's case. It wasn't that he would never die, but that he would die prematurely. Same with those who don't repent. They die prematurely--they don't necessarily get to see their grandchildren and great-grandchildren, as is promised as a reward to those who are faithful, because there will be peace in the land:
[Psa 128:6 NKJV] Yes, may you see your children's children. Peace [be] upon Israel!

True. It requires the resurrection of Jesus' body.

Neither of us know that. We also don't know whether Jesus would have died naturally at the age of 102. There is sufficient evidence to suggest that He would NOT have ever died naturally as long as He never sinned, because there is something different in His conception compared to every other human being in history. And if the father's sin causes the physical death of the son (true in Adam's descendants, as you agreed earlier), then Jesus was exempt because of His Father.

Sure. The deeper problem is sin, which biological death is the result of.

If Jesus has a dead spirit and a dead body, and souls die, too, what is left? But I don't really have a problem with Jesus dying in such a way that no part of Him was active and alive. That seems to be what is expressed in the gospels.

This is perhaps the root of the disagreement. What you are saying is that God created us so that we will never cease to exist, that we have immortal souls. But the whole concept of a "soul" seems to allow that it could cease to exist. Adam became a living soul when God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. And God told him he would returned to what he was before (dust) when the breath of life was taken away, i.e., when he died.

I know that's how you believe it worked. I'm saying it isn't near as clear as you are saying it is. Physical death on the cross is what seems to be necessary to reconcile the world to God. Otherwise, IT wouldn't be necessary, as you were saying. Christ could have died spiritually without all the fuss of His physical death.

I agree with this completely.

@Derf,

Your response avoids the heart of the issue. Perhaps not intentionally, but you’re not dealing with the actual argument. I’m distinguishing physical death from spiritual death, and showing that Scripture does too. You’re treating that as if it’s just an interpretive quirk or some sort of “technical” nuance, but it's not that at all. On the contrary, it is not only the plain and intuitive reading of the text, but it’s completely essential. Without that distinction, even your own interpretations become inconsistent and incoherent.

Take Genesis 2:17; God says Adam will die “in the day” he eats. Not only does he not physically die that day, but he lives for 930 YEARS! Redefining “day” to mean “nearly a millennium” is not a serious treatment of the text, Derf. What does happen that very day is that Adam is cast out from God’s presence. That’s spiritual death. If you ignore that distinction, you’re left making the verse say something that it clearly doesn’t.

Ezekiel 18 is another example. You want to reduce it to warnings about dying young, but the chapter is plainly moral and spiritual. It’s not about life expectancy, it’s about each soul’s standing before God. It says “the soul who sins shall die.” It also says that the wicked man who repents will live. That’s not about gaining a few more years on Earth. It’s about spiritual (i.e. eternal) life or death before God. The entire chapter dismantles the idea of inherited guilt. Each person is judged for their own sin or righteousness. That fits perfectly with the view I’ve laid out, and not at all with the idea of spiritual death being something we’re born into.

As for Ephesians 2:1: Saying “you were dead in sin” means “you were dying” doesn’t work at all. Paul says we were dead - not dying - not doomed, but already spiritually dead, and then made alive in Christ. It’s a before and after contrast: dead in sin, alive in Him. That couldn't be any clearer and it fundamentally requires the spiritual/physical distinction you keep refusing to allow.

This is why I keep returning to the same point: once you let go of the idea that death always means physical death, everything falls into place - from Genesis 3, to the cross, to the new birth. If you cling to the idea that death is only physical, then you must either accept inherited guilt (as in original sin) or come up with increasingly strained explanations to avoid its consequences. If, on the other hand, you accept that Scripture distinguishes spiritual death from physical death, then the entire biblical message, from Adam’s fall to Christ’s resurrection, to our living with Him forever more, becomes both coherent and morally sound.

And no, none of us will ever cease to exist! This point is foundational to the whole discussion. When death means separation and not annihilation, everything falls into place; from the nature of the Fall, to the meaning of salvation, to the very character of God Himself. You'd be hard pressed to discover a more pervasively important doctrine. The coherence of the the entire bible and the whole of Christianity hinges on it.

In short, I’m pointing to clear, contextual distinctions and you’re just sidestepping them and replacing them with vague or metaphorical readings that avoid the force of the argument I've presented. You’re defending a framework that not only appears to be brought to the text a priori, but that requires reinterpreting passages that, if read straightforwardly, openly contradict your theology.

One last thing...because I think it really matters.

I said: “If we fail to distinguish physical from spiritual death, then we cannot understand what Adam lost, what Christ restored, or what salvation actually saves us from.”

You replied: “I agree with this completely.”

How can the be squared with the rest of your response? Everything you’ve argued up to this point depends on collapsing that distinction. You’ve repeatedly treated death in Genesis, Ezekiel, and Ephesians as if it simply means physical death (or sometimes metaphorical death), and resisted the spiritual/physical distinction.

So, what is it exactly that you're agreeing with?

If you truly agree that spiritual death is a real and distinct category and that it’s central to what Adam lost, what Christ restores, and what salvation saves us from, then I honestly don’t see how your earlier interpretations hold together. Once you allow that distinction, everything changes: Genesis 2-3 makes perfect sense, Ezekiel 18 becomes morally coherent, and Ephesians 2:1 is no longer a metaphor, but a literal description of spiritual death and rebirth.

If, on the other hand, you agree with the distinction in theory but not in practice, then I’d suggest the agreement you've voiced is only superficial because the very passages you’ve reinterpreted are the ones that require that distinction in order to make any consistent theological sense.