If sin is not imputed without the law, how can some claim that babies and children die because Adam's sin is imputed to them?

[PaulThomson]

How does that work in comparison to the change happening in a twinkling of an eye? That would have to be a very long "eye twink".

And if Jesus' body is not being upheld by the power of God, then by what mechanism is His body gloriously immortal?

Jesus is immortal because He is ever-existing, without beginning or end. Created spirits are ever-existing, They all have a beginning, and they can all have an end. However, they can be sustained by God forever, if God wills. Genesis and Revelation indicate that the mechanism God chooses to use to sustain saints' physical health and life into the future is the tree of life. Restriction from the tree of life brings physical death, and access to the tree of life gives healing and endless life.

 

[Mem]

God an be made out to be a liar, if someone translates His words in such a way as to make Him seem a liar.

Do a word search on "surely" and you will find plenty of examples where the outcome is predicted and was not immediately effected but was gradually brought to pass. Some have Been taught the doctrine of original sin, and are needing to post hoc rationalise their belief in original sin. To do so, they enlist this verse, claiming it says death will immediately come to pass, and therefore the death referred to cannot be not physical death, so must be spiritual death, separation from God. They then apply this "separation from God kind of death" to all Adam's descendants, even in the womb, and so prove to their own satisfaction, but not to mine, that original sin is a real thing.

Here are some texts that use the structure "infinitive absolute verb form + imperfective verb form pair" that are describing a gradual outcome, not an immediate outcome.

Gen 28:22 And this stone, which I have set for a pillar, shall be God's house: and of all that thou shalt give me ( עַשֵּׂר אֲעַשְּׂרֶנּוּ , infinitive absolute + imperfective piel) unto thee.

Gen 32:12 And thou saidst, I will surely do ( הֵיטֵב אֵיטִיב , infinitive absolute + imperfective hiphil) thee good, and make thy seed as the sand of the sea, which cannot be numbered for multitude.

Gen 50:24 And Joseph said unto his brethren, I die: and God will surely visit ( פָּקֹד יִפְקֹד , imperfective Qal + infinitive absolute.) you, and bring you out of this land unto the land which he sware to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.

There are many others. You can do the word search yourself, if you are interested in the truth.

The usual occurrence happened when I submitted my post #553 and wanted to edit or at least submit a follow-up post asking about the usage of the word "shall." And I saw this to relate somewhat so I took it for an added opportunity to bring it back up.

Recently having noted that its usage, when it is otherwise so seldomly used, strikes me as being somewhat, idk, pretentious? or is precocious the word I'm in want of? I don't want to go forward without a more solid and proper understanding of it.

It is my understanding that when this word is used, it is stylistically meant to be an amalgamation of words 'should' and 'will' and I shall continue to do so until I'm sufficiently corrected. And I do suppose that the most effective correction might be an argument that, since the word is used in reference to God and what He 'shall' do, my understanding of the word implies that God 'should' or 'shouldn't do anything at all. However, we 'should' expect God to do such things that effect His purposes. Shall we?

 

[sawdust]

What indicates to you that Adam's sin corrupted Abel, Seth and Cain? If Adam and Eve needed to eat from the tree of Life to live forever, so were not inherently immortal, but they were very good, why would mortality be an indication of corruption?

I don't believe Adam and Eve needed the tree of life to avoid death, that's your position. As far as I am concerned, death was the result of sin and only sin. It was never commanded that they should eat from the ToL, ergo not a sin to not eat.

The indication we all live with a corruption in our body is Rom.7. There is a law that is not of God, one that is in opposition to God.

Romans 7:23
but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members.

 

[sawdust]

Genesis and Revelation indicate that the mechanism God chooses to use to sustain saints' physical health and life into the future is the tree of life. Restriction from the tree of life brings physical death, and access to the tree of life gives healing and endless life.

I disagree. I think it is an assumption that the Tree of Life was needed to remain alive. I also don't know where Revelation talks of the need for the Tree of Life. There is Rev.22:2 where it speaks of the leaves for the healing of nations but I don't see anything explicit or implicit regarding needing the tree on an individual basis in order to remain alive. Why would we need the tree anyway seeing as we will be putting on immortality? There is Rev.2:7; 22:14 and 22:19 but there it is used as a reward for fidelity. Can a need be considered as a reward?

 

[sawdust]

What indicates to you that Adam's sin corrupted Abel, Seth and Cain? If Adam and Eve needed to eat from the tree of Life to live forever, so were not inherently immortal, but they were very good, why would mortality be an indication of corruption?

I should also note, I don't believe mortality is an indication of corruption. Mortality means having the capacity to die, it doesn't necessarily mean one must die. The wages of sin is death. Death only occurs because of sin not for any other reason. Not eating from the tree of life was not a sin, ergo death is not the result of abstinence.

Considering God knew Adam would sin and drag the rest of humanity into depravity, it was most probably a very good thing God made our bodies mortal. Who wants to live forever in a state of war within oneself (Romans 7).

 

[Webers.Home]

.
● Rom 5:12-14 . . Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man,
and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all
sinned-- for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not
taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from
the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by
breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

That's a difficult passage, no doubt about it; but I'm pretty sure it's saying
that we all die not for something we ourselves did, rather, we have to die as
collateral damage for something that an ancient ancestor did.

That's very similar to Ex 34:6-7 which says:

"Then The Lord passed by in front of Moses and proclaimed: The Lord, The
Lord God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in
loving-kindness and truth; who keeps loving-kindness for thousands, who
forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the
guilty unpunished: visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the
grandchildren to the third and fourth generations."
_

 

[posthuman]

When you take a census of the Israelites to count them, each one must pay the LORD a ransom for his life at the time he is counted. Then no plague will come on them when you number them.” It was up to God to command a census, and if David counted he should only have done it at God’s command, receiving a ransom to “atone” for the counting."

why does there need to be atonement for numbering?

 

[posthuman]

I should also note, I don't believe mortality is an indication of corruption. Mortality means having the capacity to die, it doesn't necessarily mean one must die. The wages of sin is death. Death only occurs because of sin not for any other reason. Not eating from the tree of life was not a sin, ergo death is not the result of abstinence.

so, why do plants die?
do they sin?

 

[posthuman]

Or maybe the effect of eating the tree of life is temporary and requires one to keep on coming back to it every 100 years or 1000 years. So grabbing quick fix before being barred would have had only a temporary effect. And eating frm the tree probably did not make one immune from a knife in the heart or a club to the head..

where would one get that idea?

temporary, impermanent salvation?

whats 'good' about having only the deceptive illusion of life?

 

[PaulThomson]

I don't believe Adam and Eve needed the tree of life to avoid death, that's your position. As far as I am concerned, death was the result of sin and only sin. It was never commanded that they should eat from the ToL, ergo not a sin to not eat.

The indication we all live with a corruption in our body is Rom.7. There is a law that is not of God, one that is in opposition to God.

Romans 7:23
but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members.

Yes. Instinct says "You must survive."
God's spirit says, "He who would save hia own life will lose it. No greater love has a man than to lay down his life for others."

What is instinct? The fear of death.

14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

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

16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

 

[PaulThomson]

where would one get that idea?

temporary, impermanent salvation?

whats 'good' about having only the deceptive illusion of life?

Having life and time to spend with God now, and knowing that God's character is to love us and nurture us and sacrifice for those who love and those who hate Him, is sufficient for me to follow Jesus.

 

[Gideon300]

God proclaimed His creation good; Adam and Eve He proclaimed very good.

What they were that I rarely see mentioned or discussed at all is that they were of the natural world.

Exactly. That's why the Tree of Life was created for them to eat from. They were good, but incomplete. They needed God's uncreated life to fill them. They chose the natural, good and evil, instead. And this in spite of God's warning of the consequences.

 

[Gideon300]

I don't believe Adam and Eve needed the tree of life to avoid death, that's your position. As far as I am concerned, death was the result of sin and only sin. It was never commanded that they should eat from the ToL, ergo not a sin to not eat.

The indication we all live with a corruption in our body is Rom.7. There is a law that is not of God, one that is in opposition to God.

Romans 7:23
but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members.

You are correct, but Adam would have remained an amoral being with no spiritual life. We do not know how long Adam was in the garden before he disobeyed. It seems to me that the garden of Eden was designed to test Adam to see what he would choose. God knew, of course, but Adam still had to choose. He chose before he and Eve started a family. We also know that Adam lived for nearly a thousand years even after his rebellion. Death was spiritual separation from God, which eventually led to the death of his body.

 

[TMS]

Are we sinners because of Adam's choice or because of our own choice?

A sinful nature does not make us automaticly sin.

By God's power an Alcoholic can say No and not give in.
By God's grace a brug addict can say No and give up drugs.
By God's grace a fallen sinner can say no to sin and not sin.

A sinner by nature is not guilty of sin because of their inherited nature.
They are guilty because they choose to sin.

 

[JimiSurvivor]

Even modern Calvinist teachers like James White say only infants who are chosen are saved while the rest are damned. This comports well with Calvinism who, taught that infants must be pre-selected for salvation regardless of the fact that they are incapable of spiritual insight or moral decisions. Some infants are saved while others are not - not by their will but because God is "sovereign" that means that God controls every variable in the universe including every thought and desire of every creature. This insane philosophy came not from the Bible but from the beliefs Augustine held while he was a member of the fatalistic Manichaean cult and which he returned to later.

 

[Bob-Carabbio]

Original sin asserts that sin (the sin of Adam) is imputed to all

Everybody dies for THEIR OWN SIN (Deut 24:16). Everything else is nothing but "Theology" which is like noses. Everybody's got one.

We have exactly the SAME NATURE that Adam, Jesus, and everybody else had / has. - a HUMAN nature that never changed.

 

[Webers.Home]

.
Gen 2:15-17 is a favorite among critics because Adam didn't drop dead
within 24 hours of tasting the forbidden fruit. In point of fact, he continued
to live outside the garden of Eden for another 800 years after the birth of his
son Seth. (Gen 5:4)

Some say Adam died a so-called "spiritual" death, and that's true, but not
entirely true, viz: the explanation isn't misinformation, rather, it's missing
information. In other words: human life came out of the box with perpetual
youth, which Adam lost when he tasted the forbidden fruit.

The aging process is a lingering death rather than sudden death, i.e. it's
slow, but very relentless. Aging feels neither pain nor pity, nor remorse nor
fear; it cannot be reasoned with nor can it be bargained with, and it
absolutely will not stop-- ever! --until our useless corpse is ready for burial.

Adam held up against the loss of his youth for quite a while 'cause he was so
healthy to begin with, but age eventually took him down just as it eventually
takes everybody down if they somehow manage to survive long enough to
make it to their senior years.

NOTE: Superhuman bodies like Arnold Swarzenegger's look indestructible
while fresh, but their freshness isn't permanent. These days Arnold is pushing
78 and taking on the appearance of spoiling vegetables.
_

 

[sawdust]

so, why do plants die?
do they sin?

Because the creation has been handed over to futility.

Romans 8:20
for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of him who subjected it in hope;

 

[sawdust]

Yes. Instinct says "You must survive."
God's spirit says, "He who would save hia own life will lose it. No greater love has a man than to lay down his life for others."

What is instinct? The fear of death.

14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;

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

16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.

17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.

18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

The fear of death is the souls response to the sin nature (the other law in our bodies), it is not the sin nature itself.

 

[sawdust]

You are correct, but Adam would have remained an amoral being with no spiritual life. We do not know how long Adam was in the garden before he disobeyed. It seems to me that the garden of Eden was designed to test Adam to see what he would choose. God knew, of course, but Adam still had to choose. He chose before he and Eve started a family. We also know that Adam lived for nearly a thousand years even after his rebellion. Death was spiritual separation from God, which eventually led to the death of his body.

Mostly agree although not sure why you think Adam would have remained amoral. He would have learned what is good, at the least, if he had remained faithful. Although, I do believe if Adam had not sinned, the Lord would have used the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil to teach Adam in His own time in His own way the nature of good and evil. Otherwise why put it in the Garden?