 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Questions about Christianity > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 12/29/2005 11:13 AM (GMT -6) |   | | Christmas got me thinking about the incarnation and there is an aspect that I never considered before. I believe that Jesus, if He wouldn't have chosen to lay down His life at the cross, would have been immortal in his human body. His human body wasn't corrupted and would not have died of old age on its own. He was not condemned to death simply because he was human.
I was considering this in light of Jesus dying for us and how this contrasts with what we could do. We may choose to "die" for someone else, say jump on a grenade for those around us. In reality, however, we are not really exchanging our death for theirs. We are simply trading the remaining years of our life to add years to theirs. It is an exchange of time because we are certain to die anyways and we would just be moving the inevitable forwaards. If a terminally ill father takes a bullet for his son he may be exchanging 1 year of his life against 40 years for his son's life. In either case death is inevitable and by dying for his son the father may actually be reducing his own suffering.
With Jesus it was different. He didn't have to die in His human body. He could have lived forever as a human and never tasted death, even death by accident because the angels were commanded to look after Him so that He wouldn't hit His foot against a stone. Jesus could have done anything in His pre-death body that He did afterwards. Elijah went bodily to heaven. Phillip was transported bodily. Moses didn't eat or drink for 40 days. In His pre-death body Jesus could have been king who reigned forever and ascended to heaven to be with the Father. He didn't need to die at all for Himself.
I think that I always thought that it was a bit like "The Little Prince" novel in which Jesus needed to die to get back to heaven. This simply isn't so. He died for us - and He could have lived forever in His human body. His death was truly an exchange in that He died "as one who didn't have to." We can only die to exchange times of death.
He was unique. A human immortal that chose to die for sinners who were in the process of dying.
I think that this concept has implications with "original sin" and our corrupted bodies/nature.
Spen Lake Post Edited (spenlake) : 12/29/2005 12:48:06 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
 |
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 12/29/2005 9:04 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 1/1/2006 9:19 AM (GMT -6) | | Sparky says: Are you saying that the wages of sin is death and therefore a baby that has no sin should not be subject to death…but because babies do die they must be under original sin?
Spen responds: I am saying that the baby is under the judgment of death and is doomed to die because it has inherited the corruption of Adam simply by being born of him. If the baby had escaped the original corruption of Adam, as Jesus, the baby would live forever. In following the pattern of Genesis, even if Jesus had sinned he would have lived for hundreds of years before the corruption ultimately killed Him. Babies are all doomed to death and therefore they haveinherited the same disease of sin as their father Adam.
Jesus was free of this corruption and therefore could offer to taste death for all of us who were condemned to die, even babies.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 1/1/2006 2:55 PM (GMT -6) | | Spen: I am saying that the baby is under the judgment of death and is doomed to die because it has inherited the corruption of Adam simply by being born of him.
Jeff: Spen, it seems to me that there is one other logical possibility. Originally, human good was to be assured by God. Hence, when God saw that it was NOT GOOD that Adam was alone, He created a woman for him. When Adam sinned, he lost access to THAT kind of benevolent providence. He had to secure whatever goodness he could on his "own steam." But as a mere man, he is not capable of securing perfect goodness for himself.
But Romans says unborn babies have done "neither good nor evil." In that sense, they have not sinned. So if they ARE killed, say by an abortion, it doesn't follow that they HAD sinned. They were simply NOT immortal. But neither was Adam before his sin. What WAS necessitated by Adam's sin was that all humans would, thereafter, EVENTUALLY sin if they lived long enough. But that doesn't mean that a baby's death occurs BECAUSE of their OWN sin or corruption.
Does this sound like a logical possibility to you?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 1/1/2006 9:45 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff,
I believe that Adam could have lived forever if he hadn't sinned. It is strongly implied in the first command made by God. Don't eat the tree for in the day you eat of it you will die. Apparently, if he didn't eat of the tree he woulnd't die. Even after he sinned, eating of the tree of life would have granted him immortality and this is the reason he was removed from the garden and had guards posted against his return.
Regarding babies, as humans and descendents of Adam, they are condemned to die. Whether they die in the womb or after 85 years after birth, the end result is the same because they participate in Adam's judgment as his heirs. The only issue is time, just an issue of time. Assuming the world will continue for another 150 years, the physical net result for all existing humans, born and unborn, will be identical at that time. I am not trying to use this argument to resolve the mystery of babies' salvation, just their being under judgment along with every other human.
The human Jesus was unique among all humans in that He wasn't under judgment and was truly a second Adam, unafflicted with the corruption introduced by the first Adam. His life was the only one which could possibly serve as an acceptable sacrifice to attone for the sin of the first Adam and all his heirs, including babies. At this Christmas season it is wonderful to realize the tangibleness of our salvation that was accomplished by the blood of the perfect man, Jesus.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 1/2/2006 12:29 PM (GMT -6) | | It would seem that since Jesus grew older, and looked older, his body would have eventually died. I mean, when's the perfect age, as we would see it, where his body would have suddenly just stopped moving forward in time toward death?
Jesus was also a man. Men die. It doesn't have to be that He was a sinner; it only has to be that He had the typical human body that does not have eternal life in and of itself.
Finally, as we are given in Adam's creation, he was created fully grown. If we want to argue that his body would never have died apart from the Fall—I think, though, that an accidental thrust of a sharp piece of bamboo through his heart would have done the ol' boy in—we could argue that he was created in the perfect age bracket; one that would not be too young or too old. And had he died for some reason, well, I suppose we could say that God could have/would have raised him right back up and said to him, "Well, that didn't hurt, now, did it!"
Hmmm!
Starkman
My teacher used to say that whenever he read Scripture, he would always ask the question, "What does this have to say about the character of God?" Working off his thinking, as I read Scripture, I have come to ask, "What does this have to say about the heart and passion of God's desire for relationship for us? | | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 1/2/2006 2:34 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Are you saying that Jesus was subject to some agent of death? He was master of all disease. He was master of water/gravity and he could walk on the water as well as ascend bodily into the clouds. He could command the natural forces of the wind and the waves as He wished. He Himself had power over death and raised several people from the dead. This power over all the natural world was also manifested in His command of the spiritual world. Even evil spirits were subject to Jesus and His commands.
Jesus claimed human immortality. He also claimed that God the Father commanded Him to have authority over death in John 10. Jesus was not subjugated to death by old age and to say that He was would be to deny His divinity. Jesus was the master of death and He alone had authority over His own life. No one, not disease, old age nor Satan himself could take His life from Him.
17"For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. 18"No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father."
Spen Lake
Post Edited (spenlake) : 1/2/2006 2:03:07 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 1/2/2006 6:18 PM (GMT -6) | | | Babies die in the womb and are stillborn. There are miscarriages. These babies have not sinned and yet they die because they have been condemned to die simply by being an heir of Adam. They can also be killed in the womb by others who take their life. In this case they haven't sinned either, but are simply receiving the actions of another as a consequence of living in a fallen world that God has postponed His judgment upon.
Mortality, condemnation to death and also separation from God in the lake of fire for the second death are both inherited from Adam. All Adam's descendents were born separated from God and under Adam's condemnation being of Adam's seed and composed of his genetics. The complete package of mortality, both the first and second death, is the lot of all who are born to Adam. However, God postponed executing His judgment upon sin, allowed Adam's seed to grow, and immediately provided skins that looked forward to the death of the second sinless Adam who died for them. This death of the sinless Adam, the sufficient sacrifice, has now been revealed to us, the offspring of the corrupted seed. If we believe and accept this sacrifice and find God's approval, we escape the second death and share immortailty with the one whom death could not hold. The ultimate motality will not afflict us and we escape though the blood of another.
How this works with babies I am not certain for I don't think it has been revealed. I can say with certainty, however, that all babies that are saved are only saved from the mortality they inherited from Adam by the death of the second Adam.
Spen Lake | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/2/2006 6:20 PM (GMT -6) | | mor·tal·i·ty
n. pl. mor·tal·i·ties
1. The quality or condition of being mortal.
mor·tal )
adj.
1. Liable or subject to death.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Like you said, Jeff -- "die...eventually."
God did not say the moment they sinned he would kill them. Look at what he actually said:
you shall not eat of it; for
in the day that you eat of it
you will surely die
Eating of it changed them from surely living to "surely dying."
Other, more scholarly opinions than mine include:
The question arises as to the way in which Adam could be said to die the day he ate the forbidden fruit? There are two prevailing explanations to this question. The first and most common focuses on the spiritual aspect of death, viewing death primarily in its Semitic connotation of separation, and secondarily in terms of physical death; hence, Adam became spiritually separated from God the day he sinned, but it would be some time before he died physically.
A second understanding, offered by Anthony Hoekema, sees God's words, "In the day you eat of it you shall surely die" to be a Hebrew idiom meaning, "As surely as you eat of it, you will die" (See I Kings 2:37; Exodus 10:28).4 God's intent was not to say that on the very same day that Adam sinned he would die physically, but that as surely as he would disobey God physical death would come. This interpretation preserves the most basic meaning of muth (the Hebrew word for death) as physical death, while avoiding the obvious fact that Adam did not die the same day he sinned. To support the idea that physical death, and not spiritual death, is the focus in Genesis 2:17, Hoekema notes the surrounding context in which physical death is the focus. The Lord dispelled Adam and Eve from the Garden so that they could not partake of the Tree of Life and live forever (Genesis 3:22-23). If physical death was not the punishment for Adam's sin such an action would not be necessary. It is clear that man must die because of his sin against God. What this teaches us, then, is that death was not part of man's original make-up. God did not intend for man to die, but put man under this curse as a punishment for his sin.
But the curse of death we brought on ourselves is real, and even though not finished, actively working. Notice that even now "The sting of death is sin."
(o) Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 1/2/2006 8:52:22 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 1/2/2006 8:42 PM (GMT -6) | | |
God said that in the day they ate they would die. The only thing that died that day was the animal that provided the skins for their covering. I believe that the blood of this animal looked forward to the death of the ultimate lamb whose blood became the covering for the sins of the whole world. In Hebrews 11 we see Abraham offered Isaac and received him back from death on the mountain. In the same way, Adam and Eve actually died in Christ the day they sinned just as God had promised.
Christ was always the only solution provided to escape the second death. It was His blood that was effective for Adam and Eve. Through the skins looking to Jesus' blood God provided the sacrifice in the same day transgressors were condemned to die.
Spen Lake
Post Edited (spenlake) : 1/2/2006 9:22:18 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 1/2/2006 10:39 PM (GMT -6) | |
spenlake said...
Jesus claimed human immortality. He also claimed that God the Father commanded Him to have authority over death in John 10. Jesus was not subjugated to death by old age and to say that He was would be to deny His divinity. Jesus was the master of death and He alone had authority over His own life. No one, not disease, old age nor Satan himself could take His life from Him.
17"For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. 18"No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father."
Where did Jesus claim He was immortal in his body? He did claim that if he were killed He would raise His body, but He never claimed He would raise it to the same fashion it was prior to death.
The fact that Jesus could be killed (regardless of whether He allowed it or not), and the fact that He grew older, proves clearly that His body was typical flesh/blood; subject to death. That doesn't make Jesus, the divine Son of God, residing in a human body any less divine. Let's not deify Christ's body; He never did this Himself. Hebrews is clear: He took on a body of flesh/blood, just as we are. It's not an issue of sin or disease or anything like that. It's simply that the human being today does not live forever IN his body. He may live forever, but he doesn't do so in this flesh/blood body.
Finally, that He was master over His life is to say nothing about His supposedly having a body of flesh/blood that does not die. It was to speak something about His authority to [i]lay His life down for us; not to have it taken by others when He had not chose to have His life taken that way.[/i] This simply does not say anything about Christ's body being ageless or anything like that. (As I said, in that He grew up from infancy, just as we do, proves otherwise.
Starkman
My teacher used to say that whenever he read Scripture, he would always ask the question, "What does this have to say about the character of God?" Working off his thinking, as I read Scripture, I have come to ask, "What does this have to say about the heart and passion of God's desire for relationship for us? | | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 1/3/2006 9:47 AM (GMT -6) | |
Starkman said...
Finally, that He was master over His life is to say nothing about His supposedly having a body of flesh/blood that does not die. It was to speak something about His authority to [i]lay His life down for us; not to have it taken by others when He had not chose to have His life taken that way.[/i] This simply does not say anything about Christ's body being ageless or anything like that. (As I said, in that He grew up from infancy, just as we do, proves otherwise. I think that Jesus had real authority over His life as it states. No one in John 10:18 is very broad and means no person or thing. The whole goal of the coming of Jesus was not to overcome the power death had over HImself. Death had no power over Jesus before He died. Saying Jesus was under the power of death os a human is to deny His divinity and place Him under the curse. He didn't become a curse for us by being incarnated but by choosing to die. He broke the power and dominion that death had over mankind BECAUSE He Himself was not subject to it as others were. If Jesus was condemned to die of the death of old age, He could not have been out from under its dominion and it would have been impossible for a condemned man to offer His life for our salvation.
If Jesus was condemned to die just for being human, there is no salvation.
Even the Jews realized this and looked for a messiah that would live forever as a man. This was common knowledge as we see in John 12;
34The crowd then answered Him, "We have heard out of the Law that the Christ is to remain forever; and how can You say, ‘The Son of Man must be lifted up’
Spen Lake | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 1/3/2006 5:22 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Spen,
So, Jesus would have just continued to get older and older (His age would have to show, since it was already showing signs of the decay process, surely by the age of 33) and yet never die?
Again, just because Jesus takes on a body that comes out of the human element of earthy stuff does not mean that He is any less divine or that He is under the curse. Further, that He chose to give His life into the hands of His persecuters is not proof that He wouldn't have gotten older and died eventually if left alone. You simply cannot deduce that from scripture. scripture doesn't even address that issue. And finally, chapter 2 of Hebrews clearly eliminates any concept that Jesus' mortal body was somehow immortal. He Himself was and is immortal; His body was not. It couldn't have been or He would NOT have been human enough to qualify for the sacrifice. That's the whole point of Hebrews 2...
[i]Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery. For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham. Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people (underline mine).[/i]
I think, Spen, that our traditional approach to and understanding of the "curse" of the Fall has taken us too far away from an understanding of just how human Jesus had to be (100%) if we don't realize that simply possessing a body, as He did, is not to affiliate Himself with sin or to diminish His divinity. It's just a body. That's all. A simple, made-of-the-stuff-of-earth, human body. A body that is composed of stuff that wears out, gets old and eventually gives way to death (where the person inside it parts for a season). Though Adam and Eve would have lived forever—though I don't think they were destined to live forever in that body; eventual resurrection into a glorified body seems more appropriate—the environment takes a hit after the Fall, and thus their bodies succumb to a lack of protection they had prior to the Fall (this concept has problems, by the way). But this still does not make it an issue that Jesus can enter into the stream of humanity, totally sinless and make use of a human body born by normal human methods, as He very well did. He isn't digesting any sin in doing so. He did not take on the nature of "sinful" man upon incarnation, only the nature of man as man is in and of Himself.
I think we tend to see a disease or something like it as a result of the Fall. It's as if mankind is diseased outside, inside, and in between. If we could look at through a spiritual microscope, we'd expect to see some sort of thing called sin running around in us. But that's not at all the issue. The curse is simply the rejection of God for what it is: In the day you eat...you will die. The death, as we know, is first spiritual; the most important. It is also physical (though many disagree and believe Adam and Eve were not mortal in the first place, but that's another issue). Their physical death is only to say something about a body that is now without all the divine surroundings that would have protected it had there been no Fall. But that there was the Fall is not to make the body evil. That's an unacceptable form of dualism. It's why docetism crept in: the body's evil (and, therefore, from the evil god), and the spirit is good (thus, from the good god). This is what we end up with when we make too much of the curse upon the physical body.
Well, it's almost time to hit the road and go home...
For a body that ain't evil, but ain't nothin' like the one coming,
Starkman
My teacher used to say that whenever he read Scripture, he would always ask the question, "What does this have to say about the character of God?" Working off his thinking, as I read Scripture, I have come to ask, "What does this have to say about the heart and passion of God's desire for relationship for us?Post Edited (Starkman) : 1/3/2006 4:27:45 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 1/3/2006 6:19 PM (GMT -6) | |
Starkman said...
Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery. For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham. Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people (underline mine). Great passage. I believe that I understand where you are coming from but "in every respect" (the Greek homoioo) can be simply similar or resemble and not exhaustively identical (which was obviously not true in that Jesus had no earthly father and had no sinful nature).
hom-oy-o'-o
From G3664; to assimilate, that is, compare; passively to become similar:—
be (make) like, (in the) liken (-ess), resemble.
It is not at all mandatory that this word means that Jesus' flesh and blood had to be decaying and aging unto death.
Like the first Adam, Jesus has literal flesh and blood. The fact that one is flesh and blood does not mean, however, that one has to be subject to old age and mortality. Death was something that flesh and blood aquired in the fall, something that was imposed by God, and not inherent in flesh and blood itself. A further illustration that aging and death isn't mandatory can be seen in the wilderness wanderings of Israel. Deuteronomy and Nehemiah state that for a period of 40 years, the shoes of Israel did not wear out. God kept them from wear.
Hebrews 2 also states:
Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and might free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives.
Perhaps the strongest argument is made from the verses in Hebrews above. To be condemned to death simply for having flesh and blood would mean that Jesus was necessarily under the power of Satan and his slave. We instead see that Jesus commanded the evil spirits and exercised authority over them. Jesus was never under Satan's power or subject to death until He laid down His life.
To claim that flesh and blood must necessarily be mortal would be to claim that in becoming human Jesus necessarily came under Satan's power. We see that this is not true at all. Jesus had authority over Satan, his power, and even His death while in His fleshly body. Satan, the one wielding the power of death, could not take Jesus' life except that Jesus of His own will laid it down.
Luke 10
"The seventy returned with joy, saying, “Lord, even the demons are subject to us in Your name.” And He said to them, “I was watching Satan fall from heaven like lightning. “Behold, I have given you authority to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy, and nothing will injure you. “Nevertheless do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you, but rejoice that your names are recorded in heaven.”
Luke 12
But I will warn you whom to fear: fear the One who, after He has killed, has authority to cast into hell; yes, I tell you, fear Him!
John 10
“For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life so that I may take it again. “No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This commandment I received from My Father.”
Until laying down His life at the crucifixion, Jesus was not subject to the power of Satan nor subject to Satan's death.
Spen Lake Post Edited (spenlake) : 1/3/2006 9:47:00 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/3/2006 7:11 PM (GMT -6) | | | Great post, Stark.
As to "Further, that He chose to give His life into the hands of His persecuters is not proof that He wouldn't have gotten older and died eventually if left alone."
This is certainly true that his body was so; but had he lived on and on HE would have glorified it. (Like you point too with regards to Adam and Eve -- not the body created with "as is", but...)
You have much very good stuff in your post! Especially the scripture: "[i]Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death,[/i] ..."
Yes. "Like us in every say, except sin"
AND, did so that he might change it. BOTH to destroy death, AND that he might become the new Adam and glorigy our humanity in his flesh.
--------------------------------------
Good points, too, Spen!!!
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 1/3/2006 7:23 PM (GMT -6) | | Alright, Spen. You talk about 2 possibilities:
1) Babies die in the womb and are stillborn. There are miscarriages. These babies have not sinned and yet they die because they have been condemned to die simply by being an heir of Adam.
2) They can also be killed in the womb by others who take their life. In this case they haven't sinned either, but are simply receiving the actions of another as a consequence of living in a fallen world that God has postponed His judgment upon.
My question is, why do we need to consider case 1) as being caused by anything different, in principle, than the cause of 2)? Miscarriages, disease, etc may be the effect of volitional acts long ago that have affected our environment and genes.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 1/3/2006 7:35 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Jef,
I don't think I understand the question. My point was that in both cases babies die that haven't sinned. They die because we are in a fallen world that is still awaiting the judgment of God to set it right.
I agree with the statement,"Miscarriages, disease, etc may be the effect of volitional acts long ago that have affected our environment and genes." We have certain truth that is cold sober history communicated to us by God that the fall affected us genetically. We also know that the environment was affected, the land was cursed, thorns appeared. Men shed man's blood.
All of this is traced back to the fall and the choices and acts of volition of Eve and Adam. As their heirs awaiting the manifestation of God's judgment, we exist in a continuing corruption. All creation groans to be set free as we see in Romans 8. We ourselves groan an long for an uncorrupted body/nature that is free from sin - the manifestation of the death and resurrection of Christ in our own bodies.
22For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now. 23And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 1/3/2006 9:21 PM (GMT -6) | | Spen: All of this is traced back to the fall and the choices and acts of volition of Eve and Adam. As their heirs awaiting the manifestation of God's judgment, we exist in a continuing corruption. All creation groans to be set free as we see in Romans 8.
Jeff: OK, I see what you're saying. Before I thought you had meant that babies were morally or spiritually corrupted because of Adam and that's why they die. That's why I is was pointing out the other logical possibility about the Fall; namely, Adam, himself, might not have been able to unilaterally attain to perfect GOODNESS even in his unfallen state. The creation of Eve (as a solution to a "NOT GOOD" state) suggests the possibility that the benevolent provision of God might have been necessary even AFTER the creation. Perhaps it was that benevolent providence that Adam lost access to because of his sin (of course the tree of life was one such provision). And he would have been helpless to bring about his own perfect good because of the limitations he already had. But after the fall, his limitations were fatal.
In that scenario, it's not that babies are anymore corrupt than the pre- Fall Adam. They, like we, are just vulnerable to all the evils of this present evil age with all the limitations of a merely carnal/soulish being. And though they do neither good nor evil in the womb (and possibly for some time later), they can still be a victim, as you have said.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 1/4/2006 7:14 AM (GMT -6) | |
jefscott said...
In that scenario, it's not that babies are anymore corrupt than the pre- Fall Adam.
Thank you, jef, for the discussion. It is helpful to me.
I beleive that scriptures indicate that the babies were more corrupt than the pre-fall Adam. They are genetically corrupt and were "pre-condemned" to death, both the first death of the body and the second eternal death, if Christ does not intervene and save them. This was not the case for the pre-fall Adam. Adam was free and not in need of a savior. At this time Adam was innocent and uncorrupted and not a slave of Satan and not under his power. The following pasage in Hebrews did not apply to him.
Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and might free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives.
This was not the case of the post-fall Adam nor is it the case for the babies. Because of their certain condemnation to death, from their conception they are a slave of the one who wields its power, Satan. As such they are also condemned to follow their master and to be morally culpable when they are have the skills and power to become so.
If it weren't for the incarnation and the death of Jesus on their behalf, no baby would be saved. The entire race of man from Adam onward was condemned individually while God postponed His judgment and ultimately when He brought it about . Only in the covering of Christ's blood and the death of the one who did not have to die is there an escape.
Spen Lake | | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 1/4/2006 7:35 AM (GMT -6) | | |
Starkman,
I was also considering the following passage of Hebrews 2;
9But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.
It seems to me that this passage states that Jesus' death was necessary for salvation of all, that everyone else could escape it through Him. If Jesus was condemned to mortality simply by taking on flesh and blood, His death on the cross itself wouldn't have been central. Whether He died sinless on the cross or whether He died in a nursing home of old age - the result would be the same. I think that in your paradigm, the implication is that you are claiming that His attonement and redemption would have been accomplished simply in the incarnation (as long as He remained sinless) because His death was inevitable.
I think that the concept that Jesus was condemned to die of old age means that He didn't lay down His life for us but just 30 or 40 years of life. In essence, He didn't own the life that He was offering in exchange for ours. He couldn't provide an exchange of "immortality" for "mortality" because He didn't really posses immortality to give us. It would be a sham "substitutionary attonement" with no real substitution. All we were really offered was 40 years instead of eternity.
This is why the passage of Jesus claiming the He had authority over His life is so important. He was unique as none other ever had this authority. It is a claim of divine immortality in the same was that His claim to have the authority to forgive sins was a claim of divinity.
Spen Lake
Post Edited (spenlake) : 1/4/2006 6:51:21 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 1/4/2006 9:44 AM (GMT -6) | | Spen: I beleive that scriptures indicate that the babies were more corrupt than the pre-fall Adam. They are genetically corrupt and were "pre-condemned" to death, both the first death of the body and the second eternal death, if Christ does not intervene and save them.
Jeff: Obviously, we ARE more genetically corrupt than Adam if, by that, we mean that we have more mutations. But this doesn't imply that Adam was capable of fulfilling a spiritual law any more than we are. He might have done BETTER than we can, but I don't see how he, without the spirit, could have kept the spiritual law in a mere flesh and blood, soulish existence.
What seems just as possible, to me, is that his environment was such that his only sins would have been refusing to reproduce, refusing to keep the garden, eating of the forbidden tree, etc. All other obligations inherent in the spiritual law were not expected of him at that time, it seems. But when he ate of the forbidden tree, he essentially chose the responsibility to do ALL GOOD and avoid ALL EVIL that his environment might occasion for the rest of his life. But he was not capable of it, anymore than he was PRE-FALL.
Rom. tells us that the law is spiritual. I think this means that, to fulfill the law, one must have the holy spirit. And I have no reason to believe that Adam had the spirit.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 1/4/2006 5:52:55 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 1/4/2006 2:44 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey, Spen,
So, if God were to have allowed it (not made it possible for someone to have killed marry while she was pregnant with Jesus (not made it possible for Jesus to be killed, as you are suggesting, but simply allowed someone to kill Mary), would Jesus have lived?
Starkman
My teacher used to say that whenever he read Scripture, he would always ask the question, "What does this have to say about the character of God?" Working off his thinking, as I read Scripture, I have come to ask, "What does this have to say about the heart and passion of God's desire for relationship for us? | | Back to Top | | |
|
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 1/4/2006 4:10 PM (GMT -6) | |
Starkman said...
Hey, Spen,
So, if God were to have allowed it (not made it possible for someone to have killed marry while she was pregnant with Jesus (not made it possible for Jesus to be killed, as you are suggesting, but simply allowed someone to kill Mary), would Jesus have lived?
I think that this is an impossibility in that God promised Mary with certainty that Jesus would be born and Mary would live because she was to name Him Jesus and that Jesus would be great and sit upon the throne of His father David. Because God spoke it it was certain.
This is the same as with God's unilateral promise to Zechariah that John the Baptist would be filled with the Holy Spirit while in the womb. John didn't choose this but God made certain that it happened. God also proclaimed with certainty that John would grow up to be the one who annouce the Christ. For anything but this to take place would make God a liar.
Spen Lake | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 1/4/2006 5:31 PM (GMT -6) | | Spen,
My question isn't about what God promised—we know what He promised. I'm just asking if Jesus, hypothetically, would have lived if Mary were to have been killed. Same question as would Jesus have died if Here were to have fallen off a one hundred foot cliff, or have been stabbed in the heart, or whatever.
It doesn't do to make your point by bringing John the Baptist into the discussion. I mean, what, he wouldn't have died either if his mother (hypothetically) died too?
So, again, if, hypothetically, Mary were to have been killed, would Jesus have lived or died also?
Starkman
My teacher used to say that whenever he read Scripture, he would always ask the question, "What does this have to say about the character of God?" Working off his thinking, as I read Scripture, I have come to ask, "What does this have to say about the heart and passion of God's desire for relationship for us? | | Back to Top | | |
| 39 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:53 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|