If you think sin is a result of spiritual death, what caused spiritual death?
PS....I've been enjoying your conversations in this thread. Thanks. I'm not sure I follow you on everything but I do tend to agree that righteousness will include conduct.
ECT Nang's Boastful Lie
- Thread starter Doom
- Start date
If you think sin is a result of spiritual death, what caused spiritual death?
PS....I've been enjoying your conversations in this thread. Thanks. I'm not sure I follow you on everything but I do tend to agree that righteousness will include conduct.
Yep!
Amen!!
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Well... not entirely, even though we're within the same ballpark and pursuing minutiae that is exegetical, semantical, syntactical, historical, and philosophical.
It's the prosopon that is reckoned dead, which includes the physical body and it's conjoinedness to ____________ (fill in the intangible aspect here).
It's isn't sin that's reckoned crucified, but our outer man with sin in its members. That sin in the members is from the soul's functional ascension when the spirit ceased to commune with God's Spirit (spiritual death) for Eve and Adam in Eden. That constitutional disarrangement is how we're born, with an "inverted" soul and spirit. The spirit is "buried" within the soul, and only internally functional.
This, then, requires the specific definition of "nature"; and that conversation can't really be had in English unless it's lexically accurate from biblical Greek.
What is a "nature"?
And one problem that arises is that this is Dualism. Yin and Yang. Black Wolf and White Wolf.
That's exaggerated by the fact that nothing in scripture indicates we have two natures, but that we have a new nature. (And we should look at those applicable scriptures.)
This would mean we are now dipsuchos (double-minded). (A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways.) We simply can't have two minds and two wills. We're not two beings (ousios) or two individuals (hypostases) or two persons (prosopoa). Other than medical neurochemical dysfunction, which would be psychopathy such as schizophrenia, we cannot have two minds (or wills).
A "new" nature doesn't mean "another" nature; and there needs to be a clear definiton of nature in contrast to other terms like spirit, soul, mind, will, essence, substance, etc. This is scuba depth, so it isn't light and general. There isn't much room for non-specifics and conceptual vagueries.
And all of THIS (and more) is why we must have an ontological understanding and belief that is the substance of faith from hearing God's Rhema, just as Mary did to conceive Theoanthropos.
Up until now, all we're talking about is hope. Faith is required for us to be IN Christ. Nothing we've discussed about man's constitutional anthropology has touched on anything about us being IN Christ, only having something in us.
There's no translation yet, and the Gospel is that He hath translated us into the kingdom of His dear Son. None of this is us seated in heavenly places in Christ Jesus. None of this is us putting on Christ. It's all internal, and only relative to us and something allegedly added.
The truth is that our hypostasis is translated into the prosopon of Christ, and we're engrafted through the human phusis (nature) and His divine phusis (nature) of His hypostasis into the inherent hypsotasis of God to be partaker of His divine nature.
Our inner man is not seated in us, but in Christ. It's a spiritually literal displacement of our hypostasis by the hypostasis of faith hearing the Rhema as God's hypostasis. This is how the Logos was conceived in Mary for Theanthropos to be born from above and take on humanity with His divinity. We're born from above spiritually just as He was born from above physically.
Our ontology isn't having another nature added to us, but for our inner man to be translated into Christ. We're in Him, so He's in us; including the Holy Spirit which was in Him. As the last Adam (a quickening spirit) and forever High Priest, He deposits the Holy Spirit in our spirit when we believe as the earnest of our inheritance until redemption of the purchased possession; to whit, our mortal bodies at the physical resurrection.
Our new nature is HIM. HIS. We live and move and have our being... IN Christ. We don't just have the Holy Spirit as new wine in our old wineskin and an additional nature added (two human natures?). The nature and the ousia (essence/being) are relative in the same sense as the prosopon and hypostasis are relative. We can't have two natures as a singular human being. Only Christ as Theanthropos could have two natures in one hypostasis as a singular being, and because one nature was divinity.
So that's why we're IN Christ. We have HIS nature, and it's only in us because we're in Him and thus filled with the Spirit.
This is an overreach according to your own current understanding, so I'll move ahead.
Right. But that can only truly be ontological. It can't be figurative. It's spiritually literal. So we must believe we are translated as Paul said.
I'm not sure who you're referring to. If you'd clarify, please. The religious? The lost? Those who don't agree that we have two natures and two minds and two wills?
I have a new nature. It's the nature of Christ because I'm IN Christ.
You wouldn't know a counterfeit from the real thing!
Go on ahead, admit it then, get back to your "false
predictions" about beheadings and such!
LA loves to make 'predictions' about the horrendous deaths
of certain posters on TOL! None of his predictions have come
to fruition; to date?
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Death (thanatos) is cessation of communion with environment of origin. For instance... physical death is a ceasing of all physical functions and senses to commune with the body's environment of origin, which is the dust of the ground of the earth of this cosmos.
At physical death, the body doesn't just disappear. It's not annihilated, eliminated, eradicated, or extinct. It simply returns to from whence it came. Dust.
Similarly, when spiritual death occurs, it's a cessation of communion with God's Spirit. This occurred as Eve began to hear the serpent and respond in communication (horizontal communion within another environment, and through soulical and physical senses rather than spiritual intuition of vertical communion with God).
This abrogated vertical communion and diverted principal functionality and interactivity because Eve heard another Rhema for another faith. That faith was a hypostasis (substance) that changed her human hypostasis, which also changed her prosopon.
Having no intuition of communion because of the onset of spiritual death, the subtle deception of the serpent brought forth temptation and she was drawn away by her own lusts. The lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, and the pride of life are all in Genesis ch3 as she contemplates the desirability and profitability of the tree.
This lust conceived and brought forth sin, which was the consumation of her own standard of conduct in contrast to God's standard of conduct. Once sin was born in her, the wages of that sin was physical death.
It must include inner conduct because that's the very definition of dikaiosune (righteousness, justice). And if imputed righteousness doesn't include conduct with character, there's no conduct we can exhibit that isn't our own sin.
Just so you know, I don't tend to read too many of your posts. They are not so long that I have given you an infraction, that I remember, but they are too long to keep my attention.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
I'd imagine this is also multiplied by the fact you have to keep track of so many threads as a Moderator.
Thank you for your indulgence. And no, you've never given me an infraction for lengthy posts.
Good! When you feel someone has misrepresented your position simply clarify your position.
I'd imagine this is also multiplied by the fact you have to keep track of so many threads as a Moderator.
Thank you for your indulgence. And no, you've never given me an infraction for lengthy posts.
:up:
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
How? And how could a phusis be corrupted while in communion with God? This will also require a specific defintion of death.
Again, there'll need to be a specific defintion of death. And what is bondage to sin?
There has to be both an exegetical, semantic, and functional flow to everything. These can't just be assembled concepts. This is ontological.
How? How does one inherit death of either kind? There has to be a means or progression.
They adopt his version of Original Sin intact.
He didn't. He struggled all his life with inordinant sexual lust, and his formulaic was derived primarily from Psalm 51:5 as a lens for all other scriptures related to the subject. Since he couldn't overcome his lust, he presumed sin was inherited.
Originial Sin was in the heavenlies. Sin entered the cosmos because Eve's communion was diverted by engaging in dialectic with the serpent and setting aside God's didactic truth as instruction. This abrogated her communion with God, and that cessaton of communion was spiritual death. The result was inevitable sin, which is the self-determined standard for conduct.
(Maybe read my response above to kmoney for a bit of a summary.)
Adam paid the wages for his sin with his physical death. We don't have his sin. We don't have his self-determined standard of conduct, we have our own. We're not culpable for Adam's sin or anyone else's sin.
There are several significant problems with Augustinian Original Sin, not the least of which is the virgin birth of Theanthropos. Another would be the culpability and competence of children (or others with physical/mental disabilities) until the law can impute sin.
One of the greatest atrocities of Augie's fallacy is the injustice of young children being considered as destined for the lake of fire when they can't even have the law impute the noun as a sin condition from any verb of their conscious and willful sinning and resulting acts as sins.
There's much more, but maybe this will get it started. It might be more appropriate to start a dedicated new thread instead, though.
Yea exactly. That one
It probably needed some tweaking, some adjustments. To make it more appetizing.
We ARE as holy as Christ is, as righteous, that is why I object to Nang being mudslung the way she is.
She is as holy as Christ as we all are.....but only in God's eyes.
We are to think of ourselves as precious and beloved.
"There's meshak......after her!!"
Would communication with Adam have also caused spiritual death?
musterion
Well-known member
re: double minded
1. James was not speaking to the Body of Christ, but even if one wants to say he was, the context of his comment is totally different from what we're talking about here.
2. Paul states plainly that the believer can and will experience this "double mindedness" within himself. Romans 7 and Galatians 5 address it thoroughly. Is that to be the normal state of affairs in which the believer is to walk? NO. The believer has been given the means of victory over the old nature, by faith. But it is nonetheless how that conflict will inevitably manifest within each believer.
If no other believer here will admit it, I will: when not walking by the Spirit, the conflict with the flesh is very much as of two minds within me, each in opposition to one another, warring with each other, pulling me in different directions. This conflict was unknown to me when I was unsaved...I knew (and indulged) sin; I knew how to calculate the risk/benefit ratios of breaking various laws; I came to know guilt and condemnation, and I definitely knew a violated, defiled, outraged conscience...but there was no "good vs evil" battling within me, vying for supremacy. All was darkness. And that darkness was me.
NOW, the flesh has an identifiably separate mind and will of its own; it can and does "think thoughts" in my head and NONE of them are EVER good (Rom 7:18)...NOW, those thoughts are "of me," but no longer truly "me." I can feel the difference between walking by the flesh and walking by the Spirit. The warfare waxes and ebbs but is so very tiresome; hence my eagerly awaiting the promised redemption, along with the rest of creation. That's why I agree with this statement:
1. James was not speaking to the Body of Christ, but even if one wants to say he was, the context of his comment is totally different from what we're talking about here.
2. Paul states plainly that the believer can and will experience this "double mindedness" within himself. Romans 7 and Galatians 5 address it thoroughly. Is that to be the normal state of affairs in which the believer is to walk? NO. The believer has been given the means of victory over the old nature, by faith. But it is nonetheless how that conflict will inevitably manifest within each believer.
If no other believer here will admit it, I will: when not walking by the Spirit, the conflict with the flesh is very much as of two minds within me, each in opposition to one another, warring with each other, pulling me in different directions. This conflict was unknown to me when I was unsaved...I knew (and indulged) sin; I knew how to calculate the risk/benefit ratios of breaking various laws; I came to know guilt and condemnation, and I definitely knew a violated, defiled, outraged conscience...but there was no "good vs evil" battling within me, vying for supremacy. All was darkness. And that darkness was me.
NOW, the flesh has an identifiably separate mind and will of its own; it can and does "think thoughts" in my head and NONE of them are EVER good (Rom 7:18)...NOW, those thoughts are "of me," but no longer truly "me." I can feel the difference between walking by the flesh and walking by the Spirit. The warfare waxes and ebbs but is so very tiresome; hence my eagerly awaiting the promised redemption, along with the rest of creation. That's why I agree with this statement:
So yes, the believer very much does have "two natures" within him or herself. Paul said so. If a professing Christian honestly knows nothing of this conflict, ever...well...
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
No. It was from hearing another Rhema (Word) by another Logos (Word) and engaging in a dialectic (dialog) with the originator of UNtruth as lies.
Adam couldn't lie.
Cross Reference
New member
Hi Pneuma!
Couple o' questions:
1 Why couldn't Adam lie?
2. Can you open up your words/titles in (parentheses) for a more clear understanding of your thinking?
Thanks,