I am surprised that you didn't wait for me to be banned before all of you talked about me rather than the OP. You know, that reason that I have been banned previously for doing what a bunch of you are doing right now.
Death through sin came into the world through one man. Death through sin spread to all men because all men, not because of Adam, sinned. He just led the parade. I know it is tough, but you, not Adam. are the reason for your death through your sin.
As a firm believer in universal causation, I say, "Lots of luck with THAT!"
The wages of sin is not physical death ! ! ! ! The wages of sin is spiritual death. If the wages of sin were physical death, then the regenerated the Justified , those whose sins are forgiven would not die. But they do die.
No you didn't give me any proof at all. You just gave me your interpretation of a verse or two. I don't consider your interpretation any better than mine.
Because sin has nothing to do with physical dying.
Because he no longer had access to the fruit of the tree of life which obviously was there to keep him from dying physically (Gen 3:22).
And I'd like to see that from you as well. The point being you can't prove anything and neither can I. Proof is not available. That is why faith is the key. And that should be obvious to all. All one can do is quote verses, passages, chapters, even whole books. But what they mean is up to interpretation. The minute we post an interpretation, then it ceases to be God's word and it is an opinion and that is not proof of anything.
No that is not Christianity 101. Maybe in your sect, but certainly not Christianity at large.
Not not really. He got kicked out of the Garden because he had died spiritually due to his sin. And God couldn't allow the spiritually dead to "reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever--"
No that is like it is not up to @Arial any more than anyone else to declare what His absolute truth is.
And yet all the writers of the OT and NT declared absolute truths. One would assume it is possible to interpret it correctly right? However I have never claimed that what I say is absolute truth. When it comes to an interpretation of scripture I don't just declare it as truth, I demonstrate it truthfulness from context and the full counsel of God--- which is the opposite of what you have been doing on this particular subject. The fact that you don't indicates that you can't, which is what shows it to be an unsupported and unsupportable interpretation. Learn the difference and put into practice the proper way of interpretation, instead of getting angry and making accusations.
Not that some who read it trying to reconcile it to Reformed tenets don't do exactly what you are supposing they do, here, it seems to me you misunderstand, or, rather, even ignore or fail to consider, the several ways to look at this that do make sense. I'll present just one here, that to my understand happens on a regular basis in the Greek (and particular the Jewish society's Greek) manner of speaking and thinking back then. The force of the argument has little to do with the word, "all". "All" is only a principle, not even stated as necessarily absolute, but general, understood by the readers and assumed for the sake of argument. The force of the argument is about the effect of Adam's sin vs the effect of Christ's righteousness. I could render it like this, for the sake of making the point: Just as no man escapes the fact of condemnation via Adam, even so no one is justified except via the righteousness of Christ.
