A Couple of Questions for Preterists

[Mellontes]

i will have to chew on this for a while- kind of like that lion chomping on straw.

TK

Just think, if you were a cow, you could chew it several times...

I would like to add the same theme is mentioned in Amos 9:11-12. Cross reference it with its fulfillment in Acts 15:15-17. It concerned the same idea that the Gentiles were becoming co-inheritors of the promise. The dispensationalists still believe the Amos passage refers to their future millennial kingdom as do those passages in Isaiah. A refusal to accept the illumination on the OT is very detrimental...

[Mellontes]

I agree with the idea of spiritual death occurring through the fall of man. And there is a very strong correction or undoing of the effects of the fall being expressed in the New Testament.

The idea of undoing the Fall was first introduced to me upon reading Chilton's "Paradise Restored." I don't remember much of what I read in that book though.

But the theme of the restoration of Paradise was expressed in Isa 65. Then there are many other ways that this restoration is expressed. Even in the idea of being a new creature in Christ we can see Christ as the Last Adam and hence there is a new creation for believers.

Another post covered the idea of Genesis 3:15,about the serpent being crushed on the head and the seed of woman being bruised on the heal, where it was noted that Rom 16:20 showed that Satan would soon be bruised.

Also in the arrival of the kingdom of God, the political power of Satan was then beginning to be subdued and the nations being brought in subjection under Christ. This was the undoing of the unnatural (i.e. before the fall) rule of man over man. Hence, God's plan is comprehensive by encompassing both the physical and unseen (sometimes called "spiritual") realm -- but these all are just part of the same creation.

Oh. The Tree of Life also was implied in the parable of the Mustard Seed (Matt 13) and was mentioned in Revelation. The Tree of Life points appears to be representing Jesus -- as also seen in the vine analogy. But also it seems that there is a restorative effect to the physical nations in Revelation, as a benefit distinct from those who have been saved and are in the New Jerusalem.

Now it must also be seen that if Jesus came as the Last Adam, then the Tree of Life also was becoming accessible in the same era, since Adam and the Tree of Life were both in the garden than now has been restored.

Good thoughts Mike!

old Jerusalem versus new Jerusalem
old heavens and earth versus new heavens and earth
Present Mosaic age versus the age to come in Christ
old covenant Juadiasm (bondage) versus new covenant church (promise) - Jews and Gentiles together in one body...

[mikew]

Good thoughts Mike!

old Jerusalem versus new Jerusalem
old heavens and earth versus new heavens and earth
Present Mosaic age versus the age to come in Christ
old covenant Juadiasm (bondage) versus new covenant church (promise) - Jews and Gentiles together in one body...

hmm. i don't remember really covering the points listed -- except sort of the old heaven and earth topic -- in the sense that it was part of the OP verse. I'm just not wanting to rush any discussion or have extra words put in my mouth.

Even about the "new heavens and new earth", I've been hesitant to say that such passage was fufilled--especially cause of the wording about the 100 year olds. I have thought that the "new heavens and new earth" might have been delayed even if the "old heavens and old earth" passed away.

I have treated this in the past as occurring among people in general. Along this idea is that there were "religious people" who thought an earlier death was someone accursed. Now it had seemed that christians would know better than to ascribe the earlier death to being accursed -- that's why the idea seemed religious (something from non-belivers) and not a matter of true doctrine. But the verse has some variety of translations that may even undo this interpretation.

A decision on my part will have to come later. But I am considering that this more the contrast of blessings versus curses rather than being specific events to be observed.

[Mellontes]

Good thoughts Mike!

old Jerusalem versus new Jerusalem
old heavens and earth versus new heavens and earth
Present Mosaic age versus the age to come in Christ
old covenant Juadiasm (bondage) versus new covenant church (promise) - Jews and Gentiles together in one body...

hmm. i don't remember really covering the points listed -- except sort of the old heaven and earth topic -- in the sense that it was part of the OP verse. I'm just not wanting to rush any discussion or have extra words put in my mouth.

Even about the "new heavens and new earth", I've been hesitant to say that such passage was fufilled--especially cause of the wording about the 100 year olds. I have thought that the "new heavens and new earth" might have been delayed even if the "old heavens and old earth" passed away.

I have treated this in the past as occurring among people in general. Along this idea is that there were "religious people" who thought an earlier death was someone accursed. Now it had seemed that christians would know better than to ascribe the earlier death to being accursed -- that's why the idea seemed religious (something from non-belivers) and not a matter of true doctrine. But the verse has some variety of translations that may even undo this interpretation.

A decision on my part will have to come later. But I am considering that this more the contrast of blessings versus curses rather than being specific events to be observed.

I'm sorry, Mike. Those added thoughts were mine. They were nothing you had addressed...
But they are accurate correlations. The constrasts between these "two's" are unmistakeable...

Blessings, Mellontes

[Paidion]

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; 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 die." Genesis 2:16,17

I think the reference is to physical death.


"In the day that you eat of it, you shall die" (future tense)
In the day, the very day in which they ate from the tree, the death process began, that is, they became mortal. Thus it could be said that "they shall die". This could not have been said of them prior to their eating from the tree. They had been created with a natural immortality.

[Mellontes]

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; 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 die." Genesis 2:16,17

I think the reference is to physical death.

"In the day that you eat of it, you shall die" (future tense)
In the day, the very day in which they ate from the tree, the death process began, that is, they became mortal. Thus it could be said that "they shall die". This could not have been said of them prior to their eating from the tree. They had been created with a natural immortality.

Paidion,

Don't forget the future tense is only being used because at that time the sin act had not yet been committed. It was still future to them. It has nothing to do with a process.

But what is the definition of death? If we are to accept the biblical definition as to what James says under inspiration in James 2:26 that "For as the body without the spirit is dead..." then according to your theory the spirit gradually started to leave the body, which we all know is not possible. Also, "in the day, the very day in which they ate (I like the way you put it with the emphasis on that day) their eyes (of understanding) were opened.

Genesis 3:7 - And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.

To accept what you "think" happened, a gradual process of having their eyes opened would also have taken place "in that day." They received a full understanding of good and evil not a partial one. They KNEW what had happened.

No personal offence meant but to believe that it was physical death is merely an attempt to align yourself with your present theological position. You believe Adam and Eve were created immortal. So now you must explain why they needed food (Genesis 1:29). You must explain why it is "appointed" for man to die. You must explain why the animals changed their physical characteristics at the fall of man. You must explain why God said the following and prove that it only applied to the post-fall state:

Genesis 3:19 - In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
Psalms 104:29 - Thou hidest thy face, they are troubled: thou takest away their breath, they die, and return to their dust.

Ecclesiastes 12:7 - Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

All of your explanations must come from Scripture - not a theological system...

We simply believe God when he said "in that day" ye shall surely die. You make it a "process of death" unfamiliar to the Scriptures.

John 11:26 - And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

Well, Paidion, do you believe what Jesus said? It's not talking about physical death, now is it? This is the essence of the Gospel. It doesn't get any plainer than this...

John 11:25 - Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:

Do you believe what Jesus said here as well? How can a man believe if he is "physically" dead. The context is belief in Jesus again, but it is not talking about "physical" death, is it?

Here are some more:

Romans 6:2 - God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?

"Dead to sin," hmmmmmm, I wonder what that is a reference to? And if dead to sin, how could they live at all? Maybe sin is spiritual death. Yes! that's it!

Romans 6:4 - Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Paidion, are you walking in newness of life right now? Notice the reference of Christ being raised from the dead and how it applies to LIVING believers. That would not be possible if the simile (like as Christ was raised from the dead) pertained to Him rising from physical death. The verse only makes sense if Christ rose from spiritual death...

Romans 6:7-8 - For he that is dead is freed from sin.
8 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:

If we were to take JUST Romans 6:7 by itself, it would seem as if the phrase "he that is dead is freed from sin" meant release from sin at physical death. But the next verse clarifies things wonderfully. If we are dead spiritually with Christ (it can't be referring to physically dead with Christ) then we shall also live with him. Paul is speaking to living breathing individuals as proven by Romans 6:11:

Romans 6:11 - Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Do you see how the contrast is being made from "death unto sin" versus "alive unto God" while the individual still walks the earth?

One last verse from this chapter...

Romans 6:22 - But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.

If Paul (under inspiration) says they were free from sin (penalty of sin - not acts of sin), how is it they would still physically die? This is only possible if sin meant separation from God - a spiritual death. There is the contrast again, "free from sin" versus "servants to God."

I look forward to seeing the Scriptures you use to answer the four requests for explanations stated earlier in the post. We can explain from the Scriptures the definite allusion to spiritual death being the focus of Christ's mission on earth. You must assume it is physical death and that it became a process back in the garden although the Bible does not say "Man BEGAN to die in that day..." This is eisegesis not exegesis.

Paidion, if you are saved (and I see no reason to believe otherwise), will you suffer the penalty for your sins? This may be difficult to answer with a yes or no based upon your belief that the penalty for sin is physical death, but it is a simple matter for me to say "I will not suffer the penalty for sin because Jesus paid it all, every little scrap!" May I refer you back to John 11:26?

Blessings, Mellontes

[Paidion]

But what is the definition of death? If we are to accept the biblical definition as to what James says under inspiration in James 2:26 that "For as the body without the spirit is dead..." then according to your theory the spirit gradually started to leave the body, which we all know is not possible. Also, "in the day, the very day in which they ate (I like the way you put it with the emphasis on that day) their eyes (of understanding) were opened.

NO! I hold to no such notion as "the spirit gradually leaving the body". I don't believe in the spirit as a separate entity from the body anyway.

What I was getting at is that all of us are gradually dying as we get older. Our bodies are wearing out, and are also susceptible to disease. We are all in the process of dying, and all of us will, in fact, die except those who are still alive at Christ's coming.

I was suggesting that this physical dying process had not begun in Adam and Eve until they had eaten from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

[Mellontes]

But what is the definition of death? If we are to accept the biblical definition as to what James says under inspiration in James 2:26 that "For as the body without the spirit is dead..." then according to your theory the spirit gradually started to leave the body, which we all know is not possible. Also, "in the day, the very day in which they ate (I like the way you put it with the emphasis on that day) their eyes (of understanding) were opened.

NO! I hold to no such notion as "the spirit gradually leaving the body". I don't believe in the spirit as a separate entity from the body anyway.

What I was getting at is that all of us are gradually dying as we get older. Our bodies are wearing out, and are also susceptible to disease. We are all in the process of dying, and all of us will, in fact, die except those who are still alive at Christ's coming.

I was suggesting that this physical dying process had not begun in Adam and Eve until they had eaten from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

I understand what you meant. If you truly believe that sin started the aging process, may I ask you this question (in addition to those 4 other requests)?

Here it is: Do you believe Jesus Christ physically aged during His earthly ministry?

Blessings, Mellontes

[Mellontes]

[What I was getting at is that all of us are gradually dying as we get older. Our bodies are wearing out, and are also susceptible to disease. We are all in the process of dying, and all of us will, in fact, die except those who are still alive at Christ's coming.

I was suggesting that this physical dying process had not begun in Adam and Eve until they had eaten from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Paidion,

Why won't you answer my question? Here it is again:

Do you believe Jesus Christ physically aged during His earthly ministry? Yes or No?

It's time you started to answer our simple questions. As you can see, your answer greatly impacts what you believe about sin...and this is the issue, is it not?

Blessings, Mellontes

[Hitch]

Ratz wrote out a long one before chow and must have pushed the wrong button.

So I'll put up the condensed version.

If we do not live in the NH&E then all remains the same after the cross and resurrection.