Evidence for God from Science

Again, IRQ, I recognize and have stated that sin leads to death. However, look at the passage you quoted.

The wages of sin is death . . .
But the gift of God is everlasting life . . .

What are the contrasts here, and what do they tell us? First, we have a wage versus a gift. A wage is earned, a gift is not. Thus, death is earned, and life is not.

The next contrast is "of sin" vs. "of God." That doesn't require much comment. We have here the sources clearly laid out for us.

Finally, "death" is contrasted to "everlasting life." Both are final conditions.

This tells us that from sin, we earn death. But, from God, we are given life. The source is not the question. The condition is. Are you alive or are you dead? If you are dead, it is because you earned it. If you are alive, it is because you received it.

Let me cast this argument one more way before I close. Obviously, it is God who saves us. But, what is the means of salvation. It is the granting of life, correct? Life is what we are after. If you are alive, you are saved according to this verse. This life is rooted in God, and it is received as a gift. Now, look at the reverse. It is God who damns us--He is the one who will cast us into the Lake of Fire. But it is because, according to this verse, we are dead. This death is rooted in sin, and it is earned through those sinful deeds. Do you see the contrast?

1. Sin vs. God
2. Wage vs Gift
3. Death vs Life

Jac3510 wrote: Sin is not what condemns a person to Hell. Spiritual deadness is.

Um, ok. But all I was refuting is the above statement.

Is this what you meant? or did I misunderstand? If so please supply some Supportive scripture.

. . .

I don't see a refutation. The last two posts I have been trying to explain that this verse does not say that we are condemned for sin. It says that sin causes death. We are condemned for death, which is implicit in this verse. We can see that because of the parallel contrasts in which life is set against death. As we are saved by life, we are condemned by death. You have to keep Paul's contrasts where he contrasted them.

I think I like your guys company. The conversations seem constructive here.... almost like we care about each other

What about Phil.3:12-16? This says to me that we have not arrived yet, that we still need to push ahead to get the prize. the prize being salvation attained to the point where we can't loose it anymore.

With all sincerity,

Led

Jac3510 wrote:. . .

I don't see a refutation. The last two posts I have been trying to explain that this verse does not say that we are condemned for sin.

My bad, I was confusing the result of sin with the act of condemnation.

Mat 12:37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

Luk 6:37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

No wonder grandma alway's said "if you have nothing good to say, say nothing at all"

Is it fair to replace the word condemned with the word judged? I am supposing not as having been condemned one has already been judged.

So I see it as this: Judged (desicion)-> Condemned (sentenced)-> Death (prison). Is that accurate?

Matt 12:37 is a good verse in support of this, I think, IRQ. Jesus is referring to the profession of belief or of unbelief, specifically as it relates to the teaching of doctrine.

I would be more careful, though, with Luke 6:37. I think the condemnation and judgment in this verse are temporal, because Jesus ties them in with "forgive, and you will be forgiven." Clearly, Jesus is saying that if you do not forgive, you will not be forgiven (which is exactly what He says in Matt. 6:15. I don't believe that forgiving other people is a necessary condition to salvation, and in the general context, I take this to refer to the forgiveness that relates to our daily walk with God. In other words, I wouldn't take this as positional forgiveness. Thus, I also wouldn't take "condemn" or "judge" as position--or ultimate--either.

Everything else seems pretty spot on, though. Your verbage is a bit different from mine, but I think we are thinking the same way on this. I could sign that contract.