The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum What exactly was meant that death came about due to Adam and Eve's sin

Are you suggesting that God is not subject to logic and thus He is illogical? The passages I provided are perspicuous on their face, i.e., in every instance it is written that God HATES individuals. None have nothing to do with humans hating other humans. Lets take the first reference as an example: Psalms 5:5 (ASV) "5 The arrogant shall not stand in thy sight: Thou hatest all workers of iniquity." The "Thou" is God who hates "all workers of iniquity", which FYI, is the text which Jesus uses toward those who boast that they have been His disciples. Thus when Jesus tells them to depart and "I never knew you, ye that work iniquity" He professes He never "loved them". It cannot mean that He never had any knowledge about them, for He being
God knew them from all eternity and ordained every facet of their lives. Each of the referenced texts equally and truly state that God hates the respect objects of His wrath. I'm going to have to assume that you didn't read any of the articles I provided links for, correct? Dr. John Gerstners article, "Does God Love the Sinner and Hate ONLY His Sin?" should have sufficed by itself.

Sorry, but I can't follow your point. To obtain the proper understanding of words it is essential that they be taken IN CONTEXT. For a text out of context is nothing less than pretext. As I stated to you in my previous reply, the word "world" (kosmos) has 7 different meanings in Scripture. The context of John 3:16 needs to be ascertained in order to properly discover the correct definition of "world" used. This and quite a number of various reasons why "world" in that passage does not and cannot mean, every individual who ever was, is and ever shall be without discrimination, are provided in the article also referenced THE ‘WORLD’ OF JOHN 3:16 DOES NOT MEAN ‘ALL MEN WITHOUT EXCEPTION’

The Puritan, John Owen in his treatise "The Death of Death of Christ" takes great pains in addressing this passage and the infinite discriminatingly love of God which has never been refuted by anyone in over 350 years. In that work he makes the following statement which should at least pique your interest:


To which I may add this dilemma to our Universalists:

God imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for,

1. either all the sins of all men,
2. or all the sins of some men,
3. or some sins of all men.

If the last, some sins of all men, then have all men some sins to answer for, and so shall no man be saved; for if God entered into judgment with us, though it were with all mankind for one sin, no flesh should be justified in his sight: “If the LORD should mark iniquities, who should stand?” Ps. cxxx. 2. We might all go to cast all that we have “to the moles and to the bats, to go into the clefts of the rocks, and into the tops of the ragged rocks, for fear of the Lord, and for the glory of his majesty,” Isa. ii. 20, 21.

If the Second, that is it which we affirm, that Christ in their stead and room Suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the world.

If the first, why then, are not all freed from the punishment of all their sins?

You will say, “Because of their unbelief; they will not believe.”

But this unbelief, is it a sin, or not?

If not, why should they be punished for it? If it be, then Christ underwent the punishment due to it, or not.

If so, then why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which he died from partaking of the fruit of his death?

If he did not, then did he not die for all their sins. Let them choose which part they will.