I think you'll find it isn't.I think you'll find it is.
I think if you look you will discover that you really believe it implied (it's a philosophical answer) supposing a covenant promising life if Adam was obedient (to a hypothetical question).
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Original Sin Again
- Thread starter rsr
- Start date
- Status
I think if you look you will discover that you really believe it implied (it's a philosophical answer) supposing a covenant promising life if Adam was obedient (to a hypothetical question).
I have already found that it isI think you'll find it isn't.
I know you think you did, but you didn't.I have already found that it is
Scripture tells us that God commanded Adam not to eat of the fruit, not that refraining to do so would result in life but that eating would result in the certainty of physical death. Assuming only one of several hypothetical possibilities you assume had He never eaten of the fruit he would have lived forever.
I believe the prohibition of eating from the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was temporary.
Had Adam and Eve eaten of the other trees only, sooner or later they would have eaten of the tree of Life and been confirmed in Holiness for all Eternity.
Then, in Perfect Holiness, they could have eaten of the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and been able, due to their eternal perfect holiness, to know the difference between good and evil and only act on the good, rejecting the evil.
I believe the command was to show that man, created with the ability to freely choose, would choose his desires over God's will.
But either way this cannot be viewed as a covenant by biblical definition (covenants are temporary only as they expire when one party dies).
I know you think I didn't, but I didI know you think you did, but you didn't.
Scripture tells us that God commanded Adam not to eat of the fruit, not that refraining to do so would result in life but that eating would result in the certainty of physical death. Assuming only one of several hypothetical possibilities you assume had He never eaten of the fruit he would have lived forever.
If you tell your child (grandchild?) that if he disobeys you, you'll send him to his room, there is a necessary corollary that if he obeys you, you won't send him to his room. If he obeyed you and you punished him anyway that would be bizarre and unreasonable.
If Adam had eaten the fruit and died immediately, it might be possible to argue that if he hadn't eaten it he would have lived a normal lifespan, but since he lived another 900+ years, that kite won't fly.
I know you think I didn't....you thought...I know you think I didn't, but I did
If you tell your child (grandchild?) that if he disobeys you, you'll send him to his room, there is a necessary corollary that if he obeys you, you won't send him to his room. If he obeyed you and you punished him anyway that would be bizarre and unreasonable.
If Adam had eaten the fruit and died immediately, it might be possible to argue that if he hadn't eaten it he would have lived a normal lifespan, but since he lived another 900+ years, that kite won't fly.
...oh well....you are mistaken God didn't say "you will drop dead that day", or even "you will die on the day you eat the fruit". Look again. Adam's sin made death a certainty.
And God never promised life if Adam did not eat of the fruit. It simply was not a covenant.
The issue with faux covenants are they diminish the real ones.
I do actually know that. God said, 'Dying, you will die;' in other words, you'll go on dying until you're dead.I think you'll find it was.
What is a covenant? The Hebrew word used in the Old Testament is Bara, which comes from a root word meaning ‘bonds’ or ‘yokes.’ The idea is of two parties binding themselves to perform some mutually agreed action. The Greek word is diatheke, which means a ‘disposition’ or ‘arrangement.’ The puritan John Owen defined a covenant as, ‘A voluntary convention, pact, agreement between distinct persons about the ordering and dispensing of things in their power, to their mutual concern or advantage.’ A simpler definition might be, ‘A mutual agreement, a benefit being assured on the fulfilment of certain conditions.’
There is an example of a covenant in 1Sam 20:11-17. Jonathan promises to help David escape from Saul, and David promises to show kindness to Jonathan’s descendants (cf. 2Sam 9:1 ). There is an oath and the name of the Lord is invoked (vs 12, 16-17 ). This is an example of a covenant between equals. Sometimes we see covenants between parties where one side is clearly superior to the other. These are called by theologians Suzerainty Covenants.. In such cases, the terms of the covenant are dictated by the stronger side (eg. 1Kings 20:34 ), and the benefits are therefore likely to accrue to the stronger at the expense of the weaker. It goes without saying that God is always the Superior and He dictates the terms of the covenants into which He enters.
‘Then the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; 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 surely die “’(Gen 2:15-17 ). The covenant comes in the form of a provision, a command and a warning, but a gracious promise is necessarily implied- eternal life; ‘if you don’t the forbidden fruit, you shall live.’ Adam was put into the position of a tenant moving into a house. The landlord might tell him, “You can live here rent-free in return for doing the garden; you can eat all the stuff that grows in the garden, but don’t touch the vintage claret in the cellar or you’re out!”
This arrangement has all the attributes of a covenant. The greater party (God) gives to the lesser party (Adam) a perfect environment, ample provisions and eternal life. The lesser party agrees to oversee and to care for the environment, and to obey the rules laid down for him. A breach of these rules is a breach of the covenant and must lead to the forfeiture of its benefits. The covenant might be better termed the ‘Covenant of Obedience’ since it was obedience rather than works which were required, but it has been called the Covenant of Works to distinguish it from the Covenant of Grace.
It might be supposed that Adam had no other law to obey save the single one of not eating from the forbidden tree, but that would be a simplistic view. Adam was under the Moral Law of God, the Ten Commandments, as a moment’s thought will confirm. Suppose Adam built an idol in the garden to worship, or suppose he strangled Eve! Would God have said, “Oh, that’s alright, Adam, just as long as you don’t eat the fruit!” The very thought is absurd. It is true that Adam could not have coveted his neighbour’s ox or his ass since he had no neighbours, but he certainly coveted that which God had denied to him and stole it to his own inestimable loss and that of his posterity. ‘Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned’ (Romans 5:12 ).
There is no doubt but that the Covenant of Works was a gracious covenant. God was under no obligation to do anything for Adam, yet He gave him a wife, placed him in a beautiful garden with only light tasks to perform (there were no weeds before the Fall- Gen 3:17-18 ) and gave him dominion over all the rest of creation. However, there is no mention of mercy in the covenant. Adam is warned, “In the day you eat of it, you shall surely die.” To put it another way, “Do this and live.” Adam’s privileges were dependant on his obedience. Yet he was well able to perform this obedience. God had made him entirely righteous; otherwise He could not have pronounced the whole of creation ‘very good’ (Gen 1:31 ).
I see. You believe the Genesis account of Adam to be an allegory for your philosophy. When God said "don't eat the fruit" He was implying "obey the 10 Commandments".
I think you'll find it was.
What is a covenant? The Hebrew word used in the Old Testament is Bara, which comes from a root word meaning ‘bonds’ or ‘yokes.’ The idea is of two parties binding themselves to perform some mutually agreed action. The Greek word is diatheke, which means a ‘disposition’ or ‘arrangement.’ The puritan John Owen defined a covenant as, ‘A voluntary convention, pact, agreement between distinct persons about the ordering and dispensing of things in their power, to their mutual concern or advantage.’ A simpler definition might be, ‘A mutual agreement, a benefit being assured on the fulfilment of certain conditions.’
There is an example of a covenant in 1Sam 20:11-17. Jonathan promises to help David escape from Saul, and David promises to show kindness to Jonathan’s descendants (cf. 2Sam 9:1 ). There is an oath and the name of the Lord is invoked (vs 12, 16-17 ). This is an example of a covenant between equals. Sometimes we see covenants between parties where one side is clearly superior to the other. These are called by theologians Suzerainty Covenants.. In such cases, the terms of the covenant are dictated by the stronger side (eg. 1Kings 20:34 ), and the benefits are therefore likely to accrue to the stronger at the expense of the weaker. It goes without saying that God is always the Superior and He dictates the terms of the covenants into which He enters.
‘Then the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; 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 surely die “’(Gen 2:15-17 ). The covenant comes in the form of a provision, a command and a warning, but a gracious promise is necessarily implied- eternal life; ‘if you don’t the forbidden fruit, you shall live.’ Adam was put into the position of a tenant moving into a house. The landlord might tell him, “You can live here rent-free in return for doing the garden; you can eat all the stuff that grows in the garden, but don’t touch the vintage claret in the cellar or you’re out!”
This arrangement has all the attributes of a covenant. The greater party (God) gives to the lesser party (Adam) a perfect environment, ample provisions and eternal life. The lesser party agrees to oversee and to care for the environment, and to obey the rules laid down for him. A breach of these rules is a breach of the covenant and must lead to the forfeiture of its benefits. The covenant might be better termed the ‘Covenant of Obedience’ since it was obedience rather than works which were required, but it has been called the Covenant of Works to distinguish it from the Covenant of Grace.
It might be supposed that Adam had no other law to obey save the single one of not eating from the forbidden tree, but that would be a simplistic view. Adam was under the Moral Law of God, the Ten Commandments, as a moment’s thought will confirm. Suppose Adam built an idol in the garden to worship, or suppose he strangled Eve! Would God have said, “Oh, that’s alright, Adam, just as long as you don’t eat the fruit!” The very thought is absurd. It is true that Adam could not have coveted his neighbour’s ox or his ass since he had no neighbours, but he certainly coveted that which God had denied to him and stole it to his own inestimable loss and that of his posterity. ‘Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned’ (Romans 5:12 ).
There is no doubt but that the Covenant of Works was a gracious covenant. God was under no obligation to do anything for Adam, yet He gave him a wife, placed him in a beautiful garden with only light tasks to perform (there were no weeds before the Fall- Gen 3:17-18 ) and gave him dominion over all the rest of creation. However, there is no mention of mercy in the covenant. Adam is warned, “In the day you eat of it, you shall surely die.” To put it another way, “Do this and live.” Adam’s privileges were dependant on his obedience. Yet he was well able to perform this obedience. God had made him entirely righteous; otherwise He could not have pronounced the whole of creation ‘very good’ (Gen 1:31 ).
There is too great a gulf between you and I to discuss Original Sin. The theories you presuppose are foreign to Scripture, and frankly beyond my interest.
When Scripture says that God told Adam not to eat of the fruit or he would die, I believe that is exactly what God meant and what happened. When God gave the 10 Commandments to Israel and said it was a covenant not given to their fathers, I believe He meant it.
To paraphrase Alice Cooper, if the Bible says it it happened. We don't get to be philosophic about it. If you believe God created tbe world and saves us, then why would you question the other stuff?
Yep. When Adam ate the fruit, he was obeying Satan before God, making an idol out of his appetite, dishonouring his Heavenly father, causing the death of all his progeny, stealing what did not belong to him and coveting what God had denied to him. That's six out of ten commandments. But I ask you, if Adam had built an altar to the sun or the moon in the Garden, or if he had murdered Eve, would God have been OK with that?
The 1689 Baptist Confession (1:6) states
The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture.....' 'Necessarily contained' refers to those things which are not 'expressly set down' but are the inevitable and obvious conclusion of the Scripture. If you deny that, you cannot possibly believe in the Trinity.
I do not believe men's theories should be given the same weight as Scripture. That said, we must hold very different doctrines of the Trinity if yours is not expressly written.
When we decide that Scripture alone means what is written as well as what we wish were written then we no longer believe in Scripture alone.
The doctrine of the Trinity is not expressly written as you very well know, but it is understood because it is 'necessarily contained' in the Bible as is the doctrine of the Fall and the Covenant of Works. Actually, the CoW is even more clearly expressed because of Hosea 6:7 (NASB etc.).
'The Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God.' We who are spiritual are to compare Scripture with Scripture as well as understanding the nature of God in order to understand Him fully . If you think God was only concerned about idolatry after Exodus 19, you have a deeply flawed understanding of Him.
I am not saying the doctrine is in one place, but I can find written in Scripture that the Father, Son, and Spirit are God and that God is One. This is not true of your theories.
Anyone can say just about anything is implied in Scripture and, like you, many have. This is not Scripture alone.
And this is a major problem in your theology. You can believe anything that suits your preferences because you can claim that the Bible implies any theory you choose. There are so many theories you have put forward as Scripture because you believe the Bible implies such and such. Sometimes those beliefs have been contradicted by what was actually written, but since you give equal weight to your tradition what is written can be interpreted through what you believe to be implied.
My only request is that you refrain from claiming Sola Scriptura as descriptive of your belief. You have proven yourself to be very much indebted to tradition and it is through that tradition that you view God's Word. There is a reason Scripture has affirmed itself by "it is written" and not "it was implied".
That could be Modalism just as easily as Trinitarianism.
You will know (or should do) that the 1689 Confession uses the term 'necessarily contained.' The WCF says 'by good and necessary consequence.' I think I have used the word 'implied' exactly once on this thread. I wrote, "The covenant comes in the form of a provision, a command and a warning, but a gracious promise is necessarily implied- eternal life; 'if you don’t the forbidden fruit, you shall live.’" I stand by that; it is absolutely necessary and to deny it is the merest obstinacy. However, if you prefer, you can change it to 'necessarily contained' or 'necessarily consequential.'
No, it couldn't be Modalism because of the distinctions recorded in Scripture between the Father and Son and Spirit (actual verses).
I don't hold the 1689 Confession as an authority for my faith. That is what I am trying to tell you, brother. We have very different presuppositions. When I study Scripture my goal is to see what is written apart from what I believe may be implied. You, however, believe what is contained in your tradition (what you and the system you have chosen to follow) is equal to what is written and treat these traditions as if they were Scripture itself (because, to you, they are).
What happens is that we end up at an impasse because we hold two very different things as our authority. You can appeal to the 1689 Confession, tradition, and what you believe is implied in God's Word. I am restricted to Scripture alone. There are places where our beliefs overlap, but your method is by definition eisegesis and there are areas where your "interpretation" will rely on presuppositions I've rejected.
Yours is a dangerous method of reading Scripture. I'm not saying it is wrong to have beliefs or opinions that are extra-biblical. We all do that. @TCassidy explained how he believes God's command to Adam was temporary. But he does not go so far as to say this is Scripture itself. You, however, reject his ideas in favor of the "Covenant of Works". BUT you believe your idea is Scripture itself (is implied). @TCassidy 's position is not in the Bible (it is a theory, and he may be correct). He can hold to sola scriptura. You cannot because you hold your traditions (even if they were correct) as being equal with what is written (Scripture).
You say that Martin is holding to manmade traditions and fables, and is just following allogory/symbolism, but the real truth is that he and I are just taking the literal truths expressed in the scriptures, in that Adam was created with a morally perfect nature, he sinned, and that nature became corrupted and caused him to have tasted both a spiritual and a physical death. That same really bad state was passed along to all of us now, and only Jesus avoided being tainted and corrupted by the sin nature all now have.
Jesus nature cannot be the exact same as ours, as we were corrupted by the fall, His was not, and he overcame sinning by being in the very nature of God, not be just willing Himself to not sin!
What I am saying is that if our doctrine cannot be actually found in Scripture then it (even if correct) cannot be treated as if it were Scripture.
You and @Martin Marprelate hold to certain traditions as if they were Scripture and they form a body of authority for your belief. The both of you believe that Scripture implies (that it teaches, although not in "what is written") your tradition. So you have absolutely no grounds to debate others who believe the same about Scripture but hold different doctrine.
You say that the Bible implies sin is passed down through semen. Catholics say that Mary ascended to Heaven by virtue of her status as the mother of God. Both of you base your belief on something you believe Scripture implies but is not written. There is no difference in terms of the authority of your faith, @Martin Marprelate 's faith, and RCC faith. It is exactly the same in terms of authority. None of you are sola scriptura (even though you believe otherwise because you don't understand what the term means)
I would agree a number of them show yielding, but in view was more suffering in regards to the spirit and the flesh.
Here I see the suffering of Christ. I don't take the position most do, and think this shows Christ asking for another "way," because that would contradict the truth that not only did He come for this specific purpose, but He had every intention of carrying it out.
I view this as His saying "Let this be the time when I go to the Cross," or in other words, "...let's do this."
In other words, "Let your will be accomplished now."
Again, the suffering of temptation is, in my view, not simply mundane temptations, but follow after a more spiritual struggle. For example, the grief of the Lord over man's condition. That Christ understands our condition doesn't necessarily mean He was actually tempted in a way where whether He would resist temptation comes into question.
It simply doesn't make sense that God planned this prior to creating the world and there being even the remotest possibility that He would fail to accomplish that which He came to do.
Perhaps a temptation to call down 10,000 Angels, lol?
No, not even that.
God bless.
I believe it was simply that Jesus submitted the will of the flesh to do the will of the Spirit. He did not want to feel the pain, agony, and physical loss of the Cross but at the same time He lay down His own life for us because His desire was to save us, to do the will of the Father in sending Him.
No, would say that I see God has placing Adam in a test to see if he would be obedient to God, he failed, and thus had his very nature corrupted and changed, and from that time forward, God has judged Adam as being in our stead, as representing us before God, so all are physically born in His image, spiritually dead and sinners.
Those of us now in Jesus are spiritually alive again.
We sin because it we want to, as our nature is inclined towards it now, but Jesus had NOTHING in His nature inclined/bent towards sinning!
- Status