Featured Spiritual Life

I actually see what you are saying. But that you see it as actually stated in or taught by Scripture is not only very interesting but very telling.

We all have ideas and beliefs we see in Scripture. But it is important to be understand how to distinguish between God's Word and our understanding of God's Word.

 

I know that, brother.

My point is that we need to know where Scripture ends and our theology begins, not that you ditch your theology.

If you insist that your understanding IS Scripture itself then it is a poor reflection on you (you make yourself to be God). Instead we should rely on Scripture while being able to explain our reasoning and acknowledge our understanding for what it is (we don't insist our understanding is the only understanding or that it is Scripture itself).

You do see that it is wrong to insist that your understanding of Scripture IS God's Word itself.....correct?

 

Brother,

I do not want to argue with you. I want you to understand what I am saying. Before we go on, please let’s make sure you understand what I am saying.

Scripture does not use the word “Trinity”, but Scripture does say that the Spirit is the Spirit of God and that the Father and Son are God. That is the Trinity and it is stated in Scripture.

Scripture states that God commanded Adam not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Paul refers to this not as a covenant but as a command in terms of Adam transgressing God’s direct command (Romans 5).

You are saying that Scripture says God entered into a covenant with Adam, that should he not eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil he would have eternal life and would not age.

I understand why you hold that view, but it is vital that you comprehend that this is your reasoning and not Scripture itself. Scripture (the text of the Bible) does not present God’s command to Adam as a covenant with the positive that you assume should Adam refrain from eating of the fruit.

You answer and I will listen. But know that I will determine your honesty and discernment from your response. I believe in the principle of not casting pears before swine and need to determine your answer before proceeding or refraining from conversation.


Does Scripture itself teach that God entered into a covenant with Adam or have you determined such via human reasoning?

 

I understand that is what you think, and I agree that on the surface it makes sense.

The problem is that it is in fact a logical fallacy, so that needs to be addressed:

1. Scriptures to be addressed. says that God commanded Adam not to eat of the fruit, that on the day he ate of the fruit death would be certain.

2. The logic applied is that if Adam did not eat of the fruit then Adam would not die.

The problem is the logic is flawed (it is a logical fallacy.

Consider why:

1. First, the logic is in fact denying the antecedent fallacy (it is an example of inverse error). We cannot take "if A then B" to mean "if not A then not B". It is an error in logic.

2. Second, we cannot base doctrine on a hypothetical "if" statement because we do not know the variables.

3. Third, Scripture presents God's command to Adam in context of a command and not a covenant. Look at how Scripture describes covenants and the extent covenants remain valid. We cannot assume this command also bound God to the inverse of the negative command as it is not in the nature of God as described in Scripture. God will punish the wicked and the wages of sin is death, whether via Adam violating this command or "passing the test" here only to fail in the future. Hypothetically (which is what we are speaking) Adam could have not eaten the fruit and sinned by beating Eve for nagging him about not eating of the fruit. God would be bound not to punish Adam (at least in terms of such being a sin) by entering into that covenant (that is the point of covenants and God's righteousness).

The results of this "covenant of works":

1. It downgrades the meaning of "covenant" as used in Scripture.

2. It intentionally and consciously introduces flawed logic into the process of theology.

3. Hypothetically it binds God to the inverse of any command as anything could be considered covenantal.

4. It places Covenant Theology on a very week and illogical foundation rather than firmly established on Scripture.

 

How could Adam know about death if death had not already been present? The consequences would be meaningless.

My point is that we have to stick with Scripture. When we depart from Scripture then we need to make sure to test our reasoning. Your reasoning by definition fails (this is a fact).

That does not mean that your conclusion is wrong. It does mean that it is not biblical, not logical, and therefore is an unsupported and baseless opinion that I would caution you from putting much stock into.

As @Martin Marprelate could probably verify, there is no Scripture where God binds Himself in a covenant way to Adam should Adam not eat of the fruit. There is no biblical text (in the Old Testament or the New Testament) that even speaks of the possibility of someone dying spiritually. This is humanistic extra-biblical theory. And beyond that it is a logical fallacy.

Why would you put your faith in such things when you have God's Word right before you?

 

No. That is not correct. In the Old Testament God worked through people external to covenants.

 

I hope this may help you a little. This is why your conclusion that "if Adam eats of the fruit he will die" means "if Adam does not eat of the fruit he will not die" is illogical.

 

Yes. But IMHO we can only say that Adam experienced those changes that Scripture says he experienced. We can think he experienced other things, but that is not something we should build on. We have to be faithful to Scripture.

 

There are several covenants.