Spiritual Life

[Yeshua1]

No. The problem is that Scripture does not present God's command to Adam not to eat of the fruit to be within what Scripture defines as a "covenant". You yourself pointed this out when you mentioned God's covenant with Abraham and walking through the cut pieces of animals. Scripture uses the term "covenant" in a very specific way. You are cheapening the meaning.

It does not matter how @Martin Marprelate explains why he believes this was a covenant. The fact remains Scripture itself does not present it as a covenant so we have to look at the reasons for and against assuming it is. It may be a covenant. But it may also be only a command. Scripture itself presents God's statement to Adam only as a command (so we know we are safe there).

Why view it is a covenant?

God said to Adam that on the day he eats of the fruit death will be certain. Therefore should Adam not eat of the fruit he would live forever. This is the mentality but it is a formal logical fallacy. You are not only basing your conclusion on logic (which is fine) but on a logical fallacy (which is not fine). There are so many variables that you do not know that it is irresponsible to go beyond Scripture simply because @Martin Marprelate says so (which was your "proof"). For all you know, if Adam had not eaten of the fruit he would have beat his wife for nagging him about not eating of the fruit (I know this is silly, but it is a serious point). God could have given another command that Adam disobeyed. A covenant lasts until a party dies (Hebrews 9). If this was a covenant then had Adam not eaten of the fruit Adam would have been free to disobey any other commands of God without the possibility of death (Adam could have not populated the earth, not subdued the earth, etc.).

You downgrade Scripture when you elevate these theories to the level of Scripture. That is my complaint. Not that you are wrong (I believe you are wrong) but that you are comfortable saying these theories are actually Scripture.

Interesting that when we see Covenant and spiritual life there between Adam and God you do not, so does God operate in scriptures in relationships between Himself and His own apart from having a Covenant relationship/spirituallife?

 

[JonC]

Interesting that when we see Covenant and spiritual life there between Adam and God you do not, so does God operate in scriptures in relationships between Himself and His own apart from having a Covenant relationship/spirituallife?

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.

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

That would be true of all of us here, for last I checked, none here are Apostles and have infallible theology!

 

[JonC]

That would be true of all of us here, for last I checked, none here are Apostles and have infallible theology!

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?

 

[Yeshua1]

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?

I have never stated that, but have stated that this is what the scriptures seem to be teaching to us. None of us are infallible on our understanding of scriptures, but some know it better then others....

 

[JonC]

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?

 

[Yeshua1]

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?

Scripture does not spell it out as in 'this is what it is", but one can deduce and infer from how dealt with human race in this, as he always worked ina covenant relationship with His own people in the Bible, correct?
So I think that it does teach that, but am not certain that it does, does that make sense to you?

 

[JonC]

Scripture does not spell it out as in 'this is what it is", but one can deduce and infer from how dealt with human race in this, as he always worked ina covenant relationship with His own people in the Bible, correct?
So I think that it does teach that, but am not certain that it does, does that make sense to you?

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.

 

[Yeshua1]

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 be threatened by death, both spiritually and physically, if he already had death present, so must not have had any yet!

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

God only works thru Covenants with His personal dealings with humanity, correct?

 

[JonC]

How could Adam be threatened by death, both spiritually and physically, if he already had death present, so must not have had any yet!

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?

 

[JonC]

God only works thru Covenants with His personal dealings with humanity, correct?

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

 

[JonC]

God only works thru Covenants with His personal dealings with humanity, correct?

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.

 

[Yeshua1]

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?

Do you deny that Adam suffered spiritual death, and that all after him save for Jesus experience that by having sin natures when born?

 

[Yeshua1]

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

There are several covenants correct?

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

Did Adam experience any changes at all in as being impacted by the fall then?

 

[JonC]

Did Adam experience any changes at all in as being impacted by the fall then?

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.

 

[JonC]

There are several covenants correct?

There are several covenants.

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

scriptures clearly to teach to us that he experienced spiritual death, as needed then to have a messiah!

 

[Yeshua1]

There are several covenants.

That is the way God related towards man!