Why I Am A Futurist - Page 60

mfblume · #**591** 03-05-2015, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shazeep

hmm, funny to me you say "before" rather than "after." The fruit was the remedy for sin and death after they sinned, wasn't it?

No, the fruit always had the remedy, due to foreknowledge of God. So, before they sinned, it was a remedy should they sin. It was needed after they sinned, but always had it in it. It HAD the remedy always in it. Lamb slain from foundation of the world.

Sean · #**592** 03-05-2015, 09:04 AM

Gen 2:8 And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

9 And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.....

No, they had immortality without eating anything from the tree. Sin brought death, not refraining from the tree. Quote MF Blume.

Gen 3:22 And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

23 Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

Looks to me, without the tree of life, they lost their immortality.

Sean · #**593** 03-05-2015, 09:07 AM

Here it is again, for the saints to munch on....

Rev 2:7 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God....

22:2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations....

14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.

I just betcha it is there for a reason....

"and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:"

Sean · #**594** 03-05-2015, 09:11 AM

Literal tree?

You betcha!

shazeep · #**595** 03-05-2015, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

So, before they sinned, it was a remedy should they sin. It was needed after they sinned...

...exactly when they were expressly denied it. Also, your first statement here seems specious, and my reply also addresses that. Again, hindsight here tells me that if you are going to eat the fruit of knowledge, you would eat the fruit of life either before or immediately after; and yet they, who were "on the ground" here, and cannot be assumed to be more ignorant of the matter, did not do this--and satan did not suggest it. Hmm. i would think he would delight in "sin living forever." So, i doubt we have found the "meat" here yet, wadr.

ok, and arguing a literal or figurative tree is arguing how many angels on the head of a pin, imo, at least in this argument. Pick one. Toggle back and forth. It's irrelevant.

mfblume · #**596** 03-05-2015, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shazeep

...exactly when they were expressly denied it.

They were denied it because they still retained sin. I get the impression the combination of the forbidden fruit plus the life was disallowed. Notice it says lest he take ALSO of the fruit of life. Sinners who cannot die cannot be saved by vicarious death.

Quote:

Also, your first statement here seems specious, and my reply also addresses that. Again, hindsight here tells me that if you are going to eat the fruit of knowledge, you would eat the fruit of life either before or immediately after; and yet they, who were "on the ground" here, and cannot be assumed to be more ignorant of the matter, did not do this--and satan did not suggest it. Hmm. i would think he would delight in "sin living forever." So, i doubt we have found the "meat" here yet, wadr.

ok, and arguing a literal or figurative tree is arguing how many angels on the head of a pin, imo, at least in this argument. Pick one. Toggle back and forth. It's irrelevant.

Again, death came by sin. No sin, no death. And no death, no need to eat fruit to live.

We have to believe there was death in mankind before sin otherwise. The greater overall point of that issue disallows for fruit necessary for life before sin.

mfblume · #**597** 03-05-2015, 09:30 AM

The forbiddance to the fruit of life after they sinned was mercy. God had them wait for the death of Christ before life was offered. Otherwise, we'd have another satan onboard.

Sean · #**598** 03-05-2015, 09:30 AM

Was the tree of life forbidden before they sinned?...

16 And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Sean · #**599** 03-05-2015, 09:31 AM

Hmmmm...

shazeep · #**600** 03-05-2015, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mfblume

They were denied it because they still retained sin. I get the impression the combination of the forbidden fruit plus the life was disallowed. Notice it says lest he take ALSO of the fruit of life. Sinners who cannot die cannot be saved by vicarious death.

Again, death came by sin. No sin, no death. And no death, no need to eat fruit to live.

We have to believe there was death in mankind before sin otherwise. The greater overall point of that issue disallows for fruit necessary for life before sin.

this strikes me as two cases of circular reasoning, wadr. "Lest he take also" seems to allow that this was possible, to me. "We need to keep him from the fruit of the tree of life, which is currently available to him."