Why I Am A Futurist

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Brother Blume, can you please demonstrate that Adam and Eve had immortality independently of tree of life?

Romans 5:12 says death came by sin. That means the fruit had the remedy for sin and death before they sinned. That's why the life instead of death is only mentioned after they sinned.

[shazeep]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Romans 5:12 says death came by sin. That means the fruit had the remedy for sin and death before they sinned. That's why the life instead of death is only mentioned after they sinned.

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?

[mfblume]

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.

[shazeep]

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]

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.

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]

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.

[mfblume]

I am not dogmatic about it as Sean is about me going to hell over leaves (God have mercy on him at judgment), but I believe had Adam eaten of the fruit of life, he would be indwelt by God's Life. He would live forever so long as he did not eat the forbidden fruit, anyway. But the fruit of Life was God's Life that God wanted in man to manifest in and through man to the physical world. And satan knew that if man was filled with something else, God would not indwell man and manifest. For if God indwelt man and manifested through man, satan would be finished and cast out of the world as God cast him out of glory. So he had to get another filling in man first.

And since man would multiply and ingest that filling of life and manifest God all over the world in time, the serpent went after the means of his multiplication, the woman. Just like he goes after the church today with the same knowledge of good and evil in legalism to urge us to not manifest God but be our own gods and throw haywire into the whole manifestation purpose.

[shazeep]

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."

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by shazeep

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."

That's why God threw him from the garden to not partake of both, since he'd already eaten the forbidden. It was possible. But forbidden.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Romans 5:12 says death came by sin. That means the fruit had the remedy for sin and death before they sinned. That's why the life instead of death is only mentioned after they sinned.

Not sure I follow you. Are you saying they were created immortal, sinned and lost it, and the tree of life was for restorative purposes?

If they had not sinned, they would have lived forever WITHOUT eating of the tree of life?

I'm not sure I see that from the text in Romans as being a necessary inference. Could it not mean death came by sin because they were barred from the tree of life as punishment for sin?