----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Reisinger" <24jreisinger26@...>
> JGR: No, you are the one making assumptions and reading them into the 
> text.
> Where, in Genesis 2:17, is there the slightest intimation that Adam had to
> "earn" the right to live another day in the garden? The garden was given 
> to
> Adam to enjoy for as long as he did not eat of the tree.

Correct.  But you're reading "grace" into the text where it isn't there.  As 
long as there is a "condition" present, the relationship between the Creator 
and Creature is one of merit and justice, not grace because grace has no 
conditions.  The moment there is any condition is the moment grace ceases to 
be grace.

>He did not have to
> earn the right to enjoy the Garden, he needed only to not eat the 
> forbidden
> fruit!

"only to not eat the forbidden fruit" extended his enjoyment.  Therefore the 
enjoyment is earned.

>No other person in all of Scripture was in that position. Give me a
> text to prove otherwise.

Leviticus 18:5.

>Your constant insistence on Adam needing to earn
> the right to what God had sovereignly and graciously given him grows out 
> of
> your need to find a covenant of works (even though you have not mentioned
> it) in Gen 2:17.

No.  It is recognizing the fact that grace never has conditions.  This is 
precisely the error of the New Perspective because it presumes grace where 
there are conditions.

I don't need to "find" a covenant of works.  I'm merely exegeting scripture.

> I repeat my claim, the garden conditions are never repeated any where in
> Scripture.

Leviticus, Nehemiah, Ezekiel, etc. etc. The "conditions" have nothing to do 
with man's ability to fulfill the formula and everything to do with the 
formula itself.

Chad Bresson
Xenia, OH