> > JGR wrote:: 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.
>
Chad responds:  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.

JGR:  I have never mentioned the word grace until responding to your last
post.

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

Chad responds:   "only to not eat the forbidden fruit" extended his
enjoyment.  Therefore the
> enjoyment is earned.

JGR:  Does legitimate logic really stretch that far? Or are you joking with
me?

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

Chad responds:  Leviticus 18:5.

JGR:  Paul quotes Lev. 18:5, in Gal. 3:10-12, to mean that the law promised
justification only on the ground of perfect obedience and death for the
least infraction.. Adam did not need justification. He was not a guilty
sinner. Genesis 2:17 is not addressed to Adam as a guilty sinner. He is
surely not being promised that he could earn justification and salvation by
not eating the fruit of the tree.

JGR wrote:  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.
>
Chad responds:  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.

JGR:  See my last post where I partly agree.
>
> I don't need to "find" a covenant of works.  I'm merely exegeting
scripture.

JGR: What Scripture are you exegeting?

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

Chad responds:   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.

JGR: Your a sweet guy, but you are waffling.