From: "Chad Richard Bresson" <breusswane@...>
Subject: Re: [soundofgrace] Re: Adam and the garden


JGR wrote:  THERE IS NEITHER GRACE OR EARNING BY WORKS IN THE GARDEN - SHOW
ME OTHERWISE IN THE TEXT.

Chad responds:   If Adam obeys, he lives.  If Adam disobeys, he dies.  There
is "earning" on
both sides of the equation.

JGR:  Here is the fundmental problem with your position. We agree that the
text says "If Adam disobeys he dies." His disobedience "earns him the
penalty of death." He "earns" and experiences something, death, as a direct
result and reward for his action of eating the forbidden fruit. IF HE HAD
NEVER EATEN OF THE FRUIT HE WOULD HAVE NEVER EXPERIENED DEATH.  The wages of
sin is death. So far so good. We agree that is what "If Adam disobeys he
dies" means.

However, you then want to insist on a one and one equation. You want "If
Adam does not eat" to mean "if Adam obeys some unstated promise, he will
earn something he did not have before." You make the fact that Adam lives as
long as he does not eat to mean Adam either (1) earns a life he did not yet
have, or (2) else he was under a works relationship where his very existence
must be earned every day. Neither of these are found in the text. No where
does the text say or imply that Adam will  "earn" and experience for the
first time, something, "life," as a direct result and reward for his
non-action. His non-action, not eating, can "earn" nothing unless there is a
specific covenant promise attached to that non-action. There is clearly a
promise, or threat, attached to eating but not a word about earning
something new and different by not eating. CONTINUING IN THE SAME STATE IS
NOT THE SAME AS EARNING A DIFFERENT STATE AS A REWARD.

Chad continues:  Whatever you say about the one, you must say  about the
other.
>  The inference is in the text.  The exegesis demands we
> treat both sides of the formula the same (and given the way the
> obey/disobey, life/death formula is handled in the rest of the canon that
> kind of exegesis and inference is not only good but necessary... but like
I
> said... the rest of the canon and its biblical theology is merely the
trump
> card... we need go no further than exegesis of Genesis 2:17 itself).

JGR:  The formula in the rest of the Canon of "obey/disobey, life/death"
exclusively deals with how guilty sinners can be justified. Adam was not a
guilty sinner that needed to be justified. You constantly mix apples and
oranges. "In the day you eat thereof you shall surely die" cannot, by good
and necessary consequences" be made to mean, "you will be justified from
your sin if you do not eat." The "obey/disobey, life/death" formula in the
rest of Scripture means exactly that.

JGR continues:  There is a clear commandment from a sovereign Creator to a
sinless man not to eat of a specific tree upon pain of death. The
commandment mentions no rewards based on "earning" by works, or non-works.

Chad reponds:   If eat eats of the tree he "earns" death (Romans 6:23).  The
necessary
> inference is if he doesn't eat, he "earns" life.

JGR responds:  If "earns life" means life in any sense whatever something
that Adam did not already have then your necessary inference is not there.
It is one thing for Adam to lose, by disobeying, a life he already had and
Adam earning by his works a life he did not already possess.  Does Romas
6:23 also mean that if Adam does not eat the fruit that he will earn and
receive as a reward "the gift of God, eternal life?" Is that the "life" that
Adam could have earned? Does the "formula" in Genesis 2:17 mean Adam was
promised "eternal life," salvation, as a reward for not eating the fruit?

Chad continues:  If the disobedience is an
> evil "work" (Romans 3 is clear that it is), the obedience is automatically
a
> righteous "work".  What you say about disobedience and death, you must say
> about obedience and life.

JGR responds:  More apples and oranges.  Romas 6:23 does not say or imply,
"The wages of sin (eating the fruit) is death, but the gift of God ( as a
reward for not eating the fruit) is eternal life." You are saying God
preached the Gospel to Adam before Adam sinned.

Chad continues: You're suggesting that his disobedience was not a "work" and
did not "earn" death?

JGR responds:  Where have I ever suggested that. Adam's act of disobedience
was anything other than a conscious and deliberate "work of disobedience" to
a clear and specific commandment. We agree on that. What you need and do not
have is a clear and specific coveant promise from God to Adam whereby Adam
can earn by works a life he was not given at creation. Genesis 2:17
certainly does not yield such a covenant promise.

Chad continues:  If you say "no", at least you're being consistent with what
you
> believe to be true about obedience and life.  But what the scriptures tell
> us about disobedience and death (and obedience and life... Lev. 18:5) is
not
> in your favor.

JGR responds:  (1)  I am not sure what you think I believe about "obedience
and life."  (2)  Lev 18:5 is addressed to a man needing to be justified in
the sight of a holy God. The text cannot apply to Adam anymore than Genesis
2:17 can apply to any person but Adam. You keep ignoring the radical effects
of the fall and the great difference between pre and post fall revelation.

JGR