The Times We Live in...

Clare73 · Sep 7, 2021

mispu[I]t said:
We are not predestined to be believers, we are predestined as believers.

Not when "No one can come to unless the Father enables him." (John 6:65)

Not when "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away." (John 6:37)
--Note that they are gifted to Christ before they come, they are not gifted to Christ because they come.

Not when faith is a gift (Philippians 1:29; 2 Peter 1:1; Acts 13:48, Acts 18:27; Romans 12:3).

Not when "it is God who works in you to will and to do." (Philippians 2:13)

Nuance thinking (aware of delicate shades of meaning)

Which by no means and in no way equates to Bilbical thinking.

non Calvinist thinking. Black and white thinking=Calvinistic or literal VS Spiritual. A basic truth, when we have no choice, we are not held responsible, when we have a choice we are held responsible. The elect is Jesus, all who are in Jesus are elect also. Think of it as cooperate election.

Not according to the NT (Romans 8:29-30; Ephesians 1:5, Ephesians 1:11).

Clare73 · Sep 7, 2021

misput said:
Why do you take such a negative stance toward Lard? He is just trying to understand a very difficult doctrine the same as you and I and I seriously doubt that He is deliberately trying to corrupt God's word any more than you and I and we read each others opinions.

How else do you explain his changing the answer to the question in Romans 9:19
from the Biblical anwer in Romans 9:20 to his own answer, which contradicts the Biblical answer of Romans 9:20?

You have a tendency like most of us to come on with
the attitude you cannot be wrong.

The response to such an "attitude" is to demonstrate the error.

A little humility goes a long way Clare : )

Humility is truth. . .e.g., there's nothing humble about denying you are a good pianist when you are, in fact, an accomplished concert pianist.
Humility is agreeing with the truth of that fact in a non-boastful way.

Lard's answer is deliberately false.

Would that make me humble and him not?

misput · Sep 7, 2021

Clare73 said:
How else do you explain his changing the answer to the question in Romans 9:19
from the Biblical anwer in Romans 2:20 to his own answer, which contradicts the Biblical answer of Romans 9:20?

The response to such an "attitude" is to demonstrate the error.

Humility is truth. . .e.g., there's nothing humble about denying you are a good pianist when you are, in fact, an accomplished concert pianist.
Humility is agreeing with the truth of that fact in a non-boastful way.

Lard's answer is deliberately false.

That would make me humble and him not.

Clare do you consider yourself a literal interpreter of scripture? What does literal interpretation of scripture mean to you?

Clare73 · Sep 8, 2021

misput said:
Clare do you consider yourself a literal interpreter of scripture? What does literal interpretation of scripture mean to you?

Well, I consider myself as taking Scripture at its word, which includes:

in agreement with the rest of Scripture, and not necessarily in agreement with human logic; e.g., Romans 9:18-21.

I do not interpret prophecy literally because God said he gives prophecy in riddles (Numbers 12:8).
I intepret all unfulfilled prophecy in the light of authoritative NT teaching, with which my interpretation must agree if Scripture is not to contradict itself.

I think that's about it.

misput · Sep 8, 2021

Clare73 said:
Well, I consider myself as taking Scripture at its word, which includes:

in agreement with all Scripture, and not necessarily in agreement with human logic; e.g., Romans 9:18-21.

I do not interpret prophecy literally because God said he gives prophecy in riddles (Numbers 12:8).
I intepret all unfulfilled prophecy in the light of authoritative NT teaching, with which my interpretation must agree if Scripture is not to contradict itself.

I think that's about it.

OK.
Do you believe some scripture is representative, figurative, metaphorical as in the snake and the two trees in Genesis 2 & 3. I asked you a similar question once before and you replied you had not given it much thought. Could you dig into it and let me know what you come up with?

As to predestination, I think it can be understood by foreknowledge, God knows who will and who will not accept salvation and elects accordingly. Similarly God selects certain people for certain purposes but those purposes have no bearing on that persons acceptance or rejection of salvation. I think we can accept predestination through ignorance and blind faith, which is not a bad thing, or we can ask God and He will open our understanding.
John 3:16 "whosoever will" and God knows who will. It's just that simple.

On another note, you said Romans 2:20 was the biblical answer to predestination but it seems to me that is about people who think they are teachers and leaders of the blind who are blind themselves.

Clare73 · Sep 8, 2021

misput said:
OK.
Do you believe some scripture is representative, figurative, metaphorical as in the snake and the two trees in Genesis 2 & 3. I asked you a similar question once before and you replied you had not given it much thought. Could you dig into it and let me know what you come up with?

The thing is, it matters not to me.
If God wants me to believe that's the way it went down, whether it did or not matters not to me.

I got no horse in that race.

As to predestination, I think it can be understood by foreknowledge, God knows who will and who will not accept salvation and elects accordingly.

Not when you understand the Biblical meaning of God's foreknowledge, instead of the meaning many use.

God's foreknowledge is not looking ahead down the halls of time and seeing what men are going to do.

God's foreknowledge does not refer to the actions of men, it refers to the decisions, will and decrees of God.

God knows what is going to happen in advance, because he has decreed that it shall happen.

"Known to the Lord for ages (i.e., foreknowledge) is his work." (Acts 15:18)

"I foretold (decreed) the former things long ago, my mouth announed them (my decision) and I made them known (my will),
then suddenly I acted, and they came to pass (I fulfilled)." (Isaiah 48:3)

See Acts 2:23, 4:28; Isaiah 37:26, 45:21; Romans 8:29; 11:2; 1 Peter 1:2, 1:20; 2 Peter 3:17.

Predestination as the result of God's foreknowledge is not God acting based on knowledge of man's future action, but God acting based on his decision, will and decree before the foundations of the world (Ephesians 1:4).

Similarly God selects certain people for certain purposes but those purposes have no bearing on that persons acceptance or rejection of salvation.

Actually, predestination is about salvation:
"predestined" to be conformed to the image of his Son (Romans 8:29-30); "predestined" to be adopted as his son through Jesus Christ in accordance with his pleasure and will (i.e., foreknowledge--choice, decision, will). (Ephesians 1:5).

I think we can accept predestination through ignorance and blind faith, which is not a bad thing, or we can ask God and He will open our understanding.
John 3:16 "whosoever will" and God knows who will. It's just that simple.

He will open your understanding to the Scriptures.

On another note, you said Romans 2:20 was the biblical answer to predestination but it seems to me that is about people who think they are teachers and leaders of the blind who are blind themselves.

Oops! . . .that were a typo. . .it should have been Romans 9:20.

Sorry about that! . .first mistake I ever made. . .Whew! Glad that's over with and I don't have to wrorry about it anymore!

Clare73 · Sep 8, 2021

misput said:
OK.
Do you believe some scripture is representative, figurative, metaphorical as in the snake and the two trees in Genesis 2 & 3. I asked you a similar question once before and you replied you had not given it much thought. Could you dig into it and let me know what you come up with?

Well, I've been thinking it over, and I think I will look into it for you.

I will be starting with the specific genealogy given as proof of Adam's existence.
And I will be relying on the single transmission between Adam and Noah for the authenticity of the account; i.e.,
Adam died at 930, when Methuselah was 243, and
Noah was born when Methuselah was 369 (he lived to be 969),
my point being that the account of Adam wasn't subject to be being transmitted "through generation after generation," but simply from Adam to Noah through Methuselah, i.e., Noah could verify the account by Methuselah, who would have verified it by Adam.

I'll get back to you on the details after I have looked into them.

misput · Sep 9, 2021

Clare73 said:
The thing is, it matters not to me.
If God wants me to believe that's the way it went down, whether it did or not matters not to me.

I got no horse in that race.

I am sorry, you have no idea what you are missing.

Not when you understand the Biblical meaning of God's foreknowledge, instead of the meaning many use.

God's foreknowledge is not looking ahead down the halls of time and seeing what men are going to do.

God's foreknowledge does not refer to the actions of men, it refers to the decisions, will and decrees of God.

"Known to the Lord for ages (i.e., foreknowledge) is his work." (Acts 15:18)

"I foretold (decreed) the former things long ago, my mouth announed them (my decision) and I made them known (my will),
then suddenly I acted, and they came to pass (I fulfilled)." (Isaiah 48:3)

God knows what is going to happen in advance, because he has decreed that it shall happen.

See Acts 2:23, 4:28; Isaiah 37:26, 45:21; Romans 8:29; 11:2; 1 Peter 1:2, 1:20; 2 Peter 3:17.

Predestination as the result of God's foreknowledge is not God acting based on knowledge of man's future action, but God acting based on his decision, will and decree before the foundations of the world (Ephesians 1:4).

Actually, predestination is about salvation:
"predestined" to be conformed to the image of his Son (Romans 8:29-30); "predestined" to be adopted as his son through Jesus Christ in accordance with his pleasure and will (i.e., foreknowledge--choice, decision, will). (Ephesians 1:5).
He will open your understanding to the Scriptures.

Quaint way to tell me you are right and I am wrong, your good Clara with an e. That reminds me, have you seen the series on netflick Anne with an e? It is so good, do what ever you have to do to see it if you have not already.

Clare73 · Sep 9, 2021

misput said:
I am sorry, you have no idea what you are missing.

Did you see my post #107?

Quaint way to tell me you are right and I am wrong, your good
Clara with an e.

. . .or Claire without an i.

Actually, I was telling you that understanding comes from the Scriptures, not from our own reasoning, which understanding you said the Holy Spirit would give you.
It had nothing to do with your being right or wrong.

That reminds me, have you seen the series on netflick Anne with an e? It is so good, do what ever you have to do to see it if you have not already.

Thanks.

misput · Sep 9, 2021

Clare73 said:
Did you see my post #107?
. . .or Claire without an i.

Actually, I was telling you that understanding comes from the Scriptures, not from our own reasoning, which understanding you said the Holy Spirit would give you.
It had nothing to do with your being right or wrong.

Thanks.

Yes I saw your post 107 but I saw no connection between it and the two trees and the snake. God said come, let us reason together so I think that might require a little something from us.

Clare73 · Sep 10, 2021

misput said:
Yes I saw your post 107 but I saw no connection between it and the two trees and the snake.

Background. . .foundation.

God said come, let us reason together so I think that might require a little something from us.

In context, this (Isaiah1:9) was spoken to Israel who had come to the place where they no longer truly knew God or the way he thought (v.4) having forsaken and provoked him. I'm thinking we haven't gotten there yet.

But I digress.

The two trees in the garden can be thought of as types, signs, patterns (like the sacrificed lambs, or the kinsman redeemer--goel, etc.) through which were applied the actions of God (grace, judgment).

The tree of life would be a sign and guarantee to Adam, as in a covenant, assuring him of life and happiness, immortality and eternal happiness through the fruit of this tree, on the condition of his perseverance in innocence and obedience.

The tree of the knowledge of good and evil would be a sign and guarantee, as in a covenant, not of intellectual knowledge of good and evil, as in: What is good? Good is not to eat of this tree. What is evil? Evil is to eat of this tree. It would be experiential knowledge--Adam would know good by the loss of it, and evil by the sense of it.

It is sometimes called the covenant of innocence. As the covenant of grace is "Believe and be saved," as well as "Do not believe and be damned," so the covenant of innocence was "Obey and live," guaranteed in the tree of life, and "Disobey and die," guaranteed in the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

As it states in Deuternonomy 30:19: "I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses."

And regarding the snake: it's certain that it was "that ancient serpent, Satan" (Revelation 12:9).

misput · Sep 11, 2021

Clare73 said:
Background. . .foundation.

You seemed to be starting out to teach me something about the genealogy, if that's what's on your heart, have at it.

In context, this (Isaiah1:9) was spoken to Israel who had come to the place where they no longer truly knew God or the way he thought (v.4) having forsaken and provoked him. I'm thinking we haven't gotten there yet.

So if folks are losing their way (I did not think you believed that could happen) God wants to reason with them but if we are faithful He doesn't? I believe in context but isn't that twisting it a bit?

The two trees in the garden can be thought of as types, signs, patterns (like the sacrificed lambs, or the kinsman redeemer--goel, etc.) through which were applied the actions of God (grace, judgment).

The tree of life would be a sign and guarantee to Adam, as in a covenant, assuring him of life and happiness, immortality and eternal happiness through the fruit of this tree, on the condition of his perseverance in innocence and obedience.

The tree of the knowledge of good and evil would be a sign and guarantee, as in a covenant, not of intellectual knowledge of good and evil, as in: What is good? Good is not to eat of this tree. What is evil? Evil is to eat of this tree. It would be experiential knowledge--Adam would know good by the loss of it, and evil by the sense of it.

It is sometimes called the covenant of innocence. As the covenant of grace is "Believe and be saved," as well as "Do not believe and be damned," so the covenant of innocence was "Obey and live," guaranteed in the tree of life, and "Disobey and die," guaranteed in the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

As it states in Deuternonomy 30:19: "I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses."

And regarding the snake: it's certain that it was "that ancient serpent, Satan" (Revelation 12:9).

What we eat physically is what gives us physical life, that and air, right? What we eat Spiritually is what gives us Spiritual life, right? You remember Jesus saying unless we eat this bread and drink this fruit of the vine which is His body and blood we will have no life in us. Could the tree of life be metaphorical/figurative for Christ? Which brings us to the tree of knowledge of good and evil. What gives us the knowledge of good and evil? The Law of course, in Adam and Eve's case, thou shall not. In our case if we think we can live by the law we find that we are dead as did they. So do you think the tree of the knowledge of good an evil may be metaphorical/figurative for the law? If you are with me so far, I will attempt to explain what I think the snake is metaphorical/figurative of. If not there is no point. Note. I do not believe most of the subjects people debate are important to our salvation but they are sometimes interesting and like the blind hog under the acorn tree, once in a while we find an acorn : )

Clare73 · Sep 11, 2021

misput said:
You seemed to be starting out to teach me something about the genealogy, if that's what's on your heart, have at it.

No. . .I was just establishing the credit-worthiness of an account of a talking snake and two magic trees.

So if folks are losing their way (I did not think you believed that could happen) God wants to reason with them but if we are faithful He doesn't? I believe in context but isn't that twisting it a bit?

I see it in the context of changing one's mind about God (from unfaithfulness to faithfulness), which mind of those seeking God is already changed. I don't see God as "reasoning" with the faithful. I see him as "revealing" to the faithful, who willingly receive, and do not have to be "reasoned" with. It's all a matter of distinction, not a matter of dispute, though often times distinctions do matter.

What we eat physically is what gives us physical life, that and air, right? What we eat Spiritually is what gives us Spiritual life, right? You remember Jesus saying unless we eat this bread and drink this fruit of the vine which is His body and blood we will have no life in us.
Could the tree of life be metaphorical/figurative for Christ?

Actually, what we eat physically sustains the physical life we already have, as distinct from giving it to us.
What we eat spiritually sustains the spiritual life we already have, as distinct from giving it to us.
You analogize the Lord's Supper to the tree of life, that Supper in orthodox Christianity being a sacrament. That fits well in my description of the tree of life as a means of grace.
The Lord's Supper does not give us eternal life, rather we receive therein (take into ourselves) the benefits of Jesus' death on the cross--sustaining eternal life, transforming us from glory to glory (2 Corinthians 3:18), as he likewise sustains/transforms us in feeding on the Word of God, in prayer, and in obedience.
So the tree of life sustained Adam's spritual life, it did not give it to him, God gave it to him.
So the tree would be metaphorical/figurative of anything which sustains our spiritual life, not metaphorical/figurative of the life itself.

Which brings us to the tree of knowledge of good and evil. What gives us the knowledge of good and evil? The Law of course, in Adam and Eve's case, thou shall not. In our case if we think we can live by the law we find that we are dead as did they. So do you think the tree of the knowledge of good an evil may be metaphorical/figurative for the law?
If you are with me so far,

Well. . .two things:

1) Regarding the Law. . .you're confounding two things as law here: God's command to Adam, and the tree itself.
The tree was not the law itself, only God's command regarding the tree was the law.
The tree was the object of the law, as say, my neighbor is the object of the law of love, but my neighbor is not the law itself.
God giving a righteous and just command in accordance with his nature (re: tree of knowledge), which if completely obeyed by Adam would bring death (as did the Mosaic law), is an oxymoron, a contradiction of terms (obedience = death).
God giving a righteous and just command in acordance with his nature, which Israel could not obey perfectly because of their fallen nature, is Biblical and just.
So no analogy here between the tree (object of the law) and the (Mosaic) law itself.

2) Regarding the tree: Israel was dead by the law because they could not obey it perfectly, not dead by the law simply because it was law. Israel was dead because of their sin nature, which even in obedience, was still guilty of minor infraction. But Adam had the ability to obey God's law (command) perfectly--no infraction, therefore, obedience to the law of the Garden would not have been a curse of death to him, as fallen/imperfect obedience to the law of Moses was necessarily a curse of death to Israel (Galatians 3:10), both due to their natures, not the law.
So no analogy here between the law of the Garden and the law of Moses as causes of death, because the cause of death in both cases was their different natures, not the law, whereby the perfect obedience of Adam would prevent death, and the necessarily imperfect obedience of Israel would cause death.

So I guess that means I'm not with you here. . .

I will attempt to explain what I think the snake is metaphorical/figurative of. If not there is no point.

I'd still be curious to know. . .

Note. I do not believe most of the subjects people debate are important to our salvation but they are sometimes interesting and like the blind hog under the acorn tree, once in a while we find an acorn : )

Agreed. . .and still curious.

Clare73 · Sep 11, 2021

misput · Sep 11, 2021

Clare73 said:
No. . .I was just establishing the credit-worthiness of an account of a talking snake and two magic trees.

Totally wasted on me as I tend to focus on the big picture and as simple as possible. Bad attitude on the magic trees : )

I see it in the context of changing one's mind about God (from unfaithfulness to faithfulness), which mind of those seeking God is already changed. I don't see God as "reasoning" with the faithful. I see him as "revealing" to the faithful, who willingly receive, and do not have to be "reasoned" with. It's all a matter of distinction, not a matter of dispute, though often times distinctions do matter.

You seem to try to nitty gritty everything to death, if you know what I mean. Helpful criticism intended.

Actually, what we eat physically sustains the physical life we already have, as distinct from giving it to us.

Actually what the mother is eating to sustain her life is what makes it possible for her to give life to a new physical life. Sorry I did not supply enough nitty gritty or use the right word, just trying to get at the big picture. Note: we are discussing beginnings here.
[/QUOTE]What we eat spiritually sustains the spiritual life we already have, as distinct from giving it to us.[/QUOTE]Not in the beginning, as you know we must be born again in order to be sustained, neither can happen apart from Christ, not even the grace you mentioned below.

Well. . .two things:

1) Regarding the tree of knowledge: Israel was dead by the law because they could not obey it perfectly, not dead by the law simply because it was law (as: dead by the tree simply because it was law). They were dead because of their sin nature, which even in obedience, was still guilty of minor infraction. But Adam had the ability to obey God's law (command) perfectly--no infraction, therefore, the law of the Garden would not have been a curse of death to him, as the law of Moses was necessarily a curse of death to Israel (Galatians 3:10), both due to their natures, not the law. . .so no analogy here between the law of the Garden and the law of Moses as causes of death, because the cause of death was not the law, it was their different natures, whereby the perfect obedience of Adam prevented death, and the imperfect obedience of Israel caused death.

2) You're confounding two things as law here: God's command to Adam, and the tree itself.
The tree was not the law itself, only God's command regarding the tree was the law.
The tree was the object of the law, as say, my neighbor is the object of the law of love, but my neighbor is not the law itself.
God giving a righteous and just command in accordance with his nature (re: tree of knowledge), which if obeyed would bring death (as did the Mosaic law), is an oxymoron, a contradiction of terms (obedience, death).
God giving a righteous and just command in acordance with his nature, which they could not obey perfectly because of their fallen nature, is Biblical and just
. . .so no analogy here between the tree (object of the law) and law (God's command regarding the tree).

I guess I'm not with you here. . .
I'd still be curious to know. . .
Agreed. . .and still curious.

More nitty grittiness that has little or nothing to do with the main subject we are discussing, consequently I do not feel inclined to try to untangle here unless we can work out the tree issues. As to the talking snake, you have already made it clear there is no way it can be anything but the serpent, Satan. So there is no way I will attempt to untangle what would obviously be a mess unless we can agree on the two trees which are simple compared to the snake.

Clare73 · Sep 11, 2021

misput said:
Totally wasted on me as I tend to focus on the big picture and as simple as possible. Bad attitude on the magic trees : )

You know good and well the context of that description.

You seem to try to nitty gritty everything to death, if you know what I mean.

Please inform me of any bridge you ever build, that I may avoid it.

If your logic is not acording to God's word, your application of his word will err, which errror with time leads to false doctrine.
Just take my word for it. . .loose handling of the word of truth (2 Timothy 3:16) is the playbook for the origin of all false doctrine.

Helpful criticism intended.

Actually what the mother is eating to sustain her life is what makes it possible for her to give life to a new physical life. Sorry I did not supply enough nitty gritty or use the right word, just trying to get at the big picture. Note: we are discussing beginnings here.

I thought the analogy regarded the law of Moses. . .how did beginnings get in here?

What we eat spiritually sustains the spiritual life we already have, as distinct from giving it to us.

Not in the beginning, as you know we must be born again in order to be sustained, neither can happen apart from Christ, not even the grace you mentioned below.
More nitty grittiness that has little or nothing to do with the main subject we are discussing, consequently I do not feel inclined to try to untangle here unless we can work out the tree issues. As to the talking snake, you have already made it clear there is no way it can be anything but the serpent, Satan. So

there is no way I will attempt to untangle what would obviously be a mess unless we can agree on the two trees which are simple compared to the snake.

Our disagreement is not in meaning of the trees themselves, it is in the meaning of and inconsistency of the grammar involved:

1) confounding the tree of knowledge in your analogy with/as the law, when grammatically the tree is the object of the law (not the law itself), thereby making the tree non-metaphorical/analagous for law itself,

2) confounding death by the Mosaic law as due to the law itself, when Biblically it is due to the nature of the law keepers (not to the Mosaic law itself), which nature causes opposite outcomes from obedience to the two laws (Adam/Garden, Israel/Mosaic), thereby making the law of the Garden non-metaphorical/analagous to the law of Moses.

I do not disagree with your images, it is your application/analogy which is not grammatical/logical.

There is no way around that. The terms (concepts) have to be changed.

Here's a "metaphor" of the same nature as yours above:

A rock is a metaphor for the law of gravity, because falling rocks can kill, and gravity kills those who fall off high rocks.

If you can see why this is not a metaphor, it's also why yours is not a metaphor.

misput · Sep 11, 2021

Clare73 said:
You know good and well the context of that description.

Nothing magical about the trees, Sounded sarcastic to me. I doubt there were any physical trees involved. Does that shock you?

If your logic is not acording to God's word, your application of his word will err, which errror with time leads to false doctrine.
Just take my word for it. . .loose handling of the word of truth (2 Timothy 3:16) is the playbook for the origin of all false doctrine.

When God shows us something we are not concerned about false doctrine and if we are wrong about Him showing us something and it's the best we can do, He will sustain us anyway, right?

I thought the analogy regarded the law of Moses. . .how did beginnings get in here?

You probably know Genesis means beginnings, we are discussing the beginning of the Gospel, and the beginning of the law.

What we eat spiritually sustains the spiritual life we already have, as distinct from giving it to us.

Why do you repeat yourself? Are you supposing I am illiterate? Even after I have explained this is about the beginning of life in Christ, being born again and of course hopefully sustaining will follow.

Our disagreement is not in meaning of the trees themselves, it is in the meaning of and inconsistency of the grammar involved:

Sounds like we are making a tiny bit of progress and if you don't get us all balled up over grammar we might make even more. Don't sweat the grammar, just try to get my drift. I barely passed English in high school and if I did not have spell check, I would not be able to communicate at all.

1) confounding the tree of knowledge in your analogy with/as the law, when grammatically the tree is the object of the law (not the law itself), thereby making the tree non-metaphorical/analagous for law itself,

Gobbilde goop to me. Like I said there probably was no physical tree to start with, just the word tree which is figurative for Christ and the Law. Born again by The One if we live by Him and condemned by the other if we think we receive eternal life through it. Thou shall not eat of this tree equates to the beginning of the law, see you are forcing me to repeat myself also, shame on you : )

2) confounding death by the Mosaic law as due to the law itself, when Biblically it is due to the nature of the law keepers, not to the Mosaic law itself,

Seems to me you came to that confounded conclusion : ) Any fifth grade bible student knows the law is not the problem (it is perfect)
it is the law keeper who is condemned because he is not. Keep diggin Clare, you may make it yet and oh yeah, lay off my grammar, that's not our problem : ) Our problem is, what I am saying has not sunk in your pointie little head yet : )

I do not disagree with your images,

Progress!!!

Clare73 · Sep 12, 2021

misput said:
Nothing magical about the trees, Sounded sarcastic to me. I doubt there were any physical trees involved. Does that shock you?

No, I have nothing vested in it being literal.
I regard it as the way God gave me to understand it, and that's all.

My sarcasm was in mind of the mockers of the account, as I presented a verifiable transmission of it.

When God shows us something we are not concerned about false doctrine and if we are wrong about Him showing us something and it's the best we can do, He will sustain us anyway, right?

It's not the best we can do until we check out all things against Scripture, and depending on our knowledge of Scripture, we may need to bounce it off someone who does know Scripture, as the Bereans did with the apostle Paul. Failure to do so makes us responsible for believing falsehood. If the doctrine is consequential, and one is sincere, God will eventually correct our misunderstanding of it, but it requires sincerity (no investment in our personal opinion) to be able to receive the correction. Insincerity will cost us.

You probably know Genesis means beginnings, we are discussing the beginning of the Gospel, and the beginning of the law.

I was discussing types/metaphors as in Scripture.
The reason I examined your type/metaphor so closely is because of the nature of types (patterns, figures, copies, shadows) in Scripture. They always closely parallel/correspond, even in detail, to that of which they are the pattern. The correspondence in your figure actually had no parallel at all.

It seems you are suggesting that life is the Tree of life, and death is the Tree of Knowledge, as life is Christ and death is the Law, through knowledge (revealing) of sin. But where does it go from there? That is rather facile.

Why do you repeat yourself? Are you supposing I am illiterate? Even after I have explained this is about the beginning of life in Christ, being born again and of course hopefully sustaining will follow.

It seems we weren't on the same page. I was discussing types, you were discussing beginnings. Your response seemed to indicate you did not fully understand Biblical types.

Sounds like we are making a tiny bit of progress and if you don't get us all balled up over grammar we might make even more. Don't sweat the grammar, just try to get my drift. I barely passed English in high school and if I did not have spell check, I would not be able to communicate at all.
Gobbilde goop to me.

Correct grammar is necessary for understanding correct correspondence in Biblical types. But you say you weren't talking about types, you were talking about beginnings. But the problem is you using the "type" model to explain your undersatnding of "beginnings."

Like I said, there probably was no physical tree to start with

The difficulty with that notion is Adam's transmission of the account to Methusaleh to Noah who carried it forward after the flood. Adam was in charge of the actuality of the account until Methuselah was 243, who could verify it to Noah. I just don't see any room for it to be not literal.

just the word tree which is figurative for Christ and the Law. Born again by The One if we live by Him

We are born again before we begin to live by him, because we are unable to live by him until we are born again.

and condemned by the other if we think we receive eternal life through it.

Condemned by the other only if we are not born again by Christ.

Thou shall not eat of this tree equates to the beginning of the law,

The problem with that is there was no law until Moses. From the creation of the world to Moses, God had given only one law. . .to Adam--"Thou shalt not eat," which was no longer in force. And where there is no law, there is no sin, because sin is transgression of the law.

see you are forcing me to repeat myself also, shame on you : )

"The devil made you do it." . . .Got it! . .keeping it straight how personal responsibility works in your world.

Seems to me you came to that confounded conclusion : ) Any fifth grade bible student knows the law is not the problem (it is perfect)
it is the law keeper who is condemned because he is not.

Glad you realize that, because in your metaphor it is not the law keeper who is responsible, it is the law itself (in keeping with your notion of personal responsibility above).

Keep diggin Clare, you may make it yet and oh yeah, lay off my grammar, that's not our problem : ) Our problem is, what I am saying has not sunk in your pointie little head yet : )

Grammar is the problem when you make the object (receives the action) of the verb to be the subject (performs the action) of the verb instead.

Progress!!!

Hopefully, as long as you are consistent with NT teaching, from which you slipped a little in your notion of the Tree of Knowledge as the beginning of the Law, which did not begin until Moses.

P.S.: Like your format! :wave:

misput · Sep 12, 2021

Clare73 said:
No, I have nothing vested in it being literal.
I regard it as the way God gave me to understand it, and that's all.

Why are you discussing it with me if your mind is already made up? Entertainment, same as I?

I was discussing types/metaphors as in Scripture.
The reason I examined your type/metaphor so closely is because of the nature of types (patterns, figures, copies, shadows) in Scripture. They always closely parallel/correspond, even in detail, to that of which they are the pattern. The correspondence in your figure actually had no parallel at all.

Jesus said he is the true vine and that his Father is the dresser of the garden (John 15:1). The Bible refers to itself as a Tree of Life (Proverbs 3:18). We are told to be like trees planted by streams of water that yield their fruit in season (Psalm 1:3).

It seems you are suggesting that life is the Tree of life, and death is the Tree of Knowledge, as life is Christ and death is the Law, through knowledge (revealing) of sin. But where does it go from there? That is rather facile.

Do you know of any other tree we can eat from/live by that will cause us to live forever Genesis 3:22? You will say that meant physically but by placing the cherubim which I see as representing the church and the flaming sword=word of God Eph. 6:17 added to the conclusion that Adam and Eve did find their way back to the tree of Life/Christ, I think it is referring to eternal Spiritual Life with God/Christ I have found that once we understand a concept of God it usually is simplistic. This is one of the surest signs we are on the right track.

The difficulty with that notion is Adam's transmission of the account to Methusaleh to Noah who carried it forward after the flood. Adam was in charge of the actuality of the account until Methuselah was 243, who could verify it to Noah. I just don't see any room for it to be not literal.

I suspect God had something to do with how it was carried forward, Don't you?

We are born again before we begin to live by him, because we are unable to live by him until we are born again.Condemned by the other only if we are not born again by Christ.

Holy moley! Will you stop with the gobile goop?

The problem with that is there was no law until Moses. From the creation of the world to Moses, God had given only one law. . .to Adam--"Thou shalt not eat," which was no longer in force. And where there is no law, there is no sin, because sin is transgression of the law.

Christ and the law were in the plan of God from the beginning whether Adam or anyone else recognize it or not and that is what is being foreshadowed here. Do you think Eve recognized Christ in what God was telling her in Genesis 3:15? The same thing is going on here.

"The devil made you do it." . . .Got it! . .keeping it straight how personal responsibility works in your world.

It's comedy Clare, remember Flip Wilson? He was a famous comedian who used that line regularly in his stand up comedy routine and he used it the same way Eve did, it was never a good excuse for the scenarios he used it in, that's why it was so funny.

Clare73 · Sep 12, 2021

misput said:
Why are you discussing it with me

Is your memory shorter than mine?

Was I not asked twice to look into it, both times replying that it wasn't important to me and I wasn't interested in doing so, and then changed my mind because it seemed important to you?

if your mind is already made up? Entertainment, same as I?

I'm disappointed to hear that. . .I had you for a serious inquirer. . .but then reading between the lines has always escaped me, as you say grammar escapes you.
Not sure that I am interested in pursuing for the sake of entertainment.
Scripture is not my entertainment.

Jesus said he is the true vine and that his Father is the dresser of the garden (John 15:1). The Bible refers to itself as a Tree of Life (Proverbs 3:18). We are told to be like trees planted by streams of water that yield their fruit in season (Psalm 1:3).

Do you know of any other tree we can eat from/live by that will cause us to live forever Genesis 3:22? You will say that meant physically but by placing the cherubim which I see as representing the church and the flaming sword=word of God Eph. 6:17 added to the conclusion that Adam and Eve did find their way back to the tree of Life/Christ, I think it is referring to eternal Spiritual Life with God/Christ

I have found that once we understand a concept of God it usually is simplistic. This is one of the surest signs we are on the right track.

Then you haven't been at it long enough. . .because, for one, the sovereignty of God is not simplistic, as Paul demonstrates in Romans 9:18-21.

I suspect God had something to do with how it was carried forward, Don't you?
Holy moley! Will you stop with the gobile goop? Christ and the law were in the plan of God from the beginning whether Adam or anyone else recognize it or not and that is what is being foreshadowed here.

I guess the grammatical construction got me again, because your statement
"the tree equates to the beginning of the Law" means "the tree = the beginning of the Law."

I'm sorry if the Biblical record is gobbleldy gook for you, but it is the mind of God for me, and it presents the law beginning with Moses, not the tree.

Do you think Eve recognized Christ in what God was telling her in Genesis 3:15? The same thing is going on here.

God wasn't talking to Eve in Genesis 3:15, he was talking to the serpent, Satan.
God was talking about Eve to the serpent, promising that her seed would crush his head.

I think Eve thought it meant she would have a child in fulfillment of the promise, and when Cain was born she thought he was the fulfillment (Genesis 4:1). No, I do not think Eve saw Christ in the promise.

So you see similarity in Eve not knowing the nature of a specifically-spoken promise, and in Adam not knowing what was not spoken--the tree as a foreshadow?

It's comedy Clare, remember Flip Wilson? He was a famous comedian who used that line regularly in his stand up comedy routine and he used it the same way Eve did, it was never a good excuse for the scenarios he used it in, that's why it was so funny.

And the same way you did to "shame me," which is why I used it. . .

The Times We Live in...

Blood-bought

Blood-bought

JimD

Blood-bought

JimD

Blood-bought

Blood-bought

JimD

Blood-bought

JimD

Blood-bought

JimD

Blood-bought

Blood-bought

JimD

Blood-bought

JimD

Blood-bought

JimD

Blood-bought

Similar threads