If this explains why they did not die on that day, then why did they die later? If the substitution stopped them from dying on that day, then why not forever?
Genesis 3:22-23a Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever" -- therefore the LORD God sent him out of the garden The thought of letting them -- and thus humanity -- eat of the tree of life and live forever in a fallen state was too horrible to contemplate; in fact it was too horrible even to express. Bullinger is quite helpful in this instance. The figure of speech employed here is called an aposiopesis, or sudden-silence (152-153). "It is the sudden breaking off of what is being said (or written), so that the mind may be the more impressed by what is too ... awful for words." Adam and Eve could not be "fixed" in the state they were in; it would take a re-creation to do that; thus they were graced with the necessity of dying, that they might be raised anew in Christ's resurrection. The same holds true for us. Adam and Eve would not have died at all had they eaten (or continued to eat) of the tree of life. Bullinger states, "Here the exact consequences of eating of the tree of life in his fallen condition are left unrevealed, as though they were too awful to be contemplated: and the sudden silence leaves us in the darkness in which the Fall involved us. But we may at least understand that whatever might be involved in this unspoken threatening, it included this fact:-- I will drive him away from the tree of life!" Bill ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2005 12:37 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Whose Names are Written in the Lambs Book of Life? > Bill Taylor wrote: > > The hermeneutical criteria that I am questioning > > is the criteria of interpretation that you use against > > others but are unwilling to apply to yourself. > > ... you sent a series of posts stating that no where > > in Scripture are the words "eternal Son" used. You > > therefore used that to draw the conclusion that the > > Son of God was not the eternal Son of God. > > I think you are missing a whole bunch concerning the hermeneutic criteria > used by Judy. She does not reject the concept simply because of the silence > of Scripture. She is simply making the statement that there is no direct > contradiction of her concept of "son" applying to the birth of Yeshua. Judy > then mentioned several Scriptures which link the concept of "son" to the > physical birth. For you to argue that she uses only this point of the lack > of the phrase "eternal son" to draw her conclusion is either dishonest or a > misunderstanding of her argument. I think you have simply misunderstood > her. > > Bill Taylor wrote: > > I believe that rather than allowing them to die > > on that day, God substituted his own Son on > > their behalf. > > If this explains why they did not die on that day, then why did they die > later? If the substitution stopped them from dying on that day, then why > not forever? > > It seems strange to me to take the day when sin and death entered the world, > and to turn it into the day when salvation from death also took place. > > Are you sure that "spiritual death" is not a more plausible explanation? If > the dualistic view of man is offensive to you because you do not recognize > that man has a spirit as part of his makeup, then perhaps it might be better > understood that perhaps incipient death took hold that day, but was not > fully manifested as complete physical death of the body until many years > later? > > Bill Taylor wrote: > > Why if you are unwilling to accept the eternal Son teaching, > > and this because it is not a biblical term, are you now willing > > to continue to uphold the "spiritual death" doctrine, when it > > too is not a biblical term? This is the hermeneutical criteria > > that I am questioning: a criteria of interpretation that you will > > use against others but are unwilling to apply to yourself. > > I have understood Judy to be saying that she is willing to accept the > eternal son doctrine if it could be shown to make sense in light of all the > Scriptures that might be brought to bear on the matter. Therefore, she IS > willing to accept the term, and she does not reject it outright just because > the term is not used in the Bible. Her constant reminder that it is not a > Biblical term is primarily to help keep those who confuse doctrines of men > with doctrines of Scripture to remember this distinction. If the Bible did > use the term "eternal son," this would argue forcefully for the doctrine, > but if it does not, then one must not be so eager to embrace it when other > passages seem to contradict the idea. > > Peace be with you. > David Miller. > > > ---------- > "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org > > If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed. > ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
