Are you saying that Adam could not have eaten from the tree of eternal life?
Understanding God’s election
- Thread starter dougcho
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Are you saying that Adam could not have eaten from the tree of eternal life?
Simple. If sin is never introduced, there is no need for blood atonement. Thus, the cross isn't necessary. Eternal life would still need to be conferred upon Adam at some point, but not as a result of the cross.
Your first mistake is a misunderstanding of the letter to the Romans, the traditional interpretation.
Of course, I am associating favoritism with a God that chooses who will be saved.
God is not partial to me over you.
The Bible only speaks of two groups Cameron, Jews and Gentiles.
Jews favored first then severed leading to the Gentiles being favored second and that is a level playing field.
That is not 'DEI garbage, Cameron, that is exactly what Paul is telling us in Romans.
It was God's good pleasure to provide His Son as the perfect sacrifice.
So that you can become the very image of Christ.
The letter to the Romans is addressed to the Gentiles but Paul is directly addressing the Jews.
Romans 11:11-13
I say then, they did not stumble so as to fall, did they? Far from it! But by their wrongdoing salvation
has come to the Gentiles, to make them jealous. Now if their wrongdoing proves to be riches for the world,
and their failure, riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their fulfillment be! But I am speaking to
you who are Gentiles. Therefore insofar as I am an apostle of Gentiles, I magnify my ministry if somehow
I may move my own people to jealousy and save some of them.
Adam is flesh and blood, Cameron.
Flesh and blood does not and cannot gain immortality.
God did provide eternal life and before the garden existed.
Which was through the Son only.
Who said that Adam was under works covenant before he sinned, that is a crazy thing to say?
The Jews were first decades after the death and resurrection of Jesus.
Lock it in Cameron.
When Paul wrote Romans probably sometime in the late fifties and likely from Corinth.
There were two peoples of God; one group was Israel and the other the Gentile nations.
I suggest you read Romans and look specifically for Paul's address to the Jews in Rome.
The Jewish narration is riddled through out Romans.
You should have ended your sentence that I bolded with "Gentiles". But I'm glad to see you finally came to your senses and understand that Paul was writing [mainly] to Gentile believers. This is good news. The bad is that you screwed up the rest of the sentence royally; for God is NOT "directly addressing the Jews" in Rom 11:11-13 as you claim. The pronouns "they", "their", "them" are all THIRD person pronouns. If Paul were addressing Jews directly, those pronouns would be in the second person.
And how do you miss another very obvious point in the passage, namely, that Paul was again "directly addressing" Gentile believers (v.13)? Notice the "you" in this verse -- a second person personal pronoun aimed at Gentiles. Very sloppy and irresponsible exegesis. It's no wonder at all you free willers can't understand the scriptures!
Election isn't about God choosing between you and me. That's selection. Election is God choosing Israel to be His people. Election is God choosing those in Christ.
In other words, God isn't choosing between entities that already exist...one to the exclusion of another. It means God chooses a people and then creates that people.
We'll just have to disagree what first is referring to.
Can you quote some verses from Samuel and elsewhere to attempt to solve a contradiction. The warrior
David kills Goliath but David is not king at that time. Only when David becomes King does David conquer
Jerusalem. So the warrior David cannot take the head of Goliath to Jerusalem. The Jebusites control Jerusalem
when David is a warrior. That's the contradiction.
I will let Chat GPT adjudicate.
Chat GPT said:
This is an interesting question regarding the chronology of David's life and actions as described in the Bible. The apparent contradiction arises from the account in 1 Samuel 17:54, where David, after killing Goliath, is said to bring
Goliath's head to Jerusalem:
"David took the head of the Philistine and brought it to Jerusalem, but he put his armor in his tent." (1 Samuel 17:54, ESV)
However, as you note, at this point in the narrative, Jerusalem is still under Jebusite control and is not conquered by David until much later, during his reign as king, as described in 2 Samuel 5:6-9:"The king and his men went to Jerusalem against the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land, who said to David, ‘You will not come in here, but the blind and the lame will ward you off’—thinking, ‘David cannot come in here.’ Nevertheless, David took the stronghold of Zion, that is, the city of David." (2 Samuel 5:6-7, ESV)
Attempts to Reconcile the Contradiction- Anticipation of Jerusalem's Significance: Some scholars suggest that David bringing Goliath's head to Jerusalem is a symbolic action foreshadowing its future importance. Even though the city was under Jebusite control at the time, David may have chosen it as a destination because of its centrality and spiritual significance in Israelite tradition.
- A Later Editorial Note: Another explanation is that 1 Samuel 17:54 could be a later editorial insertion reflecting knowledge of Jerusalem's eventual status under David. The event may have been "retrojected" into the earlier narrative for theological or literary purposes.
- A Different Part of Jerusalem: Some commentators propose that David brought Goliath’s head to a location near Jerusalem, rather than the fortified Jebusite city itself. For example, some traditions associate the skull with the region of Golgotha, which later became significant in Christian tradition.
- Historical Chronology vs. Theological Message: The biblical narratives often prioritize theological themes over strict chronological accuracy. The reference to Jerusalem could reflect its later significance in David's story rather than a precise historical event.
- Jerusalem as a Broad Geographical Term: It is possible that "Jerusalem" in 1 Samuel 17:54 refers not to the fortified Jebusite stronghold but to a broader region or nearby area under Israelite influence.
While the text of 1 Samuel 17:54 seems to conflict with the historical control of Jerusalem by the Jebusites, various explanations, including symbolic foreshadowing, editorial perspectives, or geographical nuances, attempt to resolve the issue. The narrative focus remains on highlighting David's divine favor and his role in God's plan for Israel.
The Jewish Age actually ended at the Cross when Jesus told the Jews that the kingdom would be taken from them and given to another nation (Mat 21:43), and the thick curtain that separated the holy of holies from the holy place was rent in two from top to bottom; however, the temple, which was the structural, physical heartbeat of Judaism, had to be removed. Therefore, what God began at the Cross he completed through Rome in 70 A.D. From the Cross until now, we have been in the times of the Gentiles.
Don't eat or die. Works covenant. Covenant of grace wasn't manifested until after sin.
Immortality is part of eternal life. Flesh and blood inheriting the kingdom is unclear. It can mean it's spiritual. But even if that's not the meaning, incorruption is put on. God can do that with both sinful and sinless flesh and blood.
Self-supporting in terms of physical needs is also God's way. After all, there is and always has been a work mandate in place!
2 Thess 3:10-12
10 For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat ."
11 We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies. 12 Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the bread they eat .
NIV
Where have all the wanna-be smartest people in this thread gone? I'm talking to you, free willers, who pride yourselves on your smarts, how learned you are theologically, and how spiritually advanced you are above everyone else. 
Why can't any free willer here answer the questions I posed on 12/15 in 4024 re Mat 7:23. I mean...God's PRESCIENCE, with respect to predestination, election and salvation, generally, is the cornerstone to your heresy, isn't it? Yet, no one wants to take a whack at reconciling the contradiction between Mat 7:23 and Rom 8:29.
You worldly wise brainiacs insist that Rom 8:29 is really saying that God foreknew all those who would come to faith in Him through Christ. God clearly foreknew their acts of faith and repentance, right? Yet, we have Jesus saying in Matthew that on judgment day he's going to tell a whole bunch of false professing believers that he never knew what they were going to do! But how could that be!? How could Jesus the very God of God not foreknow people's actions?
Why can't any free willer here answer the questions I posed on 12/15 in 4024 re Mat 7:23. I mean...God's PRESCIENCE, with respect to predestination, election and salvation, generally, is the cornerstone to your heresy, isn't it? Yet, no one wants to take a whack at reconciling the contradiction between Mat 7:23 and Rom 8:29.You worldly wise brainiacs insist that Rom 8:29 is really saying that God foreknew all those who would come to faith in Him through Christ. God clearly foreknew their acts of faith and repentance, right? Yet, we have Jesus saying in Matthew that on judgment day he's going to tell a whole bunch of false professing believers that he never knew what they were going to do! But how could that be!? How could Jesus the very God of God not foreknow people's actions?
The tree was in the center of the garden when Adam had not yet sinned.
The covenant of grace has aways existed as grace is the direct expression of God's eternal love
for His creation. God's love and God's grace are eternal facets of God Himself.
Works were never included in that covenant of grace.