Notice that this Creator-hating lie from Satan was a PROSPECTIVE lie. Next, notice that any theological position maintaining that man did not really die spiritually in the Fall is necessarily the very same lie, but offered RETROSPECTIVELY.
I assume you can follow my logic, and I submit that it is staggeringly important. Because it is important, I'll ask you to be sure you see what I am saying. In any case, I would like to summarize my point by saying that to maintain that man did not die spiritually in Eden is a deadly heresy. It is Satanic, not Christian.
Alas, this demonic mess fools people. The Lie of Eden, when you think about it, is actually a counterfeit gospel predating the gospel! Satan said, in effect, "God forgives. Don't worry: be happy. Trust me as the messenger. Obey me by believing me and acting on that belief to seal that belief. If you do, I will give you the wisdom of God. In that wisdom, you will have liberty to enjoy life to the fullest extent for the first time. And you will live forever in bliss."
Doc, I've selected the above as the heart of your post. Feel free to correct me.
First, we must try to understand what Adam and Eve took to be the meaning of "Thou shalt sure die." For one, how long were they in the Garden in terms of years? We can accurately deduce, I believe, from the ages of Adam and Seth that are revealed that it was less than 120 years. Therefore, the only experience they would have had of what death meant was for something (animal) in the Garden to have died while they were there. I think one could make a case from things like the world being given over to decay by virtue of the Fall that death didn't exist in the Garden, even among the animals. The truth is that the evidence is scanty, and we just don't know.
We also don't know if Peter's revelation that "a day with the Lord is as a thousand years" is the interpretation of God telling Adam that in the "day he eats thereof he will surely die." Adam never reached a thousand in age, nor did any of his descendants. This is a possible interpretation.
I'm struggling to remember the verses that say that the death God was speaking of was a spiritual death. I don't think there are any that explicitly say something like, "The death God meant was a spiritual death."
I believe that is a doctrine that is deduced from other evidence. The best evidence for it in my mind is Jesus' words, "that which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I say unto you that you must be born again...."
Therefore, it is a fair doctrine to say that God meant spiritual death. But it's also obvious that God meant physical death as well (death passed to all men). I believe he meant both spiritual and physical death and that biblically (using Peter's definition of day) that both can be affirmed as truth.
God said "in the day you eat thereof you will surely die." Satan said, "you will not die, but your eyes will be opened." Satan said that God was flat out wrong, thereby lying about God. Then he offered a rationalization for why God would misrepresent the truth to Adam and Eve, i.e., that their eyes would be opened. He used this as an enticement that deceived Eve. Adam disobeyed as well.
Your interpretation said that Satan was in effect saying, ""God forgives. Don't worry: be happy. Trust me as the messenger. Obey me by believing me and acting on that belief to seal that belief. If you do, I will give you the wisdom of God. In that wisdom, you will have liberty to enjoy life to the fullest extent for the first time. And you will live forever in bliss."
1. "God forgives." That is a possibility. Another possibility is not that God will forgive, but rather that "God will be pleased because your eyes are opened."
The problem with this, Doc, is that God DOES FORGIVE. "I would have mercy and not sacrifice."
2. You are implying, of course, that those who preach that God forgives are really just mouthing the words of Satan in the garden.
3. Doc, on the one hand the bible absolutely teaches that God forgives. Hanging on the Cross, Jesus said, "Father, forgive them." That single verse nails it down. God does forgive.
4. Peter said, "Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of sins and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Peter preached forgiveness IN CONJUNCTION with repentance (which, of course, presumes faith preceding repentance). Who was the forgiveness from: why God, of course.
5. But your view has merit. Preaching forgiveness without the proper context of repentance and faith is preaching a "nice-guy-in-the-sky" kind of God.
6. Such a "forgiveness only" kind of preaching could be equated with Satan's lie. But that is more like the calvinist "electionism out of the blue" than it is like the wesleyan "repentance for the forgiveness of sins."
I'll let doc respond to your post (no "tag team"), but have you figured out how a Calvinist reads this verse:
Luke 23:34 Then Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." And they parted His raiment and cast lots.The One cursed and bleeding on a tree: Father, forgive Woody for he knows not what he does.
I will stipulate that I am looking at the Genesis 3 record wearing New Testament spectacles. But I think there is an even better verse for showing that spiritual death ruined mankind in Eden. It's in John 5. The Lord Jesus specifically reveals that natural man is spiritually dead, and that conversion is a discovery/acquisition episode of new life in the Spirit.
***
With regard to your six concluding points, let me ask you to be a little more patient with me and my terse style. You started off by objecting that the gospel does offer forgiveness, etc.
But you might as well leave off the objections, because it is a given that the gospel offers forgiveness. (If you think that Calvinists don't uphold this very well, you haven't yet understood the doctrinal or practical features of Calvinism. And I would suggest that you read Spurgeon to see a typical Calvinistic approach to the gospel ministry.)
Besides, your seeming "objection" that the gospel does offer forgiveness actually makes my point for me. And what is my point? My point is that the Lie of Eden was a counterfeit gospel.
More to come.
Regards,
the_doc
P.S. I submit that it was not necessary that Adam understand what death is when God gave him a command with an attached sanction involving death. This is hard to appreciate, since we are not naive, but I still say that it is one of the main points of the lapsarian episode--i.e., the Tree was the place of man's first lessons in quite a number of areas.
(When the NT says that Adam was not deceived, it cannot be taken as a claim that Adam understood everything. Gosh, Adam couldn't have understood everything, because he was naive. But he did have a direct command from his Creator. And although Eve may have gotten the command garbled [in a relay of the command from Adam, perhaps?], Adam knew exactly what his Creator had told him not to do.)