The “two trees” doctrine refers to the two trees in the garden of Eden, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and the tree of life. It was popularized by false prophet Rick Joyner ( but i don’t know who first thought it up) and it is quickly becoming a mainstream doctrine, especially in the “emerging church” movement.
First up, it is not a doctrine taught anywhere in the Bible.
Secondly, while at first glance it appears good, that Christ represents the tree of life and we should eat from Him, and not be under the law, but from there it goes one step further and implies that sin is a subjective thing (open to interpretation) when you eat from the tree of life (Jesus), but it becomes an objective thing (not open to interpretation) when you eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (under the law).
It proposes that those who understand right from wrong primarily from the truth of Scripture are under the law, and those who do what they feel is right, even if it goes against Scripture truth, are those who eat from the tree of life, from Jesus.
Please read this passage:
“Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that you should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. For when we were in the flesh, the passions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. But now we are delivered from the law, being dead to that in which we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. What shall we say then? is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, you shall not covet.” (Romans 7:4-7)
Briefly put, the grace of God in Jesus Christ does not change sin from being sin, it does not make the definition of sin subjective, that is, open to personal interpretation – that is, how you personally feel about it.
Paul said here that his reference point for knowing what sin is is the Law of God, the Scriptures. But, according to the “two trees” doctrine Paul would have been eating from the wrong tree to get his definition of sin from the Bible.
The Bible clearly delineates what is sin and not sin. There’s nothing subjective about it, nor is it open to any personal interpretation.
BUT if a man makes up his own laws, or follows cultural, religious, non-Biblical laws, then he is bound by his conscience to keep them:
“Have you faith? have it to yourself before God. Happy is he that condemns not himself in that thing which he allows. And he that doubts is condemned if he eats, because he eats not of faith: for whatever is not of faith is sin.” (Romans 14:22-23)
“All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.” (1 Cor. 6:12)
“All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.” (1 Cor. 10:23)
So, the “two trees” doctrine is used to justify nearly any kind of sin if the person says that the Holy Spirit told them it was OK, or they feel a peace about it, etc.
This is a bed partner to the “hyper-grace” doctrine of Joseph Prince, Joel Osteen et. al. where they believe that if you feel guilty about committing sin it means you are under the law and not under grace.
And Sheryl Crow sings along with them, “If it makes you happy, it can’t be that bad.”
Ian Vincent 