Old Covenant Revisited

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by seansgame

Originally posted by wsw201
Joseph,

I read parts of the article and found it less than compelling and really don't see the point as to how the article fits in with this discussion. Second, as Jeff has stated, Adam did not need to be saved! There is nothing in our Creeds or Confessions that even come close to saying the Adam needed to be saved.

One point that needs to be made regarding Adam and Eve is that yes they were made righteous but they were not made immutable. That is why they could sin. Immutablity is an incommutable attribute of God.

The immutability point was already made, but nobody ever listens to me. I may start sucking my thumb if I get any more insecure.

 

[wsw201]

Sorry Sean!

This thread is so long I forgot you made that point! But it is a good one and goes to the crux of Adam's original state.

[Edited on 4/15/2005 by wsw201]

 

[wsw201]

The article speaks of the condition of Adam. IT goes into detail in regards to the theme of this thread has taken.

Then the creeds and confessions are wrong on this point. Adam had no need to be saved? There was no purpose in Gods mind? This probationary period is mere specualtion. I believe he had an eartly righteousness, but not a spiritual righteoiussness..

First off the creeds and confessions are not wrong. That´s right, Adam did not need salvation prior to the fall. No the probationary period is not speculation it is actual. God´s command not to eat was real and the consequences are real.

What is the difference between earthly vs spiritual righteousness? There is only one type of righteousness before God, not 2.

Adam was made upright - but his uprightness was not like that of Christ's.

Then Romans 5 falls apart!

Adam was perfectly righteous according to the laws which he was aware of in my opinion. But he was lacking a Divine Righteousness. He had no communion with the Lord in this sense. Adam did not worship the Lord, nor does the Bible ever say that he did!

What part of Scripture are you basing this on?

I believe he was made with a proclivity to rebel when the circumstances were made available. Before eve was deceived by Adam, he did not see or desire to rebel against God as his environment was perfect from his perspective. When he saw eve's deception by Satan, his love for her (being greater than his "love" for God) motivated him to plunge himself into rebellion against God for her sake. It was at this point which the "fall" took place, but this fall was not a fall as the traditionalists tend to describe. This fall was a fall from his natural or earthy righteousness and it was more a revealing to Adam the condition of his heart than anything. It was at or shortly after this moment he was quickened and the restoration process (which was far more than a return to his original state) on the part of God was begun in Adam's life.

Then God made Adam with a sin nature (a proclivity to rebel) and Adam was not really responsible for what he did. You are making God the author of sin.

Man's creation in the 'image of God' cannot refer to an ontological or sinless perfection of man, precisely because after the flood man still retained the image of God (see Gen. 9). This is the very reason the death penalty was instituted by God as the just punishment for pre-meditated murder in all of human creation. Man was still in the image of God at that juncture, as he always has been since. So the 'image of God' means something else.

Man has been made in the image of God and everyone who is born is made in the image of God. Because of sin that image has been marred, despite what the article says.

The gospel is intended to redeem man, so if Adam was created sinless then the gosple would not apply to him until he sinned.

Correct!

He was naked but was ignorant of this fact. He had need of the righteouness of Christ if he was going to have eternal life, and when he rebelled against God in the garden, his nakedness, this recognition of sin and need for clothing had been revealed to him. God in His Grace not only covered Adam with the shedding of an animal, but He also revealed to Adam the righteousness of Christ and He clothed Adam with it as well.

If he had eaten of the Tree of Life (which he was barred from after the fall) he would have had eternal life.

Joseph, it sounds like you are moving toward a Pelagian view of man.

 

[Robin]

Originally posted by The Lamb

Originally posted by Robin
Romans 3:30-32
since God is one. He will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.
R.

So if one could keep the Law perfectly, they could be saved? That is what i am asking!!!!!!!!!

Kevin Says no, you say yes...
[Edited on 4-14-2005 by The Lamb]

Hypotheticals are not good to pursue....

YES -- if (I-F) a person kept the Law perfectly they could be saved BUT that's only half of the equation. That person would also have bear the weight of the curse already exacted upon humanity. Their nature could not endure it because they would have to be God--

I agree with Kevin, as I'm sure he is meaning what is said below. There is more to Redemption than keeping the Law perfectly:

The Heidelberg Catechism:
(Regarding the Savior)

Question 16. Why must he be very man, and also perfectly righteous?

Answer: Because the justice of God requires that the same human nature which has sinned, should likewise make satisfaction for sin; (a) and one, who is himself a sinner, cannot satisfy for others. (b)

(a) Ezek.18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die. Ezek.18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. Rom.5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: Rom.5:15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. Rom.5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. 1 Cor.15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. Heb.2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; Heb.2:15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. Heb.2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. 1 Pet.3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: Isa.53:3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Isa.53:4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. Isa.53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. Isa.53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. Isa.53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. (b) Heb.7:26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; Heb.7:27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself. Ps.49:7 None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him: Ps.49:8 (For the redemption of their soul is precious, and it ceaseth for ever 1 Pet.3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

Question 17. Why must he in one person be also very God?

Answer: That he might, by the power of his Godhead (a) sustain in his human nature, (b) the burden of God's wrath; (c) and might obtain for, and restore to us, righteousness and life. (d)

(a) Isa.9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Isa.63:3 I have trodden the winepress alone; and of the people there was none with me: for I will tread them in mine anger, and trample them in my fury; and their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments, and I will stain all my raiment. (b) Isa.53:4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. Isa.53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. (c) Deut.4:24 For the LORD thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God. Nah.1:6 Who can stand before his indignation? and who can abide in the fierceness of his anger? his fury is poured out like fire, and the rocks are thrown down by him. Ps.130:3 If thou, LORD, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand? (d) Isa.53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. Isa.53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. Acts 2:24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. 1 Pet.3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. John 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

(I fear this will be misunderstood...please read the whole progression of the questions in the HC.)

Kevin is right -- it's not a simple as merely keeping the Law perfectly.

R.

 

[fredtgreco]

Joseph,

Consider this an official warning to cease promoting the heretical material such as was included in the book link you gave.

You will not get a second warning.

 

[The Lamb]

Originally posted by fredtgreco
Joseph,

Consider this an official warning to cease promoting the heretical material such as was included in the book link you gave.

You will not get a second warning.

Ok Fred:

May I ask what is heretical about it specifically? And am I to run by posting a link with a moderator? I apologize and did not know this was the proper procedure. I personally did not find anything heretical in the article. SO if you coud please point em to what is, I can look deeper and perhaps understand.

With all due respect to you and this forum. Who determines what is heretical?



In His Grace


Joseph

[Edited on 4-15-2005 by The Lamb]

 

[The Lamb]

Wayne, I am far from Pelagian, believe me. How you reached that conclusion is beyond me. There is NOTHING that hints of man centered thoughts in my post.

IT is all for the Glory of God. I will reply after my meeting to your specifics

In HIs Grace

Joseph

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by The Lamb

Originally posted by fredtgreco
Joseph,

Consider this an official warning to cease promoting the heretical material such as was included in the book link you gave.

You will not get a second warning.

Ok Fred:

May I ask what is heretical about it specifically? And am I to run by posting a link with a moderator? I apologize and did not know this was the proper procedure. I personally did nto find anything heretical in the article. SO if you coud please point em to what is, I can look deeper and perhaps understand.

With all due respect to you and this forum. Who determines what is heretical?



In His Grace


Joseph

Joseph,

It is heretical in that it denies the teaching of not only the Board's Confessions (WCF and 1689), but the doctrine of the Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists, Anglicans, and even Roman Catholics concerning the creation of Adam and the Fall.

It also is subversive, as the author (who worships at home with his wife - surprise, surprise!) directs all Christians to work for the change of Biblical doctrine of Creation and the Fall in their churches.

You do not need to run all links by a moderator, but you when signed up to the board you acknowledged agreement with the WCF/1689 LBCF. This book clearly contradicts fundamental tenets of those Confessions (and as I have said, not just those, but the ubiquitous doctrine of all Western churches). You also stated that the book sets forth "great writing done in regards to things we are talkign about"

You have been repeatedly rebuked for that on this thread by no less than two moderators. You have been rebuked for unorthodox statements and arguments on no less than a half dozen occasions. This does not occur in a vacuum. Please cease and desist.

 

[wsw201]

Joseph,

I didn't say you had a Pelagian view but were moving towards it. I am basing it on the article you posted (assuming you buy into his argument) that stated that the image of God was not affected by the fall plus the dichotomy you alluded to with the idea of an earthly vs spiritual righteousness. If the image of God, which is in general defined as the communicable attributes (which are apart of man's nature) communicated by God to Man, was not marred by sin, then man is still in a righteous state before God (there is only one type of righteousness before God not 2). The imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity is not true and Adam's sin is his own (Pelagius's view).

[Edited on 4/15/2005 by wsw201]

 

[The Lamb]

Originally posted by wsw201
Joseph,

I didn't say you had a Pelagian view but were moving towards it. I am basing it on the article you posted (assuming you buy into his argument) that stated that the image of God was not affected by the fall plus the dichotomy you alluded to with the idea of an earthly vs spiritual righteousness. If the image of God, which is in general defined as the communicable attributes (which are apart of man's nature) communicated by God to Man, was not marred by sin, then man is still in a righteous state before God (there is only one type of righteousness before God not 2). The imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity is not true and Adam's sin is his own (Pelagius's view).

[Edited on 4/15/2005 by wsw201]

I perhaps do not see it through your lenses w. The image of God is Christ. And this could not have been marred from the fall, since God, In my humble opinion purposed the fall. The righteoussnes spoken about in certain people in the OT was not sinlessness was it? No it was not.

I just do not see how for one second Adam did not have need for a savior. And This by no means destroys Romans 5.

Again, saying the image of God was not marred is being based on Genesis 9. WHich is a "recreation" almost exactly like Gen 1.

That is why I believe the image of God consists of somethign different than what is traditionally understood. IT has those ideas, but is something that is distinct.

Joseph

 

[The Lamb]

Joseph,

It is heretical in that it denies the teaching of not only the Board's Confessions (WCF and 1689), but the doctrine of the Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists, Anglicans, and even Roman Catholics concerning the creation of Adam and the Fall.

Perhaps, but why not discuss it instead of immediately dismissing it? What are the difference you see Fred?

It also is subversive, as the author (who worships at home with his wife - surprise, surprise!) directs all Christians to work for the change of Biblical doctrine of Creation and the Fall in their churches.

I do not agree with this part either.

You have been repeatedly rebuked for that on this thread by no less than two moderators. You have been rebuked for unorthodox statements and arguments on no less than a half dozen occasions. This does not occur in a vacuum. Please cease and desist.

I have not recalled many rebukes at all Fred. I have engaged in very edifing conversations with many. Perhaps I differ on certain aspects, but your statement here is false. In fact, some have agred with what I have said in some places.



In His Grace


Joseph

I will cease and dismiss posting links that are not "orthodox tradition".

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]