Was Eden Truly Perfect?

[carlosstjohn]

I promise I'm not a heretic. Haha.

Here are my thoughts as I was driving earlier today.

1. God creates everything in the universe in perfect order. He creates Eden, Adam, and then subsequently Eve. They were perfect. Perfect in communion with God and there was no sin.

2. In the end of time, God will make all things new and recreate the perfect world once again. Regardless of what eschatological view you hold to, we can all agree that after all is said and done, we will be with God forever in New Jerusalem and in the New Earth forever and ever with new glorified bodies. We will have bodies with new capacities to see and enjoy God more than we could ever imagine in our lives now. And we will have bodies and minds and hearts where sin never even crosses our mind, in the sense of being tempted.


So my question is this: If in the end, God makes all things new and perfect again and within that perfection is the incapability of sin for His elect, what does that mean for when God created everything the first time? Perfection is perfect. It cannot be improved upon for it could be improved on it would prove to not actually have been perfect. So if in the new age, one quality of our perfection is that we cannot sin, Eden was obviously missing that since Adam and Eve had the capability to sin.

I realize this closely aligns with the idea that Christ on earth was perfect but had the ability to sin since he was a man. So if you want to touch on that too, go ahead.

But my main question is, if in New Jerusalem, our bodies will be made perfect and we will live in a perfect world, and that perfect world is no longer and can no longer be stained by sin, what does that mean for Eden? was it not perfect? (As far as I have been taught, the creation was perfect prior to the fall, so I am not doubting this doctrine but rather trying to find an answer to this seeming contradiction or problem in logical consistency)

Thanks so much!

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Man's Fourfold Estate
1) In the garden. Upright (Ecc.7:29) but able to sin (posse pecare)
2) Cast out of the garden. Fallen, able only to sin (non posse non pecare)
3) Redeemed in the world. Upraised, but still indwelt by sin, yet in Christ able to sin not (posse non pecare)
4) With the Lord. Glorified, soul or soul-and-body perfected and improved to be like Christ, not able to sin (non posse pecare)

Covenant theology recognizes that Adam was under a covenant of works in the garden. He was perfect so far as he was created to be, and he was able to keep God's command. But his condition was also probationary. There was the fear of failure. and he had the hope of advancement, of being brought to the place where sin was not possible. Such would be the reward for his obedience--having certainty that failure was not possible.

The angels who did not rebel with Satan we describe as being "confirmed" in holiness. They do not strive to maintain their favor with God. Man's blessedness in heaven (or new heavens/earth) will be more enjoyable for that we are not striving to keep our status.

 

[Peairtach]

I promise I'm not a heretic. Haha.

Here are my thoughts as I was driving earlier today.

1. God creates everything in the universe in perfect order. He creates Eden, Adam, and then subsequently Eve. They were perfect. Perfect in communion with God and there was no sin.

2. In the end of time, God will make all things new and recreate the perfect world once again. Regardless of what eschatological view you hold to, we can all agree that after all is said and done, we will be with God forever in New Jerusalem and in the New Earth forever and ever with new glorified bodies. We will have bodies with new capacities to see and enjoy God more than we could ever imagine in our lives now. And we will have bodies and minds and hearts where sin never even crosses our mind, in the sense of being tempted.


So my question is this: If in the end, God makes all things new and perfect again and within that perfection is the incapability of sin for His elect, what does that mean for when God created everything the first time? Perfection is perfect. It cannot be improved upon for it could be improved on it would prove to not actually have been perfect. So if in the new age, one quality of our perfection is that we cannot sin, Eden was obviously missing that since Adam and Eve had the capability to sin.

I realize this closely aligns with the idea that Christ on earth was perfect but had the ability to sin since he was a man. So if you want to touch on that too, go ahead.

But my main question is, if in New Jerusalem, our bodies will be made perfect and we will live in a perfect world, and that perfect world is no longer and can no longer be stained by sin, what does that mean for Eden? was it not perfect? (As far as I have been taught, the creation was perfect prior to the fall, so I am not doubting this doctrine but rather trying to find an answer to this seeming contradiction or problem in logical consistency)

Thanks so much!

What do you mean by perfect?

The original world was good i.e. perfectly fit for the good purposes God had for it (Gen 1:31). That does not mean that it was the best of all possible worlds.

That world was held out to Adam and his race, if he fulfilled the probation of the CoW (Gen 2:16) by just living as he had been created for the probationary time, without sin. If Adam had been successful he and his race would have given all the glory to God because although it was a CoW and had a condition and was a period of probation, Adam technically had to do precisely nothing but continue to live as it was his duty to do. Adam didn't have to achieve any "great feats" of anything. The CoW and its terms are paradoxically "gracious", although we like - to prevent confusion - to preserve the term "grace" for God's goodness to fallen Man.

Christ fulfilled the probation for His people (Gal 4:4-5), which means that, after fulfilling the Great Commission (Matt 28:18-19) and the Creation Mandate (Gen 1:28) in Christ, they will inherit with Christ the best of all possible worlds, better than the original pre-Fall world.

 

[Warren]

I think it means the Godhead made specific plans for the universe. Adam had permission to do anything but take the forbidden fruit. But we freely take from the tree of Life, in the New Jerusalem, so there are no fences for us there. I take that to mean God wanted man, in the first state, to learn from God's faithfulness from Adam's obedience. In the resurrected state, we'll be like Christ and won't need a tutor.

 

[TylerRay]

I have a daughter named Eden. She is wonderful, but I can assure you that she's not perfect.

 

[carlosstjohn]

Man's Fourfold Estate
1) In the garden. Upright (Ecc.7:29) but able to sin (posse pecare)
2) Cast out of the garden. Fallen, able only to sin (non posse non pecare)
3) Redeemed in the world. Upraised, but still indwelt by sin, yet in Christ able to sin not (posse non pecare)
4) With the Lord. Glorified, soul or soul-and-body perfected and improved to be like Christ, not able to sin (non posse pecare)

Covenant theology recognizes that Adam was under a covenant of works in the garden. He was perfect so far as he was created to be, and he was able to keep God's command. But his condition was also probationary. There was the fear of failure. and he had the hope of advancement, of being brought to the place where sin was not possible. Such would be the reward for his obedience--having certainty that failure was not possible.

The angels who did not rebel with Satan we describe as being "confirmed" in holiness. They do not strive to maintain their favor with God. Man's blessedness in heaven (or new heavens/earth) will be more enjoyable for that we are not striving to keep our status.

So is it safe to say that the new creation will be more perfect than the first(prior to the fall)?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[OPC'n]

The first Eden was good as in no sin but wasn't perfect as in not able to sin and fall. God is good and perfect. He is without sin and incapable of sinning. When we go to live with him we will be good and incapable of sinning bc of what Christ did for us. In the new Eden we will be good and perfect unlike Adam and Eve were in the old Eden.

 

[rickclayfan]

The original covenant was made between God and man. Man being a mutable creature made that covenant unstable. It was perfect in even, but stability and security within the covenant was not secured. The new covenant (Covenant of Grace) is made between God and God (the Father and the Son). Due to this reason, this covenant rests on an immutable, stable foundation. "I will make with them an everlasting covenant, that I will not turn away from doing good to them. And I will put the fear of me in their hearts, that they may not turn from me" (Jeremiah 32:40).

Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk

 

[timfost]

My pastor touched on this last Sunday, preaching through Gen. 1.

When God said after each day that it was "good," it means that it was exactly how He intended it to be-- sinless, and mutable. We can't understand mutability as a defect, since God created man this way. If God had no prior decree for man to sin, why would He make Him mutable? The fact is, God made man mutable (part of the perfection in which he was created) so that God could work out His perfect eternal plan in this creation to His glory.

In contrast, when we are glorified, we will be perfect and immutable. This is no contradiction to the perfection in which man was first created, but different because He has a different purpose-- that is, glorifying Himself in displaying special grace on the objects of mercy, having taken away completely the body of flesh.

Understanding the decree of God in terms of how man was created should work in us awe and reverence. Scripture doesn't reveal the mind of God in all of the details, but I am persuaded that what comes to pass is good because it was wrought in God. (Isaiah 45-47, Belgic 13)

 

[Alan D. Strange]

What Bruce and Tim (and others) said.

Perhaps this thought will help: man's first estate was a provisional one, in which he was made upright, but able to sin and able not to sin. Upon a successful completion of his probation, He would have been confirmed in a state of righteousness and would have entered his eschatological, or final, state.

He did not maintain that first estate, however, but fell into sin and misery. Thus Christ came, so that by His active obedience He might keep the covenant that Adam failed to keep (the covenant of works) and by His passive obedience pay the penalty of sin that accrued from Adam's first sin and all the sins of His people that followed.

In other words, Christ came to fulfill the broken covenant of works and to open the way of life for us in the covenant of grace so that all who trust in Him alone have His perfect righteousness imputed to them, our sin being imputed to Him. By His work, Christ takes us to where we failed to go in Adam.

Again, Adam's created state was provisional not final. Christ takes us to the final state, already inaugurated but not yet consummated. It will be consummated in the new heavens and earth in which we will be in our final, or eschatological, state.

Your question, Carlos, is an excellent one that a careful study of Scripture answers as we see that it unfolds a covenant theology that deals with all these questions.

Peace,
Alan

 

[carlosstjohn]

I'm still trying to wrap my brain around this a little. Trying to wrap my brain around it in a way that would allow me to articulate it in my own words. If I was to explain this doctrine, I don't want to misspeak and say things that are not representative of the scriptures and what we have discussed in this thread.

I guess I'm just having trouble understanding how two different sets of creation can both be "perfect". As you said with your provisional/final statement, would another way of saying what you said be that the first creation was not complete?

 

[Alan D. Strange]

I think that those are fair follow-ups, Carlos. Let me give them a shot.

I think that you're getting hung-up on the word "perfect." The Scripture does not use that word to describe man in his original state (it does speak of righteous or upright). I don't use that word, because I think that it suggests (the word normally entails such), as you intimate, that something is "complete."

But man was able to sin and able not to sin in paradise before the Fall--thus he was not complete or in his final state. He was in a state that he was not meant to continue in, fulfilling a probation in which he would move either to completion and finality or fall into a state of sin and misery. That he did the latter means that he needs another, one who, in fact, is God and man, to come and do what he failed to do and to undo what he did.

My counsel would be to move away from believing that you must use the nomenclature "perfect" and its synonyms to describe man in his innocency. Better to say "upright" or "righteous" though mutably so (able to sin and not to sin). In paradise regained (and better than before: we gain more in Christ than we ever lost in Adam), we will be immutably not able to sin. Thanks be to God!

Peace,
Alan

 

[carlosstjohn]

Alright! That was what I needed to have it click in my head. So in the truest sense, the first creation was not perfect. It was good, upright, and not stained by sin, but you would not use the word perfect because that is what the new creation is?

If you are affirming this, then how does this relate to the Angels that are perfect? Would you not call them perfect because they were also mutable. And what about Christ on earth? Surely he was perfect. But he was able to sin.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[timfost]

The first creation was not permanent. I think this might be a helpful word when we're describing the difference.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

And what about Christ on earth? Surely he was perfect. But he was able to sin.

Christ was susceptible to temptation, true. To feel temptation, he only needed to perceive the proposed advantage. Indeed, no one (aside from Adam) has ever felt the true strength of temptation the way Christ did, for he exhausted the strength of every temptation until it failed. And wore out the devil himself. Temptation of some sort always defeats mere man. We make one temptation quit, and fall immediately for our besetting sin. Christ defeated them all, banishing them by demolishing their supposed advantages, trusting in his Father and his word alone.

But, to be clear, Christ was NOT able to sin. He did not enter creation having the potential to fail at his task. His success was guaranteed. That's why people ever were and continue to be summoned to faith in him.

 

[Peairtach]

The first creation was provisional, and if Man had not sinned would eventually have given way to something better, once Man had fulfilled the Creation Mandate by building a godly civilisation. God had something better in store for Man if he became confirmed in righteousness and holiness in the probation of the CoW. Good, better and best are relative terms.

A baby can be "good" in the sense of healthy and without blemish, but she will only be "perfect"/complete when she reaches young adulthood. Likewise a good acorn will never reach its perfection/completion until it is allowed to become an oak tree. Something can be "good" and we may even call it " perfect" and yet in another way not be perfect/complete.

The original creation was good. It was only perfect/complete in the sense that it perfectly suited God's plans for Man to advance it towards the truly perfect/complete/best realm by keeping the CoW and fulfilling the Creation Mandate.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[carlosstjohn]

The first creation was provisional, and if Man had not sinned would eventually have given way to something better, once Man had fulfilled the Creation Mandate by building a godly civilisation. God had something better in store for Man if he became confirmed in righteousness and holiness in the probation of the CoW. Good, better and best are relative terms.

A baby can be "good" in the sense of healthy and without blemish, but she will only be "perfect"/complete when she reaches young adulthood. Likewise a good acorn will never reach its perfection/completion until it is allowed to become an oak tree. Something can be "good" and we may even call it " perfect" and yet in another way not be perfect/complete.

The original creation was good. It was only perfect/complete in the sense that it perfectly suited God's plans for Man to advance it towards the truly perfect/complete/best realm by keeping the CoW and fulfilling the Creation Mandate.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

Okay! Those examples were great!

So, in your perspective, would you still call the first creation perfect? Or just avoid that word altogether?

And if you say you would call it perfect, the. What about the Angels? Same deal?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Peairtach]

The first creation was provisional, and if Man had not sinned would eventually have given way to something better, once Man had fulfilled the Creation Mandate by building a godly civilisation. God had something better in store for Man if he became confirmed in righteousness and holiness in the probation of the CoW. Good, better and best are relative terms.

A baby can be "good" in the sense of healthy and without blemish, but she will only be "perfect"/complete when she reaches young adulthood. Likewise a good acorn will never reach its perfection/completion until it is allowed to become an oak tree. Something can be "good" and we may even call it " perfect" and yet in another way not be perfect/complete.

The original creation was good. It was only perfect/complete in the sense that it perfectly suited God's plans for Man to advance it towards the truly perfect/complete/best realm by keeping the CoW and fulfilling the Creation Mandate.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

Okay! Those examples were great!

So, in your perspective, would you still call the first creation perfect? Or just avoid that word altogether?

And if you say you would call it perfect, the. What about the Angels? Same deal?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It depends on what you're comparing it with. We sometimes tend to call the pre-Fall world "perfect" when we're comparing it with our post-Fall world.

I prefer to call the original creation good, because that is what Scripture calls it, and because it is clear from the Book of Revelation and elsewhere that God can make something "better", indeed "best" - indeed I believe the best of all worlds.

The original world was good in the sense that something better could be made, but if we are thinking of God's eternal purposes, it was "ideal" I.e."perfect"/"complete" for what He had planned.

With the angels, again, you have to ask what comparison are you making. You're talking about the use of the word "perfect" relative to what or whom? Debates about which words to use is called "semantics". Sometimes people agree on everything but the words to use. Ultimately God Himself is the Perfect Being. But compared with us regarding sin, the unfallen angels are perfectly sinless. Compared with us regarding special powers we might say that the unfallen angels are "better". Psalm 8 says that Man was made a little lower than the angels. On the other hand, among our "advantages" over the angels, we have e.g. that God became man, not an angel, and died to redeem men, not angels.


Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[carlosstjohn]

Alright. Sweet. I think I got this now. Thank you to everyone who contributed!

Ironing sharpening iron!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk