2 Misconceptions

russell55,

Okay. Then how was it derived? Was Adam in any way activily involed in the derivation? If not, then it's not derivation. If so, once received, was Adam then the custodian of his own righteousness? If God was the custodian, was it really Adam's own righteousness? If Adam was the custodian, why could he not "keep" or "guard" it perfectly?

Again, food for thought.

 

npetreley,

I understand. Yet this speculation is meant to probe our understanding of God's purpose in Christ. Why do you believe "it could not have turned out otherwise"? Is it due to God's foreknowledge or the like? Is the death of Christ merely a result of God's knowing that Adam would fail?

I've presented something for consideration. If you'd like, think about it. If you don't like it, trash it. No harm done.

 

By looking at who it is talking about. When God tells the nation of Israel he has chosen them from all the nations of the world, it is clearly corporate. When he talks of saving individuals, it is clearly personal. As in all questions, context is the easiest way to determine these things.

It is clear from Romans 9:6 that corporate election and personal election are not coextensive because not all national Israel is spiritual Israel. Some of national Israel was not elect and Romans 9 uses people (individuals) prove this fact of individual election. To suggest that Romans 9 is talking of corporate election is laughable because of the examples he uses. The point of Romans 9 is that God can personally elect some and not others because he is God.

Romans 9 is often debated for reasons that are very unclear. The text is explicit. Unfortunately, some are more committed to their presuppositions than they are to the text.

The only reason I bring Romans 9 up is because it shows the difference between corporate and personal election in a way that is clear.

 

Pastor Larry,

Thank you for your response. I understand your position and it explains your conclusions of “corporate” and “personal” election. If you don’t mind I’ll share my view of Romans 9. This is not meant to question you or be derogatory. So it also doesn’t need a response.

Regarding “corporate election”.
I believe Romans 9:6 to be true since the inception of Israel. When God spoke of national Israel as a “chosen nation” I understand it to refer to an Office. It’s clear this Office could be occupied by those other than natural born Israelites (i.e. Rahab, Ruth). Yet the majority of natural born Israelites fell short of this Office (I Cor.10:5). So who is Israel? Not the individuals themselves but those who are “counted as” Israelites according to their faith.

Regarding “personal election”.
The question is were Isaac and Jacob elected to the new birth?

Isaac – It was by faith in the “word of promise” that Abraham received imputed righteousness. Does this “word of promise” concern Isaac as a person or the office of “promised seed”? Was he personally elected to the new birth or elected into an office? The answer to this will depend upon our presuppositions.

Jacob – Jacob’s father, Isaac, was more then ready to give Esau the birthright blessings. This was clearly against the promise of God. So does Jacob’s election concern a personal relationship with God or does it regard the office of “firstborn son”? Again, the answer to this will depend upon our presuppositions.

IMO, Romans 9 does not concern election towards the new birth. Rather, it regards election of the Office “covenant people of God”. That Office is occupied by those who are faithful to the “word of promise”. Faithfulness is dependent upon personal choice.

 

Bro Bill,

I find it hard to refute your position when you have not stated your position. All you have done is conjecture that you don't believe that all of the scripture off election was written to us in present day, only to the apostles. You have not proved that is true however, but you certainly are arrogant as if it were true and you did prove it. Give me something to refute. The burden of proof of those scriptures is on you, not me. I take those verses to mean what they read, not to assign importance only to apostles. Why, if the message was only meant for the apostle would God preserve that in scripture, or why would he not say that this is only for you apostles? My friend, I have nothing to defend here.

 

Thank you for you answers, just one more clarifing question. I didn't mean this last question like you thought I meant it. I agree that God elects certain individual for his own glory.

I mean what purpose does are his elect ones have after they have been elected? Why does he elect them? What is their job, so to speak? Does that clarify?

Thank you for you answers and your time.
Bro. Bill

 

I have already addressed this complaint in my other post (to npetreley), please read it and respond there. Thanks.
Bro. Bill

 

Thanks Bill. I actually would answer the same way. The elect are to bring glory to God. They do this through their lives, the doctrine, etc. They share the gospel for the glory of God; they live so as to bring glory to God. I don't think the elect have any other purpose but the glory of God in and through all that they do.

I am not sure if you are asking something more specific than that or not. Perhaps I am not understanding your properly.

 

bro bill, I read through your responce to npetreley, and all you said is that it was not your position to prove a position in which no one has ever proved. How do you get that?

Second, you say that those who were saved for a special reason were elect, but those who were not were not elect. Where do you get that? Men are saved by God. They don't find God. We have offered many scriptures on that and your only defense is that "that was written to the apostles not us" and that is no defence. You have counted it out because it doesn't match up to your theology, and therefore you say we cannot use it. That is no defence. It is a theological slight of hand. And since you come with great arrogance but no real proof, you actually believe you are correct.

 

Remember, this is only speculation, and not based on any specific scriptures but only my personal interpretation from inference:

1. There would be no need for God the Son (Jesus) if Adam did not disobey and cause the fall.
2. Jesus is eternal, which means (obviously) that he preceded Adam.
3. This should tell you that there was no other possible outcome than for Adam to disobey and cause the fall.

Don't misunderstand the order above. I'm not saying Jesus pre-existed because God foreknew Adam would fall. I'm saying the pre-existence of Jesus tells you that to create Adam meant to create a being that could only fall.

Again, you can disagree wildly with the above, and I won't argue, because it's speculation. But since you seem to enjoy it, here's another speculation:

1. Man is limited, in large part due to his fleshly nature, although man has other limitations.
2. Adam was also limited by innocence.
3. Adam was also limited by a lack of knowledge. One can debate endlessly about what it means to know good and evil, and what Adam might have known before he ate the fruit, but one cannot dispute that he lacked some type of knowledge that was acquired by eating the fruit.
4. Finally, Adam had a sense of self.
5. Therefore, having a sense of self and a limited ability to fully understand his relationship to God due to his many limitations, Adam was bound to eventually put himself first. His fall was inevitable.

 

Npetreley,

I think this speculation reveals more about what we believe than we care to admit. Although we understand these things to be hypothetical, the possible outcomes we see of each depend upon our personal convictions of the truth. So, IMO this isn’t a waste of time.

According to Colossians, Christ is “the fullness of the Godhead” and is “the image of the invisible God”. Therefore, Adam in his pre-fallen state knows God only through the Son.

Redemption comes before sin (i.e. “the lamb slain before the foundation of the world”). The Son is the Redeemer. Without the Redeemer, Adam cannot be in a relationship with God. So even in his pre-fallen state, there is a necessity for Christ.

Lucifer and the angles with him were found in iniquity before Adam. So sin exists before Adam. Sin necessitates atonement.

This all depends upon you’re belief of the purpose of Adam and the Garden of Eden. If Adam’s fall was inevitable what stops us from saying, “the Garden of Eden was a setup”? You’ve said God created Adam to inevitably fall.

 

It would if one of us were not admitting something. I think I've been rather forthright. If you haven't, then say so.

I hope you understand you are also speculating now, which is fine.

Again, I hope you understand you are only speculating.

Unless the Bible isn't telling us something (and that's entirely possible), that's going to come as a shock to the rebellious angels. Unless, of course, you mean they are "atoned" by being tossed into the lake of fire. In which case we all could have been tossed in, hence no need for Jesus. Of course, in addition to God the Son, I suppose there could be a God the Angel out there somewhere never mentioned in the Bible.

Again, this is all speculation, and I still don't see the point except that sometimes it's fun to speculate.

Nothing would stop me from saying it was a setup. Indeed, I believe it was sort of a setup. Not the kind you mean, perhaps, because I detect in your tone that to you "setup" means "I want Adam to fail because I'm going to enjoy seeing failure, or his failure will make me seem more glorious."

What I would say, instead, is that God deliberately created a creature that was weak and could do nothing but eventually fall so that He could have mercy on man. Why? Again - pure speculation based only on hints in scripture - because that is part of a much larger plan that involves both men and angels.

Did you never wonder why satan had to ask permission to pick on Job? How is it that satan had permission to tempt Eve? Do you think he did it without God's knowledge or foreknowledge of satan's intent, or whether or not satan would succeed? And why would satan even be interested in stirring up trouble in the garden? And why does Paul say that we will someday judge angels?

Lots of clues, no solid answers. Only speculation.

 

I believe Adam was created in original righteousness.

He was created in the image of God.

God is: The Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit.

These three are one.

I believe being in the original creation, Adam was in a condition incorruptible. That his spirit body and soul all were one. Having brought death to his race, Adam's spirit, thus the spirit of man, came into bondage to sin, his soul suffered spiritual seperation from God his creator because of this bondage and so did his body, which had physical death to pass upon it.

I believe Christ came in the flesh and condemned sin and all believers will be raised to a position far greater than that original creation Adam enjoyed briefly.

It is not our present bodies which shall inherit the kingdom of God, but rather our glorified bodies which have been prepared for an eternity in the presence of God the Father.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

Npetreley,

I wasn’t suggesting you or I had something to hide. Neither one of us is being crafty. We’re just talking about God.

My comments from Colossians are not speculation though. These verses of scripture as well as others support the concept of Adam knowing God through the Son. As I understand, the only way anyone can know God is through the Son. This stands regardless of what side of the Fall we’re talking about.

My comments concerning redemption are something meant as “food for thought”. If Christ is the “lamb slain before the foundation of world”, I think it’s good to consider whether or not His Redemption comes before sin. In other words, does God make a provision before the need or only after? And, does God’s redemption in Christ come irregardless of Adam or as a result of Adam?

Regarding Lucifer, again, something to think about. Adam’s transgression was not the origin of sin. Sin exists before Adam. The question is, is an atonement necessary for all sin or just some sin?

Regarding God’s purpose in Adam,
I think it may help to study what the Garden of Eden is. Is the Garden an oasis or paradise? Or is the Garden and fenced, enclosed area within the confines of a city, castle, or building? If you look up the Hebrew word for “garden”, you’ll find it’s derivation is from a word meaning “to guard” and thus the idea of being “fenced’ or “guarded”. The point is, what is Adam’s purpose there and what connection does this have, if any, with the concept of New Jerusalem? Again, food for thought.

 

Frogman,

Thank you for your responses. I sincerely enjoy reading other people’s thoughts on these issues.

 

Adam's purpose there was to dress the Garden. All of the needs he would have were provided, even access to the tree of life. Adam's choice to disobey God caused his removal from this Garden, and primarily to prevent his taking of the tree of life and living forever in his fallen condition.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

Here's the section I assume you're talking about:

I don't see Adam mentioned anywhere, here or in the rest of Colossians. And given the above context, I don't see the connection.

And 1 Corinthians says the only way we can know God is if the Spirit reveals God to us. I think you're focusing on one aspect of knowing God, and as a result you're missing the forest for the trees.

You tell me. Do you think the sins of the angels have been atoned for? I've never read a word in the Bible about fallen angels getting saved. That doesn't mean it can't happen or hasn't happened -- it may simply be none of our business. But unless such a provision has been made, then by definition not all sin has been atoned for.

 

And the result of the fall is that the garden is now undressed. Hence garden salads became honeymoon salads (lettuce alone without dressing).

 

Jolly good one.

God Bless.

Bro. Dallas

 

Thanks Bill. I actually would answer the same way. The elect are to bring glory to God. They do this through their lives, the doctrine, etc. They share the gospel for the glory of God; they live so as to bring glory to God. I don't think the elect have any other purpose but the glory of God in and through all that they do.

I am not sure if you are asking something more specific than that or not. Perhaps I am not understanding your properly. </font>[/QUOTE]I agree. Everyone's purpose is to glorify God ultimately. But, I guess what I am asking is this: For what purpose did God elect Paul (for example)? What did Paul do for accomplishing God's plan? Moses? Noah? Wasn't there a unique purpose that these men had?

Once again, thank you for your time,
Bro. Bill