Does Free Will Require a Redeemer?

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by 4study:
Are you saying Adam had a relationship with God apart from Christ?

He was not saved without the blood of Christ but Christ was not the content of his faith. The content of his faith was that the sacrifice provided by God was sufficient for his sin.

]Point taken, however, I would question your understanding of God’s revelation of Himself. Does God reveal Himself outside or apart from The Son? John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Yes. God revealed himself in creation, in his mighty acts, in text in Scripture, in many different ways.

Who “walked” with them if it wasn’t The Son? Does the “invisible God” use some other means other than "the image" to project Himself to His creatures?

I am not sure it was a corporeal walking. It may have been a presence of a different kind. We don't know.

 

[4study]

russell55,

Wouldn't God be God even if he had never created? Wasn't God sufficient in Himself so that he didn't need something to redeem, or create, or sustain in order to be God?

Good questions.

IMO, God's actions proceed forth from His nature. So it's difficult for me to separate "actions" from "nature" with God. In this sense, the answers to your questions are "no, He wouldn't be God". For exmaple, according to John 1:1-3 and Colossians 1:16, God's creation was purposed and accomplished in The Son. Since The Son is "who God is", it's difficult to conceive God as an idle being. The Son has always existed so God's creative purpose has always existed.

It's not a question of God's self-sustainment, it's a matter of looking into God's Revelation of Himself which, by the way, is The Son.

 

[Frogman]

Originally posted by romanbear:
Hi frogman;

A quote from you;

My system failed to quote this post from Romanbear.

but is it noticeable that his argument is that the Jews test DNA of everyone claiming to be a Jew? They also claim that being a Jew is much more than DNA. There is a tribe in northern Africa claiming descent from Abraham, they have the DNA, Rabbis have informed them that being Jewish is more than the DNA link, it is spiritual. Here is the same thing that separated Judas from being of the elect. It had nothing to do with his flesh, his dna, or anything else, but the lack of being elected of God. Rather, he was elected to a position to betray the Son of Man. Who according to the flesh is our kinsman, but in essence is God and in that respect not related to any man alive, nor to the human nature of his mother. She too was a sinner in need of salvation.

No, DNA does not make one a Jew.

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

[4study]

Pastor Larry,

He was not saved without the blood of Christ but Christ was not the content of his faith. The content of his faith was that the sacrifice provided by God was sufficient for his sin.

To reiterate, we're talking about the relationship Adam had with God before the transgression. With this in mind, I'm not sure what you're saying. If I were to assume your statement is in the before-the-fall context, I think you're saying Adam had knowledge of the sacrifice before his transgression. Actually, I would agree with this.

Yes. God revealed himself in creation, in his mighty acts, in text in Scripture, in many different ways.

The methods of God's revelation might be various, however, don't they all regard The Son? Creation is in The Son (John 1:1-3, Col.1:16), His "mighty acts" regard "redemption" and "deliverance", and the Scriptures are the Divine expression of God ("the Word" of John 1:1-3) in written form.

I am not sure it was a corporeal walking. It may have been a presence of a different kind. We don't know.

Are you making an assumption about Genesis 1 and 2? Namely, the absence of details leads you to belive Christ wasn't there?

"A presence of a different kind"? Sounds nebulous. Aren't you separating The Son from God?

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by 4study:
To reiterate, we're talking about the relationship Adam had with God before the transgression. With this in mind, I'm not sure what you're saying. If I were to assume your statement is in the before-the-fall context, I think you're saying Adam had knowledge of the sacrifice before his transgression. Actually, I would agree with this.

Sorry, I was thinking you were asking about post-fall. Before the fall, his responsibility was to respond in obedience to the revelation given him, namely care for the garden and don't eat of the tree. I don't think he had knowledge of the sacrifice before hand. I see no evidence of that. Man in all eras was to respond in believing obedience to whatever revelation he had from God. Today, that revelation is Jesus Christ. Prior to his coming, it was other revelation.

The methods of God's revelation might be various, however, don't they all regard The Son?

I don't think so. I would have to think on this some more but I have never seen it this way. I don't see how much of the OT has to do with the son. When God gave the OT Law, it had nothing to do with the Son. He appeared to Moses in a burning bush, to Elijah in a still small voice, to the nation in the pillar of cloud or fire, etc, none of which had to do with the Son. I will agree that any human appearance was the Son. I think the Son is the only way that God take human appearance.

Are you making an assumption about Genesis 1 and 2? Namely, the absence of details leads you to belive Christ wasn't there?

No more than you are making an assumption that he was there. Either way it is an assumption. And that is why I don't think it is a major issue.

"A presence of a different kind"? Sounds nebulous. Aren't you separating The Son from God?

Not at all. I refer to things already mentioned like the pillar of cloud/fire, the still small voice, the burning bush, the shekinah glory that filled the temple, etc. as examples of the presence of God apart from the person of Christ. However, as I said, I do believe that the human appearance in the OT(i.e., the angel of the Lord) is a Christophany.

 

[4study]

Pastor Larry,

Galatians 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

I Cor. 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

If Christ is directly mentioned in these events, why regard Him as having little to do with the OT? Going back even further, what did the sacrifices of Cain and Abel picture? And what of the animal “clothing” for Adam and Eve? Do you sincerely think that these people had no concept of Christ?

Again, I appreciate your responses. I’m understanding more of why you believe Adam, before the fall, would not need a redeemer.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by 4study:
If Christ is directly mentioned in these events, why regard Him as having little to do with the OT?

I don't know that I would characterize it has having "little to do with the OT." MY point goes to what the people knew. There is no indication that they knew this.

Going back even further, what did the sacrifices of Cain and Abel picture?

I think those were sacrifices of worship. I do not see those particular sacrifices as sacrifices for sin.

And what of the animal “clothing” for Adam and Eve?

Again, my point is not whether this had to do with a picture of Christ. It may have. But did they know that?? I do not see any indication that they did. Consider it this way. We quote the "wages of sin is death" very easily. But with Adam and Eve, the first death they ever saw was directly connected with their sin. For us it is an everyday experience. For them it was a shocking event.

Do you sincerely think that these people had no concept of Christ?

Back that far, yes. I doubt very seriously that they had a concept of Christ based on what God has told us about that. If there were more information, I would be inclined to change my view. But I simply don't see the authority to make such a statement. It is easy for us to look back and see it. But would they have seen it sitting where they were?? I doubt it.

My main point here is about sticking with what God has revealed. Many people like to read the Bible as if they knew everything we know. They assume that because we know Christ was crucified, that everyone has always known that. But we must remember the aspect of progressive revelation. God did not reveal everything at once, but doled it out in many portions and various ways (Heb 1:1).

 

[4study]

Pastor Larry,

I too believe that the Revelation comes in steps. Not all at once. However, this is more a matter of deciding who God is rather than what Adam and Eve knew about Jesus Christ. I agree that they did not know the details but I believe there is plenty of evidence that suggests they knew Him. Yet as you said earlier, this is a conclusion I make based upon other issues in scripture.

Let me use Abraham as an example. There is very little said in Genesis about the concept of New Jerusalem. However, according to Hebrews 11, Abraham was looking for a city whose builder and maker is God. What did Abraham know about New Jerusalem? I don't know. Yet the revelation had come far enough for him to understand the concept. In fact, he was egearly expecting it!
IMO, this revelation cannot come unless a previous step concerning The Son has been given. And the support for this is in Galatians. Abraham indeed knew of "the promised seed".

Another way to ponder the original question is to consider this thought: "is redemption provided after sin or before sin"? Compare I Cor. 10:13. Does this not apply to Adam?