Genesis 1-2 - a perfect paradise?

Paul of Eugene,

Okay. Then let's go back to our previous posts and lay down some premises.

1. There is only one way to know God, that is, via the Son, Christ Jesus.

2. Adam, before the transgression, knew God through Christ.

3. In Christ dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. (Col. 2:9).

At what time is Christ not "the Lamb slain before foundation of the world"? Furthermore, if Adam knew God via Christ, before the transgression, Adam must have known the concept afore mentioned. That is, that Christ died for Him.

The point is this. Regardless of the transgression, even if it had not occurred, Christ still dies.

 

Paul of Eugene in response to Matt Black,

What, exactly, is meant by "perfect state"? Scripture?

 

Paul of Eugene,

This explanation echoes the vast majority. It states that Adam’s destiny was to transgress. This is why I said earlier “Adam had to transgress”. By implication it means Adam (and creation) did not need redemption, and thus Christ, during the pre-transgression period (i.e. Gen.1&2). This is inconsistent theology.

One has to decide the following;

Is there one or two ways to know God?
Is Christ “The Redeemer” only some of the time or all of the time?

I believe there is only one way to know God.
I believe "Redeemer" is an aspect of who God is, which we know through Christ. Thus, there is never a time in which God is not a "Redeemer".

 

Paul of Eugene,

By the way, I was wondering what leads you to believe this. Scripture?

 

Paul of Eugene,

None of the scriptures you've quoted support the concept "Christ would not have died if Adam had not transgressed". Perhaps you could provide just a little commentary to help me understand why you think they do?

 

Paul of Eugene,

I understand what you have said in previous posts. I’m not debating about whether Adam has a choice or not. I actually agree that Adam has choice, but in an attempt to stay on track…

You said, “Adam's Sin is the original cause for the need for Christ to be our redeemer…”. If this be true, regardless of whether Adam has a choice or not, he must transgress since this is the cause for Christ’s redemption. Otherwise, as you’ve also stated, there is no need for Christ to die. This is why I used the term “destiny”.

The “pre-transgression period” is Gen. 1&2 for purposes of my posts on this thread.

Maybe we can narrow this down a little. Think with me for a moment upon God and Adam’s relationship before the transgression .

How does Adam know God? By Christ, right? Who is Christ? He is the “fullness of the Godhead bodily”. One aspect of this “fullness” is the office of “mediator”, right? Does Adam need a mediator? Yes.

Do you agree?

 

Paul of Eugene,

I'd be happy to.

I Cor.15:47 "The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly."

Adam, as his name implies, was made from the dust of the earth. He is "earthy". God said to Adam after the transgression, "for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return". The common teaching is that this "physical" death was a result of his transgression. I see it as the result of how God created him, earthy. Adam was not destined to stay an "earthy" being. He was always destined to "bear the image of the heavenly". And all of this, regardless of the transgression.

 

Paul of Eugene,

It appears we’ve reached some common ground regarding Adam’s need for a “mediator”. So with this in mind, let’s ask the question “What else does Adam need to sustain a relationship with God?”.

Dependency is the issue. How dependant upon God is Adam? I believe his dependency is exhaustive. Not only does Adam need a mediator in order to accommodate the discrepancy between the Divine and the non-divine, he needs the same “mediator”, that is Christ, to keep, guard, and sustain the relationship. The conception, initiation, and progression of the relationship is all dependent upon God, not Adam. Therefore, when we think of Christ in the office of “Redeemer” and remembering what we’ve said about dependency and “mediator”, at the very least, to remain consistent, we must say, “Adam always needs a Redeemer”. By virtue of being the Divine Creator’s creature, and in order for their relationship to be sustained, Adam needs to be covered by the perfect blood of Christ. The only difficulty with this is the tendency we have to place “Redemption” in time. To overcome this, we must remind ourselves that in Christ “dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily”. This must include redemption or the office of “Redeemer”. So at no time is Christ not “the Redeemer”. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

I do not attempt to speculate what Adam’s, as well as his offspring’s, progression to spiritual maturity would have been like if there was no transgression. The primary point is noting that God has always provided all the means necessary for man to make the proper choices in the context of growth. The consummation of which is the New Jerusalem relationship. I think this is critical to the foundation of one’s personal theology.

Thank you for your time and input.

 

Matt Black,

I’ll comment on your questions as you’ve ordered them.

1. At what time was Adam without sin? The problem lies in defining what “sin” is. According to my understanding, “sin” is “short of the glory of God”. Since God is the highest in holiness and perfection, anything He creates is short of His glory and thus needs His covering hand. This is partly why Adam needs a mediator. Adam, just like any other human being, cannot approach (i.e. have a relationship with) the Holy God without a medium.

2. Yes, it does stifle the argument to which you refer. If Adam doesn’t need a mediator before the Fall, then it brings up many questions about the Fall itself.

 

Matt,

Good questions. I believe Adam was created “short of the glory of God”. Whether or not Adam (or Eve) committed any sinful activities is not the point. It has to do with dependency. Once you decide upon that, then the concept of “sin” can be brought into thought.

The term “sin” presents problems because of our preconceived ides. It usually connotes that which is “evil”, “wicked”, or “lustful” to name a few. Yet the Greek term simply means, “to be guilty” or “in error” or “short” of whatever is “right” or “ought to be”. In the latter sense, Adam is certainly “short” of what is “right” if we think if God as the highest degree of “Right”. However, this doesn’t mean Adam (or Eve) was created in a state of “guiltiness” or “error”.

Another thing to consider is the context of God’s creation. What is the purpose behind Adam and Eve’s responsibilities in the Garden of Eden? Whatever you decide “sin” is, in order to be consistent, should fit into the context of the covenant between God and Adam. In other words, “sin” is not about morals.

Regarding #2, if Adam does not need a mediator, it suggests that the Fall had to occur since it is the cause for the necessity for Christ. Otherwise, as many will say, Christ, and thus “a mediator”, is not necessary, which is why it is said Adam “knew God directly” pre-Fall.