Old Covenant Revisited

[The Lamb]

Kevin:

You truley are a gracious brother. The last part was not an implication to you or anyone here. I have concurred with this observation of Cunningham. The elevation of the law, this constant law preaching of the Puritans led to a legalism, a conditionalism, that was never intended.


You state: The law does not annul the promise of grace, it establishes it.


Of course it doesnt Kevin. But grace fullfills the Law. The 10, the tablets of stone were for the Israelites only. I do not believe this was from the beginning. Scripture says it was "added".

Anyway, we are not that far off. I perhaps have not been clear


In His grace

Joseph

[Edited on 4-12-2005 by The Lamb]

 

[Robin]

.....As once, a wise teacher, put it to me...

Does God require Works to attain salvation?

Yes---God requires works to earn salvation! (gasp)

Only the works of Christ obtained salvation.



Robin

 

[The Lamb]

Here are 2 more questions.

1) Does the Law justify?

2) If not, then why would Christs keeping it completely merit anything for our salvation?


Joseph

 

[kceaster]

Joseph....

Originally posted by The Lamb
Here are 2 more questions.

1) Does the Law justify?

Rom. 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

No, the law does not justify. The law is a standard of conduct. One's conduct before a Holy God is either righteous, meaning He adjudges that you have not transgressed the law, or unrighteous, meaning that you have violated it in some way. So, to be justified in the sight of God means that your conduct is in keeping with the standard of the law. But, the law didn't justify you, you were justified by your own conduct towards God. As sinners, we can never be justified by our conduct before God, because we are fallen. Therefore, God must pardon our sins and accept us as righteous in order to justify us. In His grace, and as a one time act, He pardons our sins and accepts us as righteous in His sight on account of the righteousness of Christ imputed to us and received by faith alone.

2) If not, then why would Christs keeping it completely merit anything for our salvation?

Because the righteousness of God is in Christ. The unrighteousness of the world came through Adam, and the righteousness of the elect comes through faith in Christ.

Rom. 5:17-19 17 For if by the one man´s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.) Therefore, as through one man´s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man´s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. For as by one man´s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man´s obedience many will be made righteous.

In Christ,

KC

 

[The Lamb]

Originally posted by kceaster

Originally posted by The Lamb
Here are 2 more questions.

1) Does the Law justify?

Rom. 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

No, the law does not justify. The law is a standard of conduct. One's conduct before a Holy God is either righteous, meaning He adjudges that you have not transgressed the law, or unrighteous, meaning that you have violated it in some way. So, to be justified in the sight of God means that your conduct is in keeping with the standard of the law. But, the law didn't justify you, you were justified by your own conduct towards God. As sinners, we can never be justified by our conduct before God, because we are fallen. Therefore, God must pardon our sins and accept us as righteous in order to justify us. In His grace, and as a one time act, He pardons our sins and accepts us as righteous in His sight on account of the righteousness of Christ imputed to us and received by faith alone.

2) If not, then why would Christs keeping it completely merit anything for our salvation?

Because the righteousness of God is in Christ. The unrighteousness of the world came through Adam, and the righteousness of the elect comes through faith in Christ.

Rom. 5:17-19 17 For if by the one man´s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.) Therefore, as through one man´s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man´s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. For as by one man´s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man´s obedience many will be made righteous.

In Christ,

KC

Is this obedience to the LAw or to His cross?

I do nto believe this answers the question though KC.

If the Law doesnot justify and could never justify, even if kept perfectly by us, then why was it necessary for Christ to keep it?

 

[kceaster]

Joseph....

Is this obedience to the LAw or to His cross?

I'm not sure what you're asking, and I'm not sure if you are making a dichotomy that is unnecessary.

I believe it is crystal clear that we will not be justified by our deeds in the flesh. We are justified by faith in Christ.

That said, we are required to walk in the works God create for us beforehand. This naturally has law and obedience attached to it. This obedience is not justifying, but is a byproduct of God's grace on our lives.

If the Law doesnot justify and could never justify, even if kept perfectly by us, then why was it necessary for Christ to keep it?

It was necessary for Christ because He is the second Adam. In Adam, we all die, because he broke the law for everyone. But Christ, being the second Adam, must do what the first Adam could not do. There is still the requirement hanging over Adam's sons to obey perfectly. Since they cannot, God's grace provided the second Adam to fulfill the stipulations of the covenant He made with the first Adam.

In Christ,

KC

 

[seansgame]

Interesting subject. The argument over where the lines of continuity and discontinuity are between the 2 testaments has long been the point of contention between credo and paedo baptists and to be fair to the credo baptists, those of us who are paedo baptists, can't agree on it anymore. John Murray's recasting put an end (modern day) to any sort of uniformity of the issue. To clarify the understanding of the non-Murrayite brand of reformed; we hold to a strict covenant of works in the edenic situation, from Gen 3:15 onward we recognize the establishment(in a bt sense, no need to confuse the issue by engaging in the intratrinitarian covenant of redemption) of a covenant of grace, brought into bold relief with the ratification ceremony with Abraham. All OT saints were saved as members of said Abrahamic covenant, to which was added the Siniatic covenant, as a subservient covenant of works, which came 430 years after the Abrahamic covenant and which terminated with the incarnation and death of Christ, and the subsequent destruction of the temple in 70 a.d. This Siniatic covenant, though part of the administration of the covenant of grace was not in and of itself gracious in an "ordo salutis" sense, nor in an "historia salutis" sense, nor was it meant to be . The siniatic covenant strictlly speaking, was informed by a works principle, "do this and live". The siniatic covenant functioned on a typological(ceremonial law) and historical level(promises to the land granted upon fidelity to the covenant), as a covenant of works, within and under which Jesus was born, and as the second Adam, fulfilled. The Siniatic covenant was "evangelical" in that it both typified the future reign of the Kingdom of God on earth, and harkened back to the edenic situation where righteousness was to govern the land. But in a fallen world and on an individual level, the Law functioned, "evangelically", as a "ministry of condemnation and death" from which we flee, to Christ, our second Adam, our lawkeeper in our stead. To say that the siniatic covenant was not merit or works based is to deny the very work of Christ, as the second Adam, to accomplish what the first Adam failed to do. The siniatic covenant was a republication of the edenic covenant in a fallen world, given to provide context for the "One" who would come and do what the first Adam failed to do, and "crush the head of the Serpent." (Christus victor). All believers have some "thing" namely "merit" credited to our account by virtue of the second adam actually accomplishing someTHING, namely the righteous requirements of the LAW. To deny the meritorious and work-orientation of the siniatic covenant is to deny even the "Possibility" of this happening and makes nonsense of the incarnation and the cross. Pharisiacal jews saw the law not as condemning them but instead as the means by which they laid hold of the righteous requirements demanded of them by God. The Law was never gracious, indeed it could not be, instead it demanded conformity and condemned failure, that is until Jesus came and quieted the curses and bellowing of Sinai by fulfilling it's righteous demands. Now, we are no longer under the law(read Sinai) but under grace(read new covenant with Christ as our head which in fact is the same covenant as the Abrahamic, read rom 4). Sinai had a specific beginning 430 years after Abraham, and a specific end the incarnation, death and resurrection of Christ. All the other issues attached to this argument are secondary and inconsequential. The ten commandments are not an EXHAUSTIVE revelation of God's moral will, (i.e. the seventh day sabbath was done away with, and no Pipa's "one day in seven principle" isn't the creation mandate but rather a seventh day sabbath which we in the new covenant have "already" entered into by faith in Christ and look forward to in glorification in the "not yet" Heb 4:1-11. Additionally, promises to the land of palestine are no longer promised upon fidelity to Sinai's statutes, etc..) This in no way challenges God's immutability and to make the connection is a "red herring". Christ gives a NEW commandment, Jn13:34-"Love one another as I have Loved you." Sinai is NOT our direct reference for ethical standards but rather Christ is, and He has given us a new commandment that up until that time was not known, for Christ had not yet come to give the example and provide the benchmark. If the law speaks to me as "ethical standard" it ONLY does so mediated to me by Christ. This Law of Christ is delivered to me in the "Indicative-imperative" of the didactic epistles, and the illumination of my mind by the Holy Spirit. It is no longer "do this and live" but rather "it has been done for you, now go live." We indeed have a new and better covenant. Did the OT saints understand the law in a similar way? Certainly. The OT saints are the very ones who despaired of their own attempts at righteousness and by faith were joined to the same head as we share being the true Israel, the spiritual seed of Abraham. There's much more that could be said, but there are others who are more capable of expounding on the subject.

[Edited on 4-13-2005 by seansgame]

 

[Robin]

Originally posted by The Lamb
Here are 2 more questions.

1) Does the Law justify?

2) If not, then why would Christs keeping it completely merit anything for our salvation?

Joseph

Dear Joseph...

There is N O T H I N G wrong with the Law. (Meaning the 10 commandments.) Yes - it does justify! To anyone thinking they can be justified by it -- they are right. But good luck - the mark is 100% perfection.

The issue is with the keeper of the Law - be they creatures or Christ.

Creatures, after the Fall, ever-fail to keep the Law.

Christ kept the Law perfectly-(living a sinless life) then obediently suffered the cross (wrath of God towards traitors.) The cross is the ratification of the covenant posed by YHWH in Gen. 15...where he swears the self-maledictory (self-cursing) oath...Notice that Abraham was asleep during that rite. Here is where the Cov of Promise overlaps with the Cov of Works: Gen. 15:12- 16

As the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell on Abram. And behold, dreadful and great darkness fell upon him. Then the LORD said to Abram, "Know for certain that your offspring will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs and will be servants there, and they will be afflicted for four hundred years. But I will bring judgment on the nation that they serve, and afterward they shall come out with great possessions. As for yourself, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried in a good old age. And they shall come back here in the fourth generation, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete."

Robin

Remember to read the entire story of this episode. Don't take verses out of context.

[Edited on 4-14-2005 by Robin]

 

[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.

 

[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]

 

[The Lamb]

[quote
I'm not sure what you're asking, and I'm not sure if you are making a dichotomy that is unnecessary.[/quote]

In Romans 5, the one act of obedience. Is this His obedience to the Law, or is the ONE act His cross?

I believe it is crystal clear that we will not be justified by our deeds in the flesh. We are justified by faith in Christ.

I agree, so how does Christs obedience to the law merit anything for believers?

That said, we are required to walk in the works God create for us beforehand. This naturally has law and obedience attached to it. This obedience is not justifying, but is a byproduct of God's grace on our lives.

I agree

It was necessary for Christ because He is the second Adam. In Adam, we all die, because he broke the law for everyone. But Christ, being the second Adam, must do what the first Adam could not do. There is still the requirement hanging over Adam's sons to obey perfectly. Since they cannot, God's grace provided the second Adam to fulfill the stipulations of the covenant He made with the first Adam.

In Christ,

KC

This is the root brother. Adam still needed an alien righteousness, ie Christs. This is Gods plan. So in effect, even if Adam obeyed perfectly, this still would not have merited eternal life for him not the elect posterior.

So When aperson was decalred righteous in the OT. And Christ had not fulfilled the law yet, it was their faith in the promised Messiah, not the Law.


Joseph

 

[Arch2k]

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]

If Adam would have kept the law, everyone would be eternally just in God's sight. The 2nd Adam kept the law (only he does not represent all men, but his elect) and those whom he represents will be justified by that obedience. The righteousness of Christ = His complete obedience to the law, culminating in his obedience to death, even death on the cross.

[Edited on 4-14-2005 by Jeff_Bartel]

 

[The Lamb]

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel

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]

If Adam would have kept the law, everyone would be eternally just in God's sight. The 2nd Adam kept the law (only he does not represent all men, but his elect) and those whom he represents will be justified by that obedience. The righteousness of Christ = His complete obedience to the law, culminating in his obedience to death, even death on the cross.

[Edited on 4-14-2005 by Jeff_Bartel]

Then this would mean that Adam had a salvific Rightoeousness in him. I do not see this in scripture. There is no promise made to Adam in this regard Jeffery.

SO in Romans 5, when it says ONE act. this means more than one? Please explain.

Adam needed the righteousness of Christ in order to advance to any other than an earthly estate. He would not have been able to advance to glory apart from the righteousness of Christ. However, he did have a personal righteousness of his own. Since the fall, we do not have a personal righteousness. We are totally depraved -- i.e. not even a "smidgeon" of righteousness remains for us. So, since the fall, there is no other righteousness available to man. Prior to the fall, there was an earthly, losable, righteousness in Adam.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Why did Jesus tell the rich young ruler that he could inherit life by obeying the law? Was He lying?

 

[The Lamb]

Originally posted by puritansailor
Why did Jesus tell the rich young ruler that he could inherit life by obeying the law? Was He lying?

Where did He say that?

He knew that this man was looking for a way to earn his salvation on his own terms. He may have thought that the teacher would give him a specific task or work to carry out once, and that would confirm to him eternal life. But Jesus gave him something that required him to humble himself and bring his life under the authority of Christ.


Jesus wasn´t implying that salvation can actually be earned by a good deed of helping the poor. he was self-righteous! And like all self-righteous people he had lowered the standard of good to the level of his own imagined attainments.

Jesus' answer was not intended as a plan of salvation but as proof of the young man's condemnation. The law does not save (Romans 3:28), but it does condemn (Romans 3:19). The "law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith" (Galatians 3:24). Jesus was trying to demonstrate to the young man that he stood condemned before the law. His unwillingness to give his money to the poor revealed that he had not even kept the first great commandment to love God more than his money or anything else

one does not "do" anything to get an inheritance of any kind, including eternal life. An "inheritance" is a gift. Indeed, eternal life is presented throughout the Bible as a gift (Romans 6:23; John 3:36; 5:24; 20:31; 1 John 5:13). And one cannot work for a gift. As Paul said, "Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness" (Romans 4:45).



In His Grace


Joseph

 

[seansgame]

Originally posted by The Lamb

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel

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]

If Adam would have kept the law, everyone would be eternally just in God's sight. The 2nd Adam kept the law (only he does not represent all men, but his elect) and those whom he represents will be justified by that obedience. The righteousness of Christ = His complete obedience to the law, culminating in his obedience to death, even death on the cross.

[Edited on 4-14-2005 by Jeff_Bartel]

Then this would mean that Adam had a salvific Rightoeousness in him. I do not see this in scripture. There is no promise made to Adam in this regard Jeffery.

SO in Romans 5, when it says ONE act. this means more than one? Please explain.

Adam needed the righteousness of Christ in order to advance to any other than an earthly estate. He would not have been able to advance to glory apart from the righteousness of Christ. However, he did have a personal righteousness of his own. Since the fall, we do not have a personal righteousness. We are totally depraved -- i.e. not even a "smidgeon" of righteousness remains for us. So, since the fall, there is no other righteousness available to man. Prior to the fall, there was an earthly, losable, righteousness in Adam.

Adam had the opportunity to inherit eternal life of his own accord. This was the promise held out to him in the never-ending seventh day sabbath, which we now enter into in the "already-not yet" eschatological tension of the new covenant, this is explicated in Heb 4:1-11. Here's another way to think of it, if eternal death was the JUST REWARD of Adam's failure, what else could be the JUST REWARD of his faithful obedience but, eternal life. If Adam couldn't REALLY merit eternal life, than Adam didn't REALLY deserve eternal death.

 

[The Lamb]

Adam had the opportunity to inherit eternal life of his own accord. This was the promise held out to him in the never-ending seventh day sabbath, which we now enter into in the "already-not yet" eschatological tension of the new covenant, this is explicated in Heb 4:1-11. Here's another way to think of it, if eternal death was the JUST REWARD of Adam's failure, what else could be the JUST REWARD of his faithful obedience but, eternal life. If Adam couldn't REALLY merit eternal life, than Adam didn't REALLY deserve eternal death.

Sean: I just do not see the promise of to live= eternal life.

I believe scripture points to an alien righteousness even for adam, even if he did obey.

More to come. at work

 

[Arch2k]

Originally posted by The Lamb

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel

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]

If Adam would have kept the law, everyone would be eternally just in God's sight. The 2nd Adam kept the law (only he does not represent all men, but his elect) and those whom he represents will be justified by that obedience. The righteousness of Christ = His complete obedience to the law, culminating in his obedience to death, even death on the cross.

[Edited on 4-14-2005 by Jeff_Bartel]

Then this would mean that Adam had a salvific Rightoeousness in him. I do not see this in scripture. There is no promise made to Adam in this regard Jeffery.

SO in Romans 5, when it says ONE act. this means more than one? Please explain.

Adam needed the righteousness of Christ in order to advance to any other than an earthly estate. He would not have been able to advance to glory apart from the righteousness of Christ. However, he did have a personal righteousness of his own. Since the fall, we do not have a personal righteousness. We are totally depraved -- i.e. not even a "smidgeon" of righteousness remains for us. So, since the fall, there is no other righteousness available to man. Prior to the fall, there was an earthly, losable, righteousness in Adam.

First of all, Adam was created righteous. Did he have a "salvific" righteousness? No. BUT...he didn't need SAVING. The idea of salvation necessitates saving from SOMETHING. Adam didn't need saving, what he needed was to obey the covenant conditions.

If Adam is our representative head in that when he disobeyed, we all are counted as disobeying, would not it follow logically that if he obeyed, we would have been counted as if we obeyed? He was our representatvie head either way. It is inconsistent to say that we get his consequences if he is disobdient, but we don't get his rewards if he IS obedient. In this same regard, Christ (the 2nd Adam) is our representative head.

 

[The Lamb]

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel

Originally posted by The Lamb

Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel

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]

If Adam would have kept the law, everyone would be eternally just in God's sight. The 2nd Adam kept the law (only he does not represent all men, but his elect) and those whom he represents will be justified by that obedience. The righteousness of Christ = His complete obedience to the law, culminating in his obedience to death, even death on the cross.

[Edited on 4-14-2005 by Jeff_Bartel]

Then this would mean that Adam had a salvific Rightoeousness in him. I do not see this in scripture. There is no promise made to Adam in this regard Jeffery.

SO in Romans 5, when it says ONE act. this means more than one? Please explain.

Adam needed the righteousness of Christ in order to advance to any other than an earthly estate. He would not have been able to advance to glory apart from the righteousness of Christ. However, he did have a personal righteousness of his own. Since the fall, we do not have a personal righteousness. We are totally depraved -- i.e. not even a "smidgeon" of righteousness remains for us. So, since the fall, there is no other righteousness available to man. Prior to the fall, there was an earthly, losable, righteousness in Adam.

First of all, Adam was created righteous. Did he have a "salvific" righteousness? No. BUT...he didn't need SAVING. The idea of salvation necessitates saving from SOMETHING. Adam didn't need saving, what he needed was to obey the covenant conditions.

If Adam is our representative head in that when he disobeyed, we all are counted as disobeying, would not it follow logically that if he obeyed, we would have been counted as if we obeyed? He was our representatvie head either way. It is inconsistent to say that we get his consequences if he is disobdient, but we don't get his rewards if he IS obedient. In this same regard, Christ (the 2nd Adam) is our representative head.

Where is it implied he was created righteouss? And if not a slavific righteousness, what kind then?

 

[seansgame]

[Edited on 4-14-2005 by Jeff_Bartel] [/quote]


Then this would mean that Adam had a salvific Rightoeousness in him. I do not see this in scripture. There is no promise made to Adam in this regard Jeffery.

SO in Romans 5, when it says ONE act. this means more than one? Please explain.

Adam needed the righteousness of Christ in order to advance to any other than an earthly estate. He would not have been able to advance to glory apart from the righteousness of Christ. However, he did have a personal righteousness of his own. Since the fall, we do not have a personal righteousness. We are totally depraved -- i.e. not even a "smidgeon" of righteousness remains for us. So, since the fall, there is no other righteousness available to man. Prior to the fall, there was an earthly, losable, righteousness in Adam. [/quote]

First of all, Adam was created righteous. Did he have a "salvific" righteousness? No. BUT...he didn't need SAVING. The idea of salvation necessitates saving from SOMETHING. Adam didn't need saving, what he needed was to obey the covenant conditions.

If Adam is our representative head in that when he disobeyed, we all are counted as disobeying, would not it follow logically that if he obeyed, we would have been counted as if we obeyed? He was our representatvie head either way. It is inconsistent to say that we get his consequences if he is disobdient, but we don't get his rewards if he IS obedient. In this same regard, Christ (the 2nd Adam) is our representative head. [/quote]


Where is it implied he was created righteouss? And if not a slavific righteousness, what kind then? [/quote]

God is righteous, He looked upon what He created and called it good. There is no neutrality with God, positive righteousness is required to stand before God, God made Adam in his own image and declared Adam as good, plus the fact that with God you are either for Him (positive righteousness) or against Him(wickedness), establishes Adam's position of being made "upright" what Adam lacked was immutability as it regarded his standing before God. Adam was on probation in the Garden, if he obeyed he would procure to himself and his progeny, eternal life (sabbath rest) if he failed he would bear the judgment of God (eternal death) for himself and his progeny. Adam EARNED death. He fell fm his upright condition. This is one of the great mysteries of the faith; how did a creature who only knew righteous motivation fall into sin? Well, we know he was disobedient and that Eve was deceived and disobedient, but from whence did the "evil" motivation come? If anyone knows the answer, I'm listening.

[Edited on 4-14-2005 by seansgame]

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by The Lamb
Where is it implied he was created righteouss? And if not a slavific righteousness, what kind then?

Ecc. 7:29 teaches that man was made upright. Adam was created good, after God's own image. He had what the Westminster Standards call "original righteousness." Adam was not created a sinner. He was a good creature who obeyed God without sin. Before Adam sinned he was righteous according to the moral law. The law has always been our standard of righteousness.

This is all elementary to the Reformed Faith Joseph. With this topic and with your earlier arguments for eternal justification, this shows you do not seem to understand that yet. I would encourage you to read the Westminster Standards or even the London Baptist Confession, one of which you agreed to hold to when you joined the Board. After studying those, with their related Scripture references, and then have questions, then bring them forward. We have already dealt with Adam's original state in detail on another thread recently. You could read that one too.

 

[The Lamb]

My point of contention is if Adam did not have any inclination to sin, where did it come from? Did it just magically appear with the snake?

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by The Lamb
My point of contention is if Adam did not have any inclination to sin, where did it come from? Did it just magically appear with the snake?

That is the mystery Scripture never reveals to us. We must leave that secret thing with the Lord. God is sovereign. Man is responsible. Adam was upright. Adam was tempted. Adam freely chose to sin. This is what is revealed. To speculate a defect in Adam makes God the author of sin. To argue God made Adam sin makes God the author of sin. Here we must humbly bow before the Lord and be thankful that even though we don't understand how Adam fell, He has yet given us the Second Adam who did not fall, but inherited the rewards of eternal life, for Himself and for us, by His obedience.

 

[The Lamb]

Originally posted by puritansailor

Originally posted by The Lamb
My point of contention is if Adam did not have any inclination to sin, where did it come from? Did it just magically appear with the snake?

That is the mystery Scripture never reveals to us. We must leave that secret thing with the Lord. God is sovereign. Man is responsible. Adam was upright. Adam was tempted. Adam freely chose to sin. This is what is revealed. To speculate a defect in Adam makes God the author of sin. To argue God made Adam sin makes God the author of sin. Here we must humbly bow before the Lord and be thankful that even though we don't understand how Adam fell, He has yet given us the Second Adam who did not fall, but inherited the rewards of eternal life, for Himself and for us, by His obedience.

Well Patrick, I do not want to leave it as a mystery. And read Deut 29;29!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Joseph

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by The Lamb

Originally posted by puritansailor

Originally posted by The Lamb
My point of contention is if Adam did not have any inclination to sin, where did it come from? Did it just magically appear with the snake?

That is the mystery Scripture never reveals to us. We must leave that secret thing with the Lord. God is sovereign. Man is responsible. Adam was upright. Adam was tempted. Adam freely chose to sin. This is what is revealed. To speculate a defect in Adam makes God the author of sin. To argue God made Adam sin makes God the author of sin. Here we must humbly bow before the Lord and be thankful that even though we don't understand how Adam fell, He has yet given us the Second Adam who did not fall, but inherited the rewards of eternal life, for Himself and for us, by His obedience.

Well Patrick, I do not want to leave it as a mystery. And read Deut 29;29!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Joseph

Joseph, that verse is exactly what I had in mind for you. It simply has not been revealed to us why Adam chose to sin. We must leave it there in God's hands and trust Him.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Originally posted by The Lamb

Originally posted by puritansailor
Why did Jesus tell the rich young ruler that he could inherit life by obeying the law? Was He lying?

Where did He say that?

Sorry I didn't see this post.

Matt. 19
16 Now behold, one came and said to Him, "Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?"
17 So He said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments."

Mark 10
17 Now as He was going out on the road, one came running, knelt before Him, and asked Him, "Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?"
18 So Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.
19 You know the commandments:..."

Luke 18
18Now a certain ruler asked Him, saying, "Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?"
19So Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.
20 You know the commandments:..."

He knew that this man was looking for a way to earn his salvation on his own terms. He may have thought that the teacher would give him a specific task or work to carry out once, and that would confirm to him eternal life. But Jesus gave him something that required him to humble himself and bring his life under the authority of Christ.


Jesus wasn´t implying that salvation can actually be earned by a good deed of helping the poor. he was self-righteous! And like all self-righteous people he had lowered the standard of good to the level of his own imagined attainments.

Jesus' answer was not intended as a plan of salvation but as proof of the young man's condemnation. The law does not save (Romans 3:28), but it does condemn (Romans 3:19). The "law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith" (Galatians 3:24). Jesus was trying to demonstrate to the young man that he stood condemned before the law. His unwillingness to give his money to the poor revealed that he had not even kept the first great commandment to love God more than his money or anything else

one does not "do" anything to get an inheritance of any kind, including eternal life. An "inheritance" is a gift. Indeed, eternal life is presented throughout the Bible as a gift (Romans 6:23; John 3:36; 5:24; 20:31; 1 John 5:13). And one cannot work for a gift. As Paul said, "Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness" (Romans 4:45).

Joseph what you fail to understand is that eternal life is a gift to us because of the obedience of Christ to the law. Jesus is simply answerig the mans question. What can this young man do to inherit life? Jesus tells him to keep the commandments. Obviously, Jesus is using the law to teach him, but teach him of what? That he can't earn eternal life anymore by his own obedience. One sin makes you fall short of the glory of God. He must be counted righteous by another Man's obedience in order to obtain the inheritance.

 

[The Lamb]

Originally posted by puritansailor

Originally posted by The Lamb

Originally posted by puritansailor
Why did Jesus tell the rich young ruler that he could inherit life by obeying the law? Was He lying?

Where did He say that?

Sorry I didn't see this post.

Matt. 19
16 Now behold, one came and said to Him, "Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?"
17 So He said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments."

Mark 10
17 Now as He was going out on the road, one came running, knelt before Him, and asked Him, "Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?"
18 So Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.
19 You know the commandments:..."

Luke 18
18Now a certain ruler asked Him, saying, "Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?"
19So Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.
20 You know the commandments:..."

He knew that this man was looking for a way to earn his salvation on his own terms. He may have thought that the teacher would give him a specific task or work to carry out once, and that would confirm to him eternal life. But Jesus gave him something that required him to humble himself and bring his life under the authority of Christ.


Jesus wasn´t implying that salvation can actually be earned by a good deed of helping the poor. he was self-righteous! And like all self-righteous people he had lowered the standard of good to the level of his own imagined attainments.

Jesus' answer was not intended as a plan of salvation but as proof of the young man's condemnation. The law does not save (Romans 3:28), but it does condemn (Romans 3:19). The "law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith" (Galatians 3:24). Jesus was trying to demonstrate to the young man that he stood condemned before the law. His unwillingness to give his money to the poor revealed that he had not even kept the first great commandment to love God more than his money or anything else

one does not "do" anything to get an inheritance of any kind, including eternal life. An "inheritance" is a gift. Indeed, eternal life is presented throughout the Bible as a gift (Romans 6:23; John 3:36; 5:24; 20:31; 1 John 5:13). And one cannot work for a gift. As Paul said, "Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness" (Romans 4:45).

Joseph what you fail to understand is that eternal life is a gift to us because of the obedience of Christ to the law. Jesus is simply answerig the mans question. What can this young man do to inherit life? Jesus tells him to keep the commandments. Obviously, Jesus is using the law to teach him, but teach him of what? That he can't earn eternal life anymore by his own obedience. One sin makes you fall short of the glory of God. He must be counted righteous by another Man's obedience in order to obtain the inheritance.

Christ pointed out the man missed the mark ie :sin of the First and greatest commandment.

here is a great writing done in regards to things we are talkign about

Is anyone familiar with Stephen Clarke? He wrote it..

{Link to heretical arrogant garbage removed - FTG}


Joseph

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

[Edited on 4/15/2005 by fredtgreco]

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[The Lamb]

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 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..

How does immutability factor in? If adam was sinless, then that includes him with Christ.


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

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.

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.


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

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.






Joseph