Nature and the fall of man

They had the promise of the Redeemer/Messiah who would some day come, from all the way back in Eden, and those who believed the promise were certainly saved. Job, who is supposed to have lived at the time of Abraham, but outside the Abrahamic Covenant, recognized that his Redeemer "lives" amd would "one day stand upon the earth," indicating that the memory of the promise from Eden was still strong in people's minds. Abraham and his descendants certainly believed the promise of the Messiah to come (he is foreshadowed in the substitution of the ram for the sacrifice of Isaac for instance). Trusting God, obeying God (they all performed animal sacrifices), loving God, believing His promises, however shadowily understood, saved people both in and outside the Abrahamic Covenant, even the Noachic Covenant. This is exemplified in all the holy men of the Bible. The coming of the Messiah made it all a perfect reality, which before had been "types and shadows," and now our belief must be specific to Him.I'm sure all this is in the Westminster Catechism. I guess I need to study it.{Oh, and Jesus Himself preached to all the spirits of the dead too, so they had a direct opportunity to believe. I suppose that included the Buddha and other great sages outside Biblical tradition. It will be fascinating to see who accepted the preaching and who didn't)This message has been edited by Faith, 01-04-2006 12:22 AMThis message has been edited by Faith, 01-04-2006 12:24 AM

Don't think that's true. Adam and Eve were perfect creatures, and perfectly innocent. The CAPACITY to fall is simply their free will to choose against God, as the majority of the human race has done ever since. You wouldn't consider the inability to choose against God perfection would you? So their free will is definitely perfection even though their exercising it against God brings awful consequences.This message has been edited by Faith, 01-04-2006 12:48 AM

Faith,Have you a succinct statement, yours, or from a source you approve of that defines this choice? What you, or fundamentalist Christians mean by choosing for or against God?I think this may be a key issue in understanding why it appears to me anyway that most Christians deny the validity of other religions, for example Hinduism, but it could be other religions, whose adherents believe in God and are devout but have different sacred texts or traditions.It may not be possible to provide a brief statement but I thought maybe there is.Thank you,lfen

I've been reading through the Westminster Catechism for its statements on some of the questions that have been coming up tonight, and found these in answer to your question

quote:

---

Question 33
Was the covenant of grace always administered after one and the same manner?
Answer 33
The covenant of grace was not always administered after the same manner, but the administrations of it under the Old Testament were different from those under the New.

​

Question 34
How was the covenant of grace administered under the Old Testament?
Answer 34
The covenant of grace was administered under the Old Testament, by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the passover, and other types and ordinances, which did all foresignify Christ then to come, and were for that time sufficient to build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they then had full remission of sin, and eternal salvation.

​

Question 35
How is the covenant of grace administered under the New Testament?
Answer 35
Under the New Testament, when Christ the substance was exhibited, the same covenant of grace was and still is to be administered in the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper; in which grace and salvation are held forth in more fulness, evidence, and efficacy, to all nations.

---

The main answer to why this is so is that God has revealed Himself in one particular way to humanity, through the fathers and prophets of Israel recorded in the Bible, and in no other way. The Bible IS the revelation of God. He has explained His will there, His law, His plan, His nature, to the extent He decided appropriate, and among His revelations is the fact that all other religion is man-made and some directly Satan-inspired. All this is a consequence of the victory of Satan in seducing our first parents away from God and the loss of spiritual connection to God ever since. So, all attempts to reach God are corrupted, starting with Cain's unworthy offering, through the tower of Babel, through the idol-worshipers and human sacrificers, on down to the imitators of monotheism. Many tribal religions are direct demon-worship or demon placation. Only what God Himself has revealed is valid and safe.Did Gautama Buddha receive the gospel of Christ when it was preached to him by Christ Himself in the place of the dead? Lao Tzu? Zoroaster? Socrates? Plato? Unknown followers of theirs? I'd like to think so but I won't know until Judgment Day. But since Christ, wherever Christ is known, all other religions are directly against Christ.This message has been edited by Faith, 01-04-2006 04:56 PM

This sounds like the covenant of grace was administered to the Jews. What about the Gentiles?

You are failing to take into the account that most Christians that subscribe to the concept of "The FALL', and the DOctrine of Original sin view God as 'Omnicient and onimpotent"Claiming those characteristics from god leaves a logical conumdrum that is ignored by those people who claim that.God COULD have created man with the capcity of falling, but did not. Remember, with the supposed characteristics of 'all knowing' and 'all powerful', he supposedly knows the shape of the pot before the clay is even thrown. Surely, he would know how to make the pot so it didn't shatter.

Good question. I'm surprised the WC doesn't discuss post-Flood Gentiles like Job or the pre-Flood patriarchs who obviously served God. I don't know more than what I said in my first post to you on this. They lived righteous lives, performed sacrifices and expected the Messiah, though they didn't have the other ordinances God gave the Israelites. Whether this can be called in any sense a version of The Covenant of Grace I don't know. Maybe another dispensation altogether.

I think that free will does imply ultimate disobedience. Anything else would be the automaton.

In which case, God KNEW that there would be ultimate disobediance, and did it on purpose.That brings up a whole different set of issues about 'the fall of man', and the doctrine of original sin.

It's a good thing that God is omni-everything or he might be limited by the logic shown here.You imply that God can make someone have free will but can't think of any way to convince that person to remain obedient. I guess He couldn't convince some of the angels either since they saw Him in his glory and decided that they would rather commit a form of suicide.Hmmm, maybe not so omni....

I already gave you my view of this. God determined that it was worth it.This message has been edited by Faith, 01-04-2006 12:40 PM

It seems to me that God had to find an absolutely perfect balance between drawing a free-willed man to obey him and allowing a free-willed man to disobey him. And the scene had to be perfectly tuned in order for free-will to be the very free-est of wills. Anything shy of perfect balance means that God would have stacked the deck.Imagine it as a perfectly pointed cone, balanced on it's point on a perfect knife edge. And once balanced and in equilibrium there would be nothing to move it - all the forces equally effective: Gods command vs Satans temptation.And only something within the cone that is able to shift the centre of gravity on way or the other.That God knew what would happen in no way influences the result. The cone is given the ability to shift as it wants. God just set it up that way.

Not forever. Something in the nature of free will I think. But ultimately we will all remain obedient forever. I can hardly wait. Fighting the flesh and the devil is hard work and I lose the battle all the time and have to start over again.I think I've answered all this already though, and I see IanO has done a good job on it as well. I guess you won't be persuaded or some others here nevertheless.This message has been edited by Faith, 01-04-2006 03:33 PM

Ok.. if that is what you think. I personally think that particular chain of logic leaves a lot to be desired.. and the implications about what it would mean if true are being totally ignored.But, I don't accept the premise about the 'Doctrine of original sin' and 'the fall' anyway.