 |
|
|
Heaven has a north and a south and an east and a west. Consequently, it must be a planet.
-- Kenneth Copeland, "Spirit, Soul, and a Body 1
|
|
| |
Preterism: Adam and Eve: Christ and the Church
Posted on Sunday, February 22 @ 14:07:42 PST by John |
|
Ed submitted: "In the Garden, Eve was the first to be deceived by the serpent. She sinned, and fell short of the glory of God. Yet, by implication, her sin did not cause mankind’s eyes to be opened, or sin to be imputed to all of humanity. It was not until Adam, the covenant head, sinned that sin was imputed. Eve sinned, but presumably, Adam could have undone it (speaking naturally of course) by telling her, “Woman, what have you done? Put that fruit back, and don’t ever do it again.” However, we knew that was not God’s plan.
Fast forward several centuries to the time of the Messiah. Israel, God’s bride, was in sin, in the same way that Eve was. Christ, the Last Adam, was faced with the same temptation (in the desert with satan) that Adam was faced with. Difference was, Christ did not fail. His righteous act prepared his bride, Israel, for their redemption (being bought back). His sacrifice paid her debt.
But, her redemption was not guaranteed until the Paousia. Paul said, “your redemption draws near”. It was not yet an accomplished fact. She was being prepared. For what though? Well, the imagery presented by Peter (a temple of the Holy Spirit), John (the New Jerusalem), and others would seem to indicate for Israel, a return to the Garden, the Promised Land, the New Jerusalem. It would be from this Garden that Christ, the Last Adam, and His bride, the Last Eve, would send forth their offspring to bless the world.
Just as Adam and Eve’s offspring went into the world full of sin and death, Christ’s offspring would go forth renewed in their relationship with God. The whole earth is to become a garden. That is the imagery of scripture. The growth of the holy place goes from the Holy of holies in Moses’ tabernacle to encompassing the entire city in Revelation. Ezekiel spoke of a river flowing out from his “latter day temple”. David’s psalms speak of a City, whose streams of joy, flow through the city, and out into the world. John’s description of the Holy City includes a tree of life, whose leaves are for the healing of the nations. Its gates are never shut, so that the kings of the land can enter. The message is clear, the whole world, all its families, will be blessed through the coming of the Last Adam, and the redemption of His bride, the True Israel, the Last Eve.
Here most would argue that even I am making their case for them. Christ’s offspring, they claim, are those who “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ”, and are thus saved. But to think so narrowly shows a lack of understanding of what the word adam actualy means. To think thusly shows a misunderstanding of the marriage laws within the old covenant.
Marriage in the old covenant was an adoption process. Women, who were prohibited from sharing in their father’s inheritance, shared in their husband’s inheritance. This was analogous to the fact that Israel, due to her relationship to Adam and his sin, was dead in her trespasses and sins. The old covenant did nothing to change that, it only showed the fact that she was indeed dead. Her inheritance from her father’s house was sin and death. But then came her betrothed, Jesus Christ. He purchased her (paid the bride price), and prepared for the marriage, which took place in AD70 when he returned from heaven to “rapture” his bride.
The bride entered the marriage chamber, the Garden of God (heaven), where she sits with her husband ruling over the nations. That was her inheritance, the nations, as God promised Jesus in Psalm 22. “Ask of me, and I will give you the nations as an inheritance”. But, the question must then be asked:who are these nations? Are they the post-parousia saved? Wouldn’t those folks be a part of the bride? How could the bride be both queen and subject at the same time?
And so we enter the world of comprehensive grace. The nations are exactly who they seem to be. Humanity, whom Christ represented. Just as Adam represented all humanity, and brought only sin and death, now Christ, representing humanity, brings life, healing, promise, and grace. Do all experience those things? Hardly. However, is it available? Of course.
What of our post-mortem experience? Well, I’m not sure, but I will say that our God is infinitely merciful. If Jack Chick can create an entire genre of comic tract showing mankind standing before God, begging for mercy, while God mercilessly sends them to a fiery torment; I can certainly picture an infinitely merciful God, seeing his beloved creation broken and pleading, full of sorrow and pain, and right then and there bring them into wholeness. It is not a stretch for me to visualize these things. It is hard for me to picture the caricature which Chick, as well as men like Jonathon Edwards and Charles Spurgeon, represented: a mean, wrathful, without pity or mercy, supreme being who torments his creation for not doing what He Himself refused to do – LOVE His enemies.
I do not expect many to accept what I say here. I just wanted to set the record straight, since I have been misrepresented time and again. But I ask you this: is it really that hard to envision a god who is merciful and loving beyond anything that we could possibly imagine? If it is, why? Perhaps you should rethink your understanding of God."
|
| |
|
|
Average Score: 3.66
Votes: 3
 |
|
|
^^Go to Top -  E-mail to Friend -  Print -  View PDF -  Subscribe -  Comments RSS
Re: Adam and Eve: Christ and the Church (Score: 1)
 by Paige on Sunday, February 22 @ 14:35:26 PST
(User Info | Send a Message) | Thanks Ed. I enjoyed what you wrote, and I think you ask some valid questions. I certainly got a perspective of the OC marriage ceremony and how that is a type of the marriage between Christ and His church that I didn't previously understand. Very insightful.
Your friend, Paige |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
Re: Adam and Eve: Christ and the Church (Score: 1)
 by davo on Sunday, February 22 @ 21:11:46 PST
(User Info | Send a Message) |
Ed: It is hard for me to picture the caricature which Chick, as well as men like Jonathon Edwards and Charles Spurgeon, represented: a mean, wrathful, without pity or mercy, supreme being who torments his creation for not doing what He Himself refused to do – LOVE His enemies.
Yep Ed, it's that simple.
A typical knee-jerk and somewhat tawdry reaction to the boundless grace of God is more often than not something like:
"So what you're saying is I can go out and live as I like, sin as much as the rest of the world, and it does matter because everyone goes to heaven!?" My response might be: "Well if you like - but if that's what the sum total of knowing God really means to you, then how shallow is your faith?"
It must be asked – is our reason for believing in Christ driven by an underlying motivation [fear] that if we don't believe we're doomed; is it a reflection of a mind-set that says to "stay saved" I must believe right - what bondage.
Or is it truly a case of discovering the freedom of God's grace in finding that even though I don't have to believe – I can.
davo |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
Re: Adam and Eve: Christ and the Church (Score: 1)
by MiddleKnowledge on Sunday, February 22 @ 23:16:54 PST
(User Info | Send a Message) | The obvious problem is that a marriage cannot exist without covenant vows from BOTH parties. If the woman does not promise faithfulness to the husband, there is no covenant marriage or lawful union.
This is why CG violates and perverts every biblical image of salvation in Jesus Christ. CG claims that every individual person (post A.D. 70) is in covenant union with God through Christ. Yet, the Scriptures clearly demonstrate (as does this article) that Christ is the husband. Those who believe are the bride, or wife. The Gentiles were in covenant with Christ before A.D. 70, and yet Paul still warns them repeatedly of the curse for falling from grace. How can that be if CG is true? Even the final image of the New Heavens and New Earth is exclusively pictured for the righteous in Christ, for the wicked remain outside. CG cannot reconcile these textual facts. It attempts merely to paper over them with distorted theological abstractions.
There must be repentance and faith in salvation, not to earn anything, but in order for the marriage between Christ and Bride to be legitimate. Indeed, those who reject the marriage covenant graciously offered in the Covenant of Christ have rejected life and therefore desire and will receive death for their sins. Was Paul writing to Jews under the Mosaic law when he says the "wages of sin are death"? No, he is surely writing to Gentiles who believe in Jesus Christ whose abiding covenant is the reality to which the shadowy Mosaic code pointed.
The law of Moses with it's earthly curses passed away, yet the reality or body to which it pointed - the better covenant of Christ remains forever. The Covenant of Christ has better promises and more fearful curses than in Moses. You cannot have one without the other, lest the typology of Moses is destroyed. CG rightfully recognizes the passing of the Mosaic law, yet misses that the curses of Moses were merely typological of the reality in Christ. In Christ there are better promises as well as graver curses. The blessings of Moses and his covenant were tied to the land and temporary, eg. long life, physical health and earthly prosperity. The blessings of Christ's covenant are tied to the heavenly land and cannot be shaken, eg. eternal life, final health and perpetual prosperity. Likewise death under Moses if a result of human error or false evidence could be reversed in the day of judgment. Death under Christ is everlasting. Beyond the second death there is no appeal for it is ultimate destruction.
Marriage is the covenant background that underpins all the calls for salvation by the Apostles and early church. When the Gentile Jailer asked Paul and Silas, "What must I do to be saved," They did not claim that he was already in a state of grace merely because of Christ's sacrifice, rather they pronounced the Biblical gospel "Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved." The Biblical examples of the necessity of faith and repentance in salvation could be multiplied ad nauseum. CGers are can't see the mountain of biblical examples because they are blinded by a sentimental interpretation of God's love.
Comprehensive grace is a bastardization of the gospel of Jesus Christ. It claims that God in Christ has marital relations with those who have never entered into relation by covenant promise. It declares that God loves every individual in a salvific sense even when there is no reciprocation of love by his partner. Our common life knows of no lawful marriage condition. What that would ammount to is, in fact, a form of rape.
Further, CG seeks to extend grace to every man in a way that perverts God's Justice. In fact, CG actually destroys true grace for if there is no reality of judgment there is nothing to be saved from. Hence, CG nihilism annihilates the true gospel of Jesus Christ.
CG is a cursed doctrine.
Tim Martin
www.truthinliving.org |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by davo on Monday, February 23 @ 04:33:27 PST
- by Seeker on Monday, February 23 @ 05:58:18 PST
- by davo on Monday, February 23 @ 06:39:20 PST
- by Seeker on Monday, February 23 @ 05:59:05 PST
- by Ed on Monday, February 23 @ 07:56:15 PST
Re: Adam and Eve: Christ and the Church (Score: 1)
by large-hammer on Monday, February 23 @ 10:56:20 PST
(User Info | Send a Message) | Side note:
There are many possible ways of looking at the statement that in Adam all die and all will be made alive in Christ.
I was reading through Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica, and he took this statement as referring to the universal physical death in Adam (experienced by all humanity) and the universal/general [physical] resurrection of just and unjust (i.e. all humanity) in Christ.
There might be some problems here, but it's one of many angles that I am exploring. I think we all need to consider every side and possibility (including CG). But...we shouldn't be quick to jump to conclusions, especially to those conclusions that most depart from traditional/historical orthodoxy. Nor, on the other hand, should we so over-regard historical and early teachings as to be ignoble (but we must tread carefully and slowly).
Currently, I am looking into the possibility of a breed of partial-preterism. Yet it is PP not as normally thought. Also, please know that I certainly haven't made up my mind.
In Acts 24 (I think it is), a normal reading of what Paul says suggests that his understanding/teaching concerning the resurrection of the just and unjust was the same as the hope that the Pharisees cherished. Other places (as when Jesus addresses the Saduccees about resurrection) also seem to endorse the Pharisaical doctrine on that issue. If so, full preterism as we know it has a problem to confront. Josephus' Discourse to the Greeks on Hades outlines the Pharisaical doctrine on the resurrection. It appears to conform with the apostolic teaching and with the general teachings of the Eastern and Western Churches. There is no question that it looks forward to a physical resurrection.
Another strong point for me is Clement of Rome, who spoke of a yet-future resurrection. Clement of Rome is about as near to the apostles as you can get. I would be amiss to easily ascribe to him error on this issue, as if he had misunderstood the apostolic teaching.
One possibility (common among Partial Prets) is that a.d. 70 was typological of future judgment.
Previously, I flatly rejected this notion as unworkable, incoherent and arbitrary (in its divisions). Yet the idealistic principles that have popped out from the text lend greater credibility to that possibility. I will now re-examine it and share my findings with everybody once I've done further research. Basically, I will try to consider as many possibilities as come to mind and seek out the strongest arguments on every side. I'm not looking to "prove" anything in advance.
There might be a viable Partial Preterism that acknowledges all eschatological events, in some small taste (or typological sense), as having been accomplished in a.d. 70. There might be a greater sense in which those events are yet to be accomplished.
I already have in mind some passages that might support this idea. Yet...I'll hold off until it's all together.
I never thought that I would once again be on the fence between partial and full preterism. We'll see where this goes. Does anyone know of any full preterists who reverted to partial?
Marcus
|
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by Ed on Monday, February 23 @ 11:38:56 PST
- by large-hammer on Monday, February 23 @ 14:31:43 PST
Re: Adam and Eve: Christ and the Church (Score: 1)
by nate4onenation on Monday, February 23 @ 15:32:59 PST
(User Info | Send a Message) | Here most would argue that even I am making their case for them. Christ’s offspring, they claim, are those who “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ”, and are thus saved. But to think so narrowly shows a lack of understanding of what the word adam actualy means. To think thusly shows a misunderstanding of the marriage laws within the old covenant.
Rom 3:21 But now, apart from law, the righteousness of God has been disclosed, and is attested by the law and the prophets, 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction, 23 since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; 24 they are now justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
Romans 4:23-25
23 Now the words, "it was reckoned to him," were written not for his sake alone, 24 but for ours also. It will be reckoned to us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, 25 who was handed over to death for our trespasses and was raised for our justification.
Rom 10:8 But what does it say? "The word is near you, on your lips and in your heart" (that is, the word of faith that we proclaim); 9 because if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10 For one believes with the heart and so is justified, and one confesses with the mouth and so is saved.
1 Cor 1:20 Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, God decided, through the foolishness of our proclamation, to save those who believe.
Gal 3:22 But the scripture has imprisoned all things under the power of sin, so that what was promised through faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
I havn't even begun!!!
The scripture is so clear that you stand against the very simply stated tennants of salvation.
It should sicken any real believer.
Conditional, covanental!!!!
I didn't say it, God did.
The last verse said it all, Christ took power over it all, but gave the victory, the salvation, to the believers!
God Bless,
Nate |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by large-hammer on Monday, February 23 @ 16:53:14 PST
Re: Adam and Eve: Christ and the Church (Score: 1)
by davo on Monday, February 23 @ 22:05:32 PST
(User Info | Send a Message) |
Nate, just some thoughts on those Scriptures you posted:
Rom 3:21-24 And now apart from law hath the righteousness of God been manifested, testified to by the law and the prophets, and the righteousness of God [is] through the faith of Jesus Christ to all, and upon all those believing, -- for there is no difference, for all did sin, and are come short of the glory of God -- being declared righteous freely by His grace through the redemption that [is] in Christ Jesus,
Notice how YLT follows the Greek - faith of not faith in Jesus Christ [an important distinction], and also the punctuation - "to all, and upon all those believing" - very much similar to "…the Savior of all men, especially those that believe" of 1Tim 4:10.
Rom 4:23-25 And it was not written on his account alone, that it was reckoned to him, but also on ours, to whom it is about to be reckoned -- to us believing on Him who did raise up Jesus our Lord out of the dead, who was delivered up because of our offences, and was raised up because of our being declared righteous.
Notice how YLT follows the Greek in acknowledging the "about to be" [mello]. How "we" apply this to "us" is secondary to how it was primarily fulfilled through/for "them" - audience relevance, if one be consistent.
Rom 10:9-10 But what does it say? "The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart" (that is, the word of faith which we preach): that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes into righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made into salvation.
Righteousness and salvation were conditions "they" were entering, coming "into" [eis] - by faith. They were being saved from the OC into the NC, and quite literally would be "saved" from the Day of wrath – the DoJ, LoF, 2nd Death. In fact, whoever called on the name of the Lord would be saved – vs13. The context is that of the change of covenants. Believing and confessing Christ today brings one into the fullness of reconciliation-redemption i.e., salvation.
1Cor 1:20-21 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this age? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.
And from what were "those who believe" being saved from? "this age" of the terminal generation, of "this world" - what world? the world of the OC.
Gal 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
Notice again the correct Greek rendering: faith of not faith in Jesus Christ, an important distinction as it shows on who's account the real "work" of faith was - Christ's. And because of this believers received the "promise" [epangelia], or Liddell & Scott shows the "assurance" - assurance of what? salvation, a transformed life i.e., eternal life, something to be attained in this life.
davo |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by nate4onenation on Tuesday, February 24 @ 09:05:52 PST
- by davo on Wednesday, February 25 @ 05:00:31 PST
- by nate4onenation on Wednesday, February 25 @ 07:34:37 PST
- by davo on Wednesday, February 25 @ 21:03:58 PST
Re: Adam and Eve: Christ and the Church (Score: 1)
by nate4onenation on Tuesday, February 24 @ 09:14:45 PST
(User Info | Send a Message) | Basically, the crux of the argument that CG misses is that Paul is dispelling 2 missunderstandings. The first:
1. That the Gentile is in no need of faith because he was never under that law.
2. That Jews are the only ones applicable to be saved.
These were, in depth, shown by Paul to be incorrect. Jew and Gentile need salvation, and faith, to be saved. And that through Grace, by the faith of Christ, those that believe, both Jew and Gentile, WHO BELIEVED, would be saved.
God Bless,
Nate |
[ To reply to this, please login or register ]
- by davo on Wednesday, February 25 @ 04:37:59 PST
- by nate4onenation on Wednesday, February 25 @ 07:56:10 PST
- by davo on Wednesday, February 25 @ 21:03:08 PST
| 
|
