The Gospel in Genesis

[Carbon]

Carbon, you're drifting away from the context of Gen 3;15. What we have going in that particular text is that God sovereignly decreed enmity between Eve and the Serpent. That's the locus of the passage. The text, therefore, implies that God reconciled (removed the enmity) between Eve and himself. The devil became Eve's enemy and God became her friend. It's not logically possible, as moral creatures made in the image of God, to hate God and the Devil at the same time and in the same sense,. or to serve God and the Devil. That would violate the Law of Non-Contradiction. The biblical principle that is operative here is what Jesus taught Mat 6:24. No one can serve two masters; however everyone has ONE of these masters. We either essentially and substantially love and serve God...OR we essentially and substantially love and serve something else! If not "mammon"then it would very likely be ourselves. Anyhow...this is operative principle here. By God reconciling Eve to himself, he removed the enmity that she created between herself and her Creator when she sinned.

Secondly, Unconditional Election is also implicit in the Genesis passage because God, evidently, left Adam in his state of spiritual death. Where is Adam in Gen 3:15? He's nowhere to be found. God could have easily told the serpent that he placed enmity between him and both our parents. But the text doesn't say that, does it?

In fact, it gets much worse for Adam because Gen 3:15 is so anti-cultural to what the ancient world believed about descendants. When talking about "seed" the ancients would have always thought in terms of the male's seed, and rightfully so. It was the male's seed (sperm) that always fertilized a woman's egg. Yet, God goes diametrically against the culture and talks instead about the "woman's seed". Apparently, by God reconciling Eve to himself, he made her godly. The woman, who is later called the "mother of all the living" (Gen 3:20), would have godly seed descend from her...NOT Adam! In fact, I'll ask you: Who is the [human] father of all "the living"? Your answer will make things even worse for Adam!

Are you sorry, yet, that you invited me over here?

Nope. Ill have you straightened out in no time.

 

[makesends]

I'd take a wild guess and say the fact God clothed them (Genesis 3:21) after the fall was showing Him covering their sin, and a sacrifice. Nothing in the text implies Adam was left in a state of spiritual death.

I couldn't say that God clothing them in tanned hides implies he saved them before the end of the account, but there is certainly nothing to show that Adam was never regenerated and redeemed, nor permanently unredeemable.

 

[makesends]

No problem, I see it as God showing a covering for their sin, but could be wrong. But there are many commentators who see it this way, i.e. John Gill, Albert Barnes &c.

I see that too, in symbolic fashion (no, I didn't mean to pun), but not meaning that at that point that God saved them from their sins.

 

[Rufus]

Nope. Ill have you straightened out in no time.

Nah...I'm incorrigible.

 

[Rufus]

ditto

NO, in this passage alone with no other guidance I don't see how almost anyone could see the gospel. Now, with the coming of the New Testament and looking back there may be a glimmer of understanding which is enhanced by the theological narrative ... gee, people believe man can become women so believing this is the salvific gospel is easy.

Yes, I am aware it is the "protevangelium"; the first announcement of the gospel. This is the first prophecy about the Messiah (Christ), who through His death on the cross and resurrection would ultimately defeat Satan, the power behind the serpent, with a death blow. AMP
That being said, it is highly analogical and all analogies are subject to various interpretation. I've heard this interpretation enough times to bias me so as to think it is the gospel and admit it could fit.
Aside: ... but it definitely could be made more clear, though I definitely don't ultimately question the Author if the salvific gospel was His intention for, what do I know ... smile.

Aside2: @Carbon asks so many deep questions ... makes this place interesting... thx Carbon

And this means all is well; for this is what God intended in the grand scheme of progressive revelation. The NT is concealed in the OT, whereas the OT is revealed in the NT. In a sense all scripture (especially the gospel) is a "parable" -- a mystery that God hides from the wise, yet reveals to the humble (Mat 13: 13-17.

 

[fastfredy0]

And this means all is well; for this is what God intended in the grand scheme of progressive revelation. The NT is concealed in the OT, whereas the OT is revealed in the NT. In a sense all scripture (especially the gospel) is a "parable" -- a mystery that God hides from the wise, yet reveals to the humble (Mat 13: 13-17.

True enough ... .we need a Newer New Testament now to continue the "grand scheme of progressive revelation".

 

[Rufus]

True enough ... .we need a Newer New Testament now to continue the "grand scheme of progressive revelation".

I don't understand. Are you saying we need more revelation or better translations of what have or what?

 

[fastfredy0]

I don't understand. Are you saying we need more revelation or better translations of what have or what?

I'm all for God revealing more of Himself. For example, I assume when Christ comes we will learn a lot more.

The Image of God in man is knowledge of God; more knowledge leads to an improvement in the image.

Aside: Not that I am expecting new revelation in the near future.

 

[Rufus]

Well...on this side of the grave (or the Parousia, which ever comes first), I'm afraid we have to settle for the 66 books of the canon. Perhaps this is the reason we are so often commanded to study and meditate on the scriptures so that we can grow in grace and knowledge. We can now only "know in part" -- but in our eternal state that will change.

 

[makesends]

Well...on this side of the grave (or the Parousia, which ever comes first), I'm afraid we have to settle for the 66 books of the canon. Perhaps this is the reason we are so often commanded to study and meditate on the scriptures so that we can grow in grace and knowledge. We can now only "know in part" -- but in our eternal state that will change.

Do you suppose the Word of God will become irrelevant in Heaven? Outdated?

 

[makesends]

And this means all is well; for this is what God intended in the grand scheme of progressive revelation. The NT is concealed in the OT, whereas the OT is revealed in the NT. In a sense all scripture (especially the gospel) is a "parable" -- a mystery that God hides from the wise, yet reveals to the humble (Mat 13: 13-17.

You still haven't answered the question. WHY did you say,
Rufus said:
Since we're moral creatures created in God's image, it's impossible for us to be enemies of Good (God) and Evil (Satan) at the same time in the same sense

And do you admit to speculation based on a line of logic, or should it be doctrine that Adam was condemned but Eve was redeemed, as you claimed (my paraphrase).

 

[makesends]

I see that too, in symbolic fashion (no, I didn't mean to pun), but not meaning that at that point that God saved them from their sins.

My daughter asks me if Symbolic Fashion is like the Emperor's New Clothes...

 

[Rufus]

Do you suppose the Word of God will become irrelevant in Heaven? Outdated?

How can that be? The Word of God is eternal (Ps 119:89; Mk 13:31).

 

[Rufus]

You still haven't answered the question. WHY did you say,
Rufus said:
Since we're moral creatures created in God's image, it's impossible for us to be enemies of Good (God) and Evil (Satan) at the same time in the same sense

And do you admit to speculation based on a line of logic, or should it be doctrine that Adam was condemned but Eve was redeemed, as you claimed (my paraphrase).

I said what I said for two reasons: If some moral image-bearer of God hates both good and evil, he'd be hating contradictory things; thereby violating a law of logic known as the Law of Non-Contradiction. (And, yes, God gave us the laws of logic! We did not invent those laws; we discovered them.)

Secondly, it would violate the principle taught in Mat 6:24. The universal principle is this: We either love and serve our Creator....OR we love and serve an idol, which could be any number of things. We can never do both, however! As moral creatures, it would be impossible. We either love the Light (righteousness) or we love the darkness (evil).

Therefore, since God sovereignly placed enmity between Eve and the Serpent, this can only logically and biblically imply that he removed the enmity that she created between herself and her Creator when she sinned. But, again, I ask: Was Adam included in that decree!?

And, no, I do not admit to speculation based on a "line of logic". However, if any premise or conclusion violates any God-given law of logic, that's enough right there to give me pause, since God is not the author of confusion, nor should we be.

Now...I fully understand that one of the "sacred cows" (albeit often unspoken) of the Christian Faith (as in the objective Christian faith) is that God saved both our first parents. This is about as sacred as what numerous Christians believe about the nature of God's love, which they believe is unconditional. So, I get it that I'm treading a bit on pretty sacred ground here. However, I have studied this matter out in quite some depth several years ago...actually out of necessity due to defending the doctrines of grace in a debate I was having at the time. So, I did a study and came up with about a 12-point argument whereby due to the sheer preponderance of evidence that I had amassed, I could only reasonably and logically conclude that God redeemed Eve, but passed over Adam. Therefore, we have a picture of Unconditional Election in the Garden immediately after the Fall. If you or anyone else here is interested in seeing that lengthy argument, I will dig through my [digital] "stack of stuff", as the late great Rush Limbaugh often said <g>, and post it here.

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
You still haven't answered the question. WHY did you say,
Rufus said:
"Since we're moral creatures created in God's image, it's impossible for us to be enemies of Good (God) and Evil (Satan) at the same time in the same sense"

I said what I said for two reasons: If some moral image-bearer of God hates both good and evil, he'd be hating contradictory things; thereby violating a law of logic known as the Law of Non-Contradiction. (And, yes, God gave us the laws of logic! We did not invent those laws; we discovered them.)

Secondly, it would violate the principle taught in Mat 6:24. The universal principle is this: We either love and serve our Creator....OR we love and serve an idol, which could be any number of things. We can never do both, however! As moral creatures, it would be impossible. We either love the Light (righteousness) or we love the darkness (evil).

I wasn't asking for proof. What I was asking for was WHY you said it. —I.e. how does that fit into your overall argument?

makesends said:
And do you admit to speculation based on a line of logic, or should it be doctrine that Adam was condemned but Eve was redeemed, as you claimed (my paraphrase).

Therefore, since God sovereignly placed enmity between Eve and the Serpent, this can only logically and biblically imply that he removed the enmity that she created between herself and her Creator when she sinned. But, again, I ask: Was Adam included in that decree!?

And, no, I do not admit to speculation based on a "line of logic". However, if any premise or conclusion violates any God-given law of logic, that's enough right there to give me pause, since God is not the author of confusion, nor should we be.

Now...I fully understand that one of the "sacred cows" (albeit often unspoken) of the Christian Faith (as in the objective Christian faith) is that God saved both our first parents. This is about as sacred as what numerous Christians believe about the nature of God's love, which they believe is unconditional. So, I get it that I'm treading a bit on pretty sacred ground here. However, I have studied this matter out in quite some depth several years ago...actually out of necessity due to defending the doctrines of grace in a debate I was having at the time. So, I did a study and came up with about a 12-point argument whereby due to the sheer preponderance of evidence that I had amassed, I could only reasonably and logically conclude that God redeemed Eve, but passed over Adam. Therefore, we have a picture of Unconditional Election in the Garden immediately after the Fall. If you or anyone else here is interested in seeing that lengthy argument, I will dig through my [digital] "stack of stuff", as the late great Rush Limbaugh often said <g>, and post it here.

Let me try to give you an example of how your mind seems (to me) to work in forming your arguments. (And, again, I'm not saying this to debate whether or not your argument is true —I'm saying this in order to show that your reasoning is unreliable.) You say, "since God....placed enmity between Eve and the Serpent, this can only logically....imply that he removed the enmity that she.....between herself and her Creator when she sinned." That she became an enemy of God, I don't dispute. But you make a logical leap in assuming that the enmity between her and the serpent was by act of God necessarily placing her at spiritual (moral and responsible) enmity with Satan, and more, that she was not also a slave to sin as Adam was. It does not say, after all, that Adam loved Satan. In fact, as we know, Satan is the enemy of humanity, though they ignore the fact that they are his slaves. But that even assumes the serpent was Satan himself, which has not been proven— sacred cow, though it be.

The Bible tells us who Eve's seed is. Who is the Serpent's seed?

This is typical of your arguments. You get rolling on a notion and fail to be skeptical of yourself. You take yourself way too seriously. I'm beginning to wonder how much of a sense of humor you have. Have you not found yourself wrong before, when you had been very sure that what you thought had been right?

One of my relatives has a mental attitude that makes me think he believes himself to be right merely upon the evidence that he is speaking! He can change opinions in mid-paragraph without losing any vehemence.

 

[Rufus]

But you make a logical leap in assuming that the enmity between her and the serpent was by act of God necessarily placing her at spiritual (moral and responsible) enmity with Satan, and more, that she was not also a slave to sin as Adam was.

 

[fastfredy0]

One of my relatives has a mental attitude that makes me think he believes himself to be right merely upon the evidence that he is speaking!

Sorry, but I thought that was a "great line". *LOL* ... gave me a chuckle.

... hmmm, guess that could be said of GOD... He is right because He is speaking.

 

[Rufus]

Sorry but I cannot understand what you're trying to say above. Your sentence doesn't flow smoothly. Also, my argument had nothing to do with her sin nature per se (i.e. that she became a slave to sin). My argument has to do with God's sovereign decree and its ramifications. Everyone in this world loves and serves ONE of two masters: Either God or "mammon" (i.e. any other idol in our heart). The operative phrase in Mat 6:24 is no one can. Therefore, since God placed enmity between Eve and her chosen master (the serpent) who deceived her, this logically and biblically implies that He simultaneously removed the enmity that Eve placed between Him and herself when she sinned. "How so", you ask? Because, again, everyone chooses to love and serve either God or something else. While Eve freely chose to serve the Serpent by trusting him, the text implies that God, on the other hand, being rich in mercy and compassion and kindness graciously chose to remove the enmity that was between the woman and himself, thereby reconciling Eve to himself; for it would not have been possible for Eve to love and serve some other master. And this is so because Eve is a moral image-bearer of God. Only if Eve had been an amoral creature, would she have had another option. In fact, another Law of Logic applies here, called the Law of the Excluded Middle. And this law applies due to what Jesus taught in Mat 6:24. All of God's moral image-bearers love and serve ONE of TWO Masters. Not one of three or four or five. Therefore, there is no third option -- it's excluded! Eve, as a moral image-bearer, could not be enemies with God and the serpent -- because who else would she love and serve? Don't you know that there are only two kinds of people in this world: The children of God and the the seed of the devil (Jn 8:44; Mat 13:38; Act 13:10; 1Jn 3:8-10)?

I can explain this to you, sir, but one thing if for certain: I cannot make you understand it. That's way above my pay grade. This is why God in this New Covenant dispensation has graciously given to his people The Helper and other means of grace, as well.

 

[makesends]

makesends said:
Do you suppose the Word of God will become irrelevant in Heaven? Outdated?

How can that be? The Word of God is eternal (Ps 119:89; Mk 13:31).

Well, you said "...on this side of the grave (or the Parousia, which ever comes first), I'm afraid we have to settle for the 66 books of the canon. Perhaps this is the reason we are so often commanded to study and meditate on the scriptures so that we can grow in grace and knowledge. We can now only "know in part" -- but in our eternal state that will change." (My emphasis Mks)

Sounds like you are saying the Bible will no longer be used or needed.

 

[makesends]

Sorry, but I thought that was a "great line". *LOL* ... gave me a chuckle.

... hmmm, guess that could be said of GOD... He is right because He is speaking.

Ha! Yes, but my relative is not God.