glorydaz
Well-known member
Nang, is this your husband talking? Surely that's a stuffed shirt I see flapping in the breeze.
ECT Understand the Fall of Adam according to Covenant
- Thread starter Nang
- Start date
Nang, is this your husband talking? Surely that's a stuffed shirt I see flapping in the breeze.
Eagles Wings
New member
My dear, most of Christendom agrees with the biblically sound theology, Nang, brings to this topic.
If those of this forum don't agree, it does not negate that she is teaching historic, Christian doctrine.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
:idea:
Parrot fashion dogma that requires no comprehension. Like elastic it stretches to fit any verse of scripture and will be accepted by the goats as they'll eat any rubbish.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Actually, the skins in the garden have nothing to do with the doctrine of original sin. It's a side bar...a distraction.
But, it's making the point of how people make up facts as they go along. You do that enough, and it becomes like the "whisper game". This one add this and that one adds that, and then you all high five each other. That's pathetic.
If people were forced to stick strictly to what the Bible actually says, instead of what other people have passed down to you, you'd be stuck up the creek without a paddle. I doubt you know how to think for yourselves, or search the scriptures for yourselves. You're like parrots....squawking out what you've heard.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Bah . .
You cannot argue against the Truth I post, but only object to my gender.
Without any consideration that I have a Godly Christian husband that oversees my witness.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Please don't exaggerate. It's simply not true that most of Christendom agrees with Nang's doctrine. If they do, it's the wide road for sure.
glorydaz
Well-known member
He didn't mention your gender, and you'd best send your overseer in for some more lessons.
dodge
New member
Just because you refuse what is in front of your nose and supported by scripture does not make the scripture UN-true it just means you reject the truth.
Nothing was made up everything I said is supported by and in scripture, but it does not fit the agenda to discredit the scripture to support the lie.
I laid out God's offering for Adam and Eve of animal skins teaching Adam and Eve who taught their children , which God rejected Cain's bloodless offering that he offered God as opposed to Able who slew and prepared a lamb as an offering which God accepted, and yet you cannot see the truth. Looks like the lie won you refuse to allow scripture to teach scripture.
Last edited:
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Believe me, Truster does not approve of females posting scriptural truths.
glorydaz
Well-known member
I'll be...you just keep proving yourself to be a fool....vain in your imaginings.
I wouldn't want to burst your bubble, but you aren't fit to be a teacher.:baby:
glorydaz
Well-known member
Sowing discord, are you?
Nang
TOL Subscriber
glorydaz
Well-known member
:blabla: :blabla: :blabla:
glorydaz
Well-known member
Oh, you weren't trying to sow discord when you made those claims about Truster? You're a hoot, Nang.
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Adam's Ultimate State of Salvation
Adam's Ultimate State of Salvation
AMR
Adam's Ultimate State of Salvation
I have seen persuasive argument that assumes what Eve knew about the promises of the covenant were taught to her by Adam.
AMR
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Adam's Ultimate State of Salvation
Adam's Ultimate State of Salvation
In any event, I only offered up the quote in evidence that there are some arguments that can be made about Adam's state of salvation. You obviously disagree with the conclusion. If you do not, one wonder's what motivated the tenor of your responses. That is ok with me. The matter was settled for me by Adam and Eve's naming of Seth and by Luke 3:38.
AMR
Adam's Ultimate State of Salvation
From the strident tone taken in response to a quote from a Brakel, I take it you disagree that Adam could have been among the elect. Have you read a Brakel's CRS? Your objections tend to imply the man was confused about covenantalism. He was not. The one small quote I provided should send one to the full work before forming conclusions from a small quote.
In any event, I only offered up the quote in evidence that there are some arguments that can be made about Adam's state of salvation. You obviously disagree with the conclusion. If you do not, one wonder's what motivated the tenor of your responses. That is ok with me. The matter was settled for me by Adam and Eve's naming of Seth and by Luke 3:38.
AMR
@MAD THEOLOGY
The necessity of blood was a lesson soon learned by the sons of the first human couple. The time came for both Abel and Cain to bring their sacrifices before God (Gen. 4:3-16). Cain offered for sacrifice the fruit of his labors in the field. The offering was vegetable, and it was bloodless. Abel brought a blood-offering taken from his flock. When God passed judgment on the two types of offerings, that of Cain was rejected, and that of Abel was accepted. So a lesson was taught: One cannot approach God by whatever means one chooses. It is man who sinned and offended the holy God; it is God who must do the forgiving. Therefore, it is not for man to choose the means of forgiveness, but for God, and God has chosen the means to be blood. Cain had chosen to approach God in his own way, but he was rejected. Abel chose the way God demanded, and his sacrifice was accepted.
As biblical history develops in the Book of Genesis, we find that all the ones with whom God was pleased came to Him by means of blood. Noah immediately offered up blood sacrifices when he left the ark. He was followed by other great men in Jewish history: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, all of whom were careful to approach God by means of blood. When Moses received the Law at Mount Sinai, the redemptive element of blood ran throughout the entire Law with its 613 commandments.
A great summary statement for the entire Law is found in The Third Book of Moses, Leviticus 17:11: For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that makes atonement by reason of the life. It can easily be said that all of the Law revolves around this one statement. There were commandments which God gave in the Law that were to be obeyed. Disobedience was sin. If disobedience did take place, the means of atonement for the sin was blood. The Book of Leviticus opens by giving great detail to the different types of blood-sacrifices. All of these different sacrifices had the same purpose: that the Jew might be rightly related to God.
All seven feasts of Israel: Passover, Unleavened Bread, Firstfruits, Pentecost, Trumpets, Day of Atonement, and Tabernacles required the shedding of blood. The Yom Kippur or Day of Atonement ceremony was greatly detailed in Leviticus 16, where careful instructions are given for the shedding of blood to atone for the sins of the Jewish nation. The Tabernacle and the Temple both were built to expedite and to make efficient the required shedding of blood for the atonement of the people's sins. The Holy of Holies that contained the Shechinah Glory, the visible manifestation of the presence of God, could be entered only once a year by only one man, the high priest. In order for him to enter, he had to have the blood of the Yom Kippur sacrifice with him, and this blood had to be sprinkled on the Ark of the Covenant, which contained the tablets of the Law itself.
This is detailed in Leviticus 16:15-17: Then shall he kill the goat of the sin-offering, that is for the people, and bring his blood within the veil, and do with his blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the mercy-seat, and before the mercy-seat: and he shall make atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleannesses of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions, even all their sins: and so shall he do for the tent of meeting, that dwells with them in the midst of their uncleannesses. And there shall be no man in the tent of meeting when he goes in to make atonement in the holy place, until he come out, and have made atonement for himself, and for his household, and for all the assembly of Israel. And so the principle stood throughout the remainder of Old Testament history . But it was a burden to the individual. These blood-sacrifices had to be repeated year in and year out and they had to be done in the Temple at Jerusalem. For the Jews living elsewhere in the country , miles from Jerusalem, it was a burden to come every year to offer their sacrifices to the Lord for the atonement of their sins. Only the faithful few , those whom the prophets referred to as the Remnant, loved God and His Law enough to do so in spite of the burden it created.
Others built their own altars on mountains and hills closer to home and offered their sacrifices there. But no atonement was granted at these rival altars, and the prophets of God railed against these practices and condemned this deviation from the Law of God. Many had failed to learn the lesson of Cain: that one cannot come to God for forgiveness in any way one may choose, but one must come in the way God Himself has chosen.
It was Isaiah the Prophet who first provided the hope that the day would come when the yearly burden would be lifted. In Isaiah 53, God declared that the Suffering Servant, the Messiah, would be the sacrifice for sin.
In Isaiah 53:10-11 we read: Yet it pleased Jehovah to bruise him; he has put him to grief: when you shall make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of Jehovah shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by the knowledge of himself shall my righteous servant justify many; and he shall bear their iniquities. The point of Isaiah 53 is basically this: the animal sacrifices under the Mosaic Law were intended to be of temporary duration, a temporary measure only. God's intent was for there to be one final blood-sacrifice and that would be the sacrifice of the Messiah Himself.
That is why Isaiah 53 uses the same type of wording, figures and emphasis found in the Book of Leviticus. For example, in verse 10b we have the expression: you shall make his soul an offering for sin.
This is a sacrificial concept; these are words that come out of the Mosaic Law itself.
And in verse 11b we read: by the knowledge of himself shall my righteous servant justify many; and he shall bear their iniquities. Not only are these words of sacrifice used generally in the Old Testament Law, but more specifically , we read of these very terms in Leviticus 16, which is the chapter that expounds and explains all the details regarding the Yom Kippur or Day of Atonement sacrifice.
This, then, was the reason why Messiah had to die: to provide the blood-sacrifice for sin once and for all. No longer would the Jews be burdened with the yearly sacrifices. All a person would need to do is accept the Messiah's death on his behalf and his sins are forgiven. Messiah had to die in order to provide that atonement, for blood is the means of redemption.
Another key issue is found in these two verses from Isaiah 53. There is a statement here that is somewhat confusing. Verse 11b reads: by the knowledge of himself shall my righteous servant justify many. A more literal translation from the Hebrew text would read like this: “the knowledge of him shall my righteous justify many.”
The word for knowledge is a Hebrew word that emphasizes experiential knowledge, not mere head knowledge. This is a knowledge of the heart or a knowledge of faith. Those who have a faith-knowledge of this Servant, by “the knowledge of him,” that He died for our sins, not by the knowledge of himself, He will, as a result, justify us. Justification means, “to be declared righteous.” We cannot be declared righteous unless our sins have been atoned for. Our sins can only be atoned for by the shedding of blood; the Messiah's blood would be the final blood that would be sacrificed.
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Adam's Ultimate State of Salvation
Adam's Ultimate State of Salvation
The item Ktoyou refers to as having deep theological thoughts was a quote from a Brakel. In fact in that post I only wrote the opening sentence; the remainder is all of a Brakel. I am not sure why you then make the leap above about the level of my theological depths or my reverence from what Ktoyou observed. Why take such a tone?
As I noted in the post in question, I find a Brakel's argument persuasive. Adam taught Abel (and Cain) the proper way to bring sacrifice to God. Adam understood what the type and shadow animal sacrifice meant, and was saved by that faith. The naming of their son, Seth, was clear enough evidence for me that they understood the proto evangel promise of Gen. 3:15. Please do not counter this with the naming being all of Eve's doing alone. The marriage between Adam and Eve was about as ideal to what Scripture describes concerning marital roles and responsibilities as it could be. Eve most certainly did not simply unilaterally name her children and the passages in question do not lend support to such a notion.
There was nothing salvific in God's covering of Adam and Eve with the skins of an animal. There was nothing in that action by God that meant their sin was forgiven, temporarily or permanently. To argue sin is being forgiven here, then one must at least assume Adam and Eve were regenerated sometime between Genesis 3:15 and Genesis 3:21.
I do believe Adam and Eve were born again, but I do not know when that happened. Even if they were born again at the time of Gen. 3:21, I do not see the covering of Adam and Eve with garments of skin as some sort of official action of forgiveness.
Adam and Eve were naked, covering themselves with leaves, and the environment around them was about to radically change. Our most wise God knew that garments of animal skins were far better clothing than leaves from a tree, especially now that all of creation had fallen into decay. Bad weather and harsh living conditions were on the way for Adam and Eve.
Of course, type and shadow arguments of the need for substitutionary blood atonement for sin may certainly be made by this action by God, but the actual salvation of Adam and Eve rested, by God's grace, upon their faith in the promise, just as did Abraham's and all the Old Testament saints. And once so saved, the forgiveness they receive for sin is not temporary, but permanently eternal.
AMR
Adam's Ultimate State of Salvation
The item Ktoyou refers to as having deep theological thoughts was a quote from a Brakel. In fact in that post I only wrote the opening sentence; the remainder is all of a Brakel. I am not sure why you then make the leap above about the level of my theological depths or my reverence from what Ktoyou observed. Why take such a tone?
As I noted in the post in question, I find a Brakel's argument persuasive. Adam taught Abel (and Cain) the proper way to bring sacrifice to God. Adam understood what the type and shadow animal sacrifice meant, and was saved by that faith. The naming of their son, Seth, was clear enough evidence for me that they understood the proto evangel promise of Gen. 3:15. Please do not counter this with the naming being all of Eve's doing alone. The marriage between Adam and Eve was about as ideal to what Scripture describes concerning marital roles and responsibilities as it could be. Eve most certainly did not simply unilaterally name her children and the passages in question do not lend support to such a notion.
There was nothing salvific in God's covering of Adam and Eve with the skins of an animal. There was nothing in that action by God that meant their sin was forgiven, temporarily or permanently. To argue sin is being forgiven here, then one must at least assume Adam and Eve were regenerated sometime between Genesis 3:15 and Genesis 3:21.
I do believe Adam and Eve were born again, but I do not know when that happened. Even if they were born again at the time of Gen. 3:21, I do not see the covering of Adam and Eve with garments of skin as some sort of official action of forgiveness.
Adam and Eve were naked, covering themselves with leaves, and the environment around them was about to radically change. Our most wise God knew that garments of animal skins were far better clothing than leaves from a tree, especially now that all of creation had fallen into decay. Bad weather and harsh living conditions were on the way for Adam and Eve.
Of course, type and shadow arguments of the need for substitutionary blood atonement for sin may certainly be made by this action by God, but the actual salvation of Adam and Eve rested, by God's grace, upon their faith in the promise, just as did Abraham's and all the Old Testament saints. And once so saved, the forgiveness they receive for sin is not temporary, but permanently eternal.
AMR
Last edited: