KFC Kickin For Christ KFC Kickin For Christ

The Very First Lady-Eve

The Very First Lady-Eve

A Marriage Made In Paradise

Last weekend I was asked to speak at a woman's luncheon for Mother's Day.  When I inquired as to what they wished for a subject matter they left it up to me.  So I thought about it for a day or so.  Then I came up with Eve.  Why not?  Afterall she was the mother of us all.  Since I've never heard a Mother's Day Sermon on this topic I decided I'd tackle it myself.   

Woman are important to God and He makes that very clear thru His written Word.  Even so, the message gets clouded by the cultures.  In the Eastern culture we know that women are surpressed.  In the Western culture women are aggressive and domineering more than ever.  During the days of Christ the Jews kept their women as subservient.  I heard that that it's written about the Torah that it would be better to burn it than to teach it to women! 

But what does the bible say about woman's role in society?  What is their purpose?  Jesus did much to elevate women during His time on earth and they loved Him.  It was to a woman He first announced He was the Messiah.  It was to women He first revealed Himself as risen from the dead.  He delivered at least one woman from unjust justice. 

Women were used mightily by God.  I think of Rahab who God used to save two spies facing sure death as a result if caught.  I think of Miriam who was a prophetess and ministered alongside her brother Moses.  Deborah was a judge and leader who was chosen to deliver God's people during the terrible days of the Judges.  Esther helped save her people, the Jews, from sure extermination and Lydia was a business woman who was instrumental in starting a first century church out of her home. 

So we come to Eve.  We know very little of this first lady.  We do know she was God's final creative work in the first week.  She was also a companion for Adam.  But there's more. 

Everything started out well in the garden although it didn't end that way thanks to Eve and her husband.  Eve led her husband into direct violation of God's revealed will to them.  So they were banished from Paradise.  She is a very human portraid of falling into sin but also of picking up the faith afterwards. 

She was created for a unique role in creation.  She was to minister to Adam and with Adam being his help-mate.  She was designed to complete him as well as assist him.  We read this in Genesis 1:26-28:

"And God said Let us make man in our image after our likeness and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the air and over the cattle and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth.  So God created man in his own image in the image of God created he him, male and female created he them.  And God blessed them and God said to them, Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the fowl of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth." 

Did you see the word "them?"  This was for both of them. A job for two.  These things were too great for them to do alone.  We see a few things about God's purposes for mankind here. 

1.  To be like Him; to reflect God's image in creation.  It took both of them to do this.  We think of God as a He and that pronoun is used but it takes both man and woman to accurately reflect God's image.  We think of God as mighty, powerful, just, logical, strong, etc. but He's also depicted in scripture as loving, tenderhearted, merciful, gracious etc.  We see both male and female characteristics in Him. 

2.  They were to rule over creation.  They were given authority over all the earth.  Together.

3.  They were to reproduce; be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth.  Together.

So zooming in on Eve let's look at why she was created.  What is her purpose for being created?  Gen 2:18-22:

"And the Lord said It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper for him.  And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every fowl of the air and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them and whatsoever Adam called every living creature that was the name.  And Adam gave names to all cattle and to the fowl of the air and to every beast of the field but for Adam there was not found a helper for him.  And the Lord caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept and he took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh.  And the rib which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman and brought her to the man." 

1.  Adam was not complete by himself.

2.  It was not good.  Even in Paradise something was not good.  Seven times, it was mentioned in the first chapter after God created, God said that "it was good" until we get here to 2:18 which says "it was not good." 

3.  Man was completed with need.  He was created incomplete.  He was made complete with Eve. 

4.  She was to be a helper suitable for him. 

Looking a bit further we can see some principles for the marriage relationship right here that brought this first couple together in Holy Matrimony. 

Genesis 2:23-24

"And Adam said this is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh she shall be called Woman because she was taken out of Man.  Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother and shall cleave to his wife and they shall be one flesh."

We see that God brought Eve to Adam.  It wasn't Adam's job to find a mate which makes me wonder looking around today at all the broken marriages.  How many consulted God in the choosing of their mate?   What would it have been like if they did?  God know more than we do so why don't we ask Him first?  

Unlike the animals she was like him.  She was bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh.  She was perfect for him.  The relationship necessitated him to leave his mother and father.  Obviously this was meant for future generations because these two were a special first couple with no parents.  This marriage required cleaving and the Hebrew word implies "to be joined by commitment."   Marriage is a commitment not a feeling or an emotion.  We need to stick it out, stay together and work things out as much as possible with us. 

Marriage results in being one together.  This one flesh points to the physical body but in principle also includes all that a person is; mind, emotions, will etc.  One cares for the other as one would care for oneself. 

And marriage results in nakedness without shame.  They had no shame.  They were naked and it was good.  This, again, goes beyond the physical.  We need to be open and up front with each other.  There should be no hiding, no secrets from each other. 

So everything started out well.  Until Eve was tempted.  Then everything changed.  She entered into a discussion with a serpent.  Is it no wonder women and snakes don't get along today?  We'll start there next time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

41,968 views 189 replies
Reply #126 Top

KFC POSTS:

You said you wanted the plain sense of scripture when I gave it to you (sons of God ALWAYS refer to angels) you dismissed it going back to one of your above comments.

And I might remind you that it is your opinion of Scripture that sons of God ALWAYS refer to Angels.

You cited the 3 verses in Job as fallen angels and I acknowedged that.

KFC posts:

You have to separate YOUR opinion from FACT Lula. And the fact of the matter is we can't know exactly in this passage who the "sons of God" really are. That's the whole point. That's why there is so many varied opinions out there. If we were ONLY to go by what the scripture tells us (using "sons of God") we would have to go with the fallen angels. That would make the most sense.

Does the "sons of God" always refer to angels? I would argue no it doesn't....

For along with the plain sense of Scripture, how many times have you yourself pointed out to me....it's about context, context, context?

And so I explained the meaning of Genesis 6:1-4 "sons of God" in the framework of context saying.....

However, with chapter 5 which details Seth's lineage for context, one can only sensibly conclude that the Genesis 6:1-4 "sons of God" are descendents of Seth while the daughters of men were the wicked descendants of Cain. God is showing an opposition here and this opposition between the sons of God (good) and the sons of men (evil) continues to this day and will until the end of the world.

The sons of God in Job is totally out of the context of the sons of God in Genesis 6. It's not sensible that the sons of God are fallen angels who wed human wives and produce giants. Wedding human wives and producing children is not what fallen angels do. That's disordering God's Creation.

Fallen angels wedding human wives and producing children is legendary myth, not Scripture.

In arguing from the plain sense of Scripture and context, the only logical conclusion as to the meaning of the "sons of God" in Genesis 6:1-4 is that they were the unfaithful descendents of Seth who went against God's plan and married the daughters of men. 

Nothing to back it up with. You know why? Because you can't.

I backed what I said by citing the context. If you disagree, then you would have to rebut the context.

(it would be nice if you would discuss without the personal name-calling. We disagree on the meaning of Genesis "sons of God"...that doesn't make me ignorant or arrogant.).

Reply #127 Top

We disagree on the meaning of Genesis "sons of God"...that doesn't make me ignorant or arrogant.).

KFC posts 86

Here's the passage in question 6:1-4:

"When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful and they married any of them they chose. Then the Lord said "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years. The Nephilim were on the earth in those days and also afterward when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old men of renown."

This is a summary of the state of affaris of Adam's descendants before the account of the Flood. This small passage has had many diverse interpretations. Historically there are three primary ones;

1. The "sons of God" are angels are the oldest view.

2. The "sons of God" are royalty, another old view.

3. The "sons of God" are pious men from the "line of Seth".

The most commonly accepted view is #3 although I've heard many good preachers take the #1 view. I don't have a strong opinon either way but if push came to shove I'd probably go with Seth.

Am I ignorant, arrogant and irrational because I am one of those who according to you have the most commonly accepted view?

This is, after all, the same view that you said you'd probably go with.

But that was until you became enlightened....And then your view changed to # 2 ....

 

I've always thought Seth (as you seem to) but I'm more inclined really now after looking at this closer to go with the #2 view that I gave above. That seems to fit the best by looking at the wording.

And now evidently you've changed your view to #1....

And the fact of the matter is we can't know exactly in this passage who the "sons of God" really are. That's the whole point. That's why there is so many varied opinions out there. If we were ONLY to go by what the scripture tells us (using "sons of God") we would have to go with the fallen angels. That would make the most sense.

Even though "sons of God" as fallen angels wedding human wives and producing children is legendary myth and makes no  Scriptural or contextual sense at all.

 

 

 

Reply #128 Top

Even though "sons of God" as fallen angels wedding human wives and producing children is legendary myth and makes no Scriptural or contextual sense at all.

here we go yet once again. ....how many times have you said this NOW Lula?  Was my post #125 not enough to make you see that you keep repeating yourself over and over and over with nothing to back it up?  Yet once again only two posts later you're saying the same thing with NOTHING to back it up but your opinion. 

Do us all a favor and stop repeating yourself.  It's just wasting time. 

In arguing from the plain sense of Scripture and context, the only logical conclusion as to the meaning of the "sons of God" in Genesis 6:1-4 is that they were the unfaithful descendents of Seth who went against God's plan and married the daughters of men.

you can't make a proof by using the puzzling scripture in question and calling it proof.  That's the whole crux of the matter.  Who are these "sons?"  They were NEVER called "sons" anywhere else OTHER THAN ANGELS!   You can't just look at it and say wah-la!  They are Seth's line because it says "sons of God" when there is no other prescedent for it.  That's the rub. 

I showed you how they could be angels.  I showed you how they could be royalty...yet you dismiss it (even though it's backed up with scripture) and you cling to what you want to believe just because. 

I think you just like to argue...PERIOD! 

And I might remind you that it is your opinion of Scripture that sons of God ALWAYS refer to Angels.

You cited the 3 verses in Job as fallen angels and I acknowedged that.

THEN HOW IN THE WORLD IS IT MY OPINION???????   You just acknowledged I showed you three verses that verify my point.

Do you know you are making NO sense???   I cited three verses and it's still my opinion???  You've cited NONE and you have the facts?

*shakes head*  Excuse me while I go bang my head against the wall. 

 

 

Reply #129 Top

 

In arguing from the plain sense of Scripture and context, the only logical conclusion as to the meaning of the "sons of God" in Genesis 6:1-4 is that they were the unfaithful descendents of Seth who went against God's plan and married the daughters of men.

you can't make a proof by using the puzzling scripture in question and calling it proof. That's the whole crux of the matter.

I didn't  just use the Sripture in question to make my proof that the sons of God are the unfaithful descendents of Seth.  I argued its meaning from  context, context, context. I explained the meaning of Genesis 6:1-4 "sons of God" in the framework of context. Put Genesis 6:1-4 in context with chapter 5 and then the verses and chapter that follows 6:1-4.

I keep repeating becasue instead of checking out my points about context and giving them consideration, you are stuck in your mindset which we have seen keeps changing ....maybe, you'll go back with option # 3 again. Huh....or not! :D

.................

[quote]THEN HOW IN THE WORLD IS IT MY OPINION??????? You just acknowledged I showed you three verses that verify my point.

You said "sons of God" ALWAYS refers to angels. Your use of the word "always" is your opinion. I acknowledged yes it does in those 3 verses of Job, but you are trying to make the leap that it means fallen angels in Genesis 6:1-4 and that's what I called you on arguing that if you put Gen. 6:1-4 in context (as I mentioned above), the sons of God make more sense to be the unfaithful descendents of Seth.  

*shakes head* Excuse me while I go bang my head against the wall.

Funny I was thinking the same thing.....Before too much more frustration settles in, let's call peace on this one. Shall we agree to disagree?

 

  

 

Reply #130 Top

 yes, I'll agree to disagree. 

Next?

Reply #131 Top

"14 Behold thou dost cast me out from the face of the earth...."

And the difference is? 

The fact that it says that Cain shall wander on the earth, doesn't mean a thing.  One need not be on the face of the earth to wander the earth, scientific fact.    Cain was still cast out from the face of the earth.  If one is cast out from the face of the earth, that doesn't mean that the earth will no longer give of it's fruits.  It means that Cain was cast out from the face of the earth, exactly as it was written.  You don't get to change it.

You rewrite the bible Lulapilgrim.  Nowhere does it say that this statment means what you say it means.  You twist the words in order to make them into what you want to believe they say because you can't accept what they do say.  They insult your intelligence and reason, the bible however, wasn't written to indulge either your intelligence or reason.

No where, and I mean no where, does the bible back up any of your assertions.  You interpret, instead of taking the words at face value.  Sons of God means just exactly that , sons of God.  Not men, not men of another race or family.  If it meant men of another line, it would have said so.  It's not your perogative to change what it reads.  God never called man "his son", but his creation.  To say that man is, is a huge leap of assumption and a changing of the words of God.  Do you really think that you have that right?

Reply #132 Top

As a matter of fact the only person that was ever recognized as God's "only begotten son" was Jesus, not Adam, not Eve, nor any of their line.

Reply #133 Top

As a matter of fact the only person that was ever recognized as God's "only begotten son" was Jesus, not Adam, not Eve, nor any of their line.

This is true.  While we've been talking about the OT we do read this in the NT...

"Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed upon us that we should be called the sons of God..."  1 John 3:1

"Beloved, now are we the sons of God and it does not yet appear what we shall be; but we know that when he shall appear we shall be like him for we shall see him as he is."  1 John 3:2

"But as many as received him to them gave he power to become the sons of God even to them that believe on his name. John 1:12

Under the law the men of God were called servants of God, but under Grace we are called the "sons of God" or the "children of God."  The changing of the Covenant from the Old to the New changed our status from servants to sons. 

God never called man "his son", but his creation. To say that man is, is a huge leap of assumption and a changing of the words of God. Do you really think that you have that right?

or his servant.  We see that quite often in the OT. 

 

Reply #134 Top

Wow.

Great convo.

 

Reply #135 Top

"Servant" is quite true and I'm glad that you brought it into the conversation.  It is an interesting word to use.

 Tell me if you will KFC, what does "grace" mean to you?  Does it mean just a new convenant. or is it more than that?

Reply #136 Top

Whisper2 posts:

(However it is written that God sent cain into the earth, not upon it.)

The passage is below. It's plain to see the words are "upon the earth" or "on the earth". On the other hand, no where is it written that God sent Cain into the earth. Yours is an incorrect interpretation of Scripture.

Here is the entire passage....

8 And Cain said to Abel his brother: Let us go forth abroad. And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel, and slew him. 9 And the Lord said to Cain: Where is thy brother Abel? And he answered, I know not: am I my brother's keeper? 10 And he said to him: What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth to me from the earth.

11 Now, therefore, cursed shalt thou be upon the earth, which hath opened her mouth and received the blood of thy brother at thy hand. 12 When thou shalt till it, it shall not yield to thee its fruit: a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be upon the earth. 13 And Cain said to the Lord: My iniquity is greater than that I may deserve pardon. 14 Behold thou dost cast me out this day from the face of the earth, and I shall be hidden from thy face, and I shall be a vagabond and a fugitive on the earth: everyone, therefore that findeth me, shall kill me. 15 And the Lord said to him: No, it shall not be so: but whosoever shall kill Cain, shall be punished sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, that whosoever found him should not kill him.

16 And Cain went out from the face of the Lord, and dwelt as a fugitive on the earth, at the east side of Eden. 17 And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived, and brought forth Henoch: and he built a city, and called the name thereof by the name of his son Henoch. 18 And Henoch begot Irad, and Irad begot Maviael, and Maviael begot Mathusael, and Mathusael begot Lamech: 19 Who took two wives: the name of the one was Ada, and the name of the other Sella. 20 And Ada brought forth Jabel: who was the father of such as dwell in tents, and of herdsmen.

The fact that it says that Cain shall wander on the earth, doesn't mean a thing. 

Hmmm...so the way God cursed Cain doesn't mean a thing to you?

Cain was still cast out from the face of the earth. If one is cast out from the face of the earth, that doesn't mean that the earth will no longer give of it's fruits.

That's not what I said...nor what the passage teaches. Verses 4:2 says Cain was a tiller of the soil.  Verse 11 says Cain is cursed upon the earth. From that we learn in Verse 12 that Cain's work tilling the soil will not produce its yield of fruits.

 

It means that Cain was cast out from the face of the earth, exactly as it was written. You don't get to change it.

I haven't changed Scripture...I quoted the correct translation of Scripture and then gave an interpretation of what it means.

The short explanation of what the passage means is that Cain was a tiller of the soil and his younger brother Abel was a keeper of flocks. Urged on by jealousy and anger becasue God preferred the sacrifice of Abel, Cain killed him. After the fratricide, Cain was condemned to a life as a nomad and God put a sign on him signifying that blood revenge will be exacted if he is killed. There are other ethical and religious lessons that come from the way that God distinguishes Abel from Cain, one of them being that the Christian who does not love his brother is "like Cain, who was the evil one." 

Another is that since Cain's life was spared, he went on to generate his ungodly line that eventually ended up in the destruction of the world. Gen. 4:17-24; 6:1-7. 

You rewrite the bible Lulapilgrim. Nowhere does it say that this statment means what you say it means. You twist the words in order to make them into what you want to believe they say because you can't accept what they do say. They insult your intelligence and reason, the bible however, wasn't written to indulge either your intelligence or reason.

No where have I rewritten the Bible. This whole line of talk is utter nonsense.

Reply #137 Top

It's better if you don't take out of context what I said about Cain.  I did not say that  God's cursing Cain didn't matter.   That's a large assumption on your part.  What I did say was it didn't matter. not being able to reap the fruits of the earth and the tilling of the soil when it comes to the statement of "being cast out from the face of the earth and the face of God".  Even according to the scripture you went on to quote , iit didn't matter that Cain could no longer till the soil and reap it's fruits, since he obviously lived a life and even fathering children.  What did matter was being cast out from the face of the earth and from the face of God.  If you would read and not try to decipher according to your own ideas, you would have seen that that was the one thing that Cain was foremost concerned about and lamented the most.  It was his first reply and comment to God upon God's judgment. His second concern was being killed by others for his sin of murder.  Nowhere is Cain at all concerned about not being able to till the earth and reap it's fruits.

When I said that you rewrite the bible I meant that you change things that are written to suit your own idea of what takes place.  It is not nonsense and it was proved by you when you answered my question about the meaning of the sentence being cast out from the face of the earth.  You made your answer regarding it about everything but that, giving your own translation of what the entire text meant, and totally ignoring the depth and meaning of that one statement.

Reply #138 Top

When I said that you rewrite the bible I meant that you change things that are written to suit your own idea of what takes place.

Again, I have neither re-written the Bible or changed things that are written. I quoted those passages of the BIble and gave the meaning. You have done exactly the same thing.

Recall, this discussion starrted becasue you wrote----

[quote] (However it is written that God sent cain into the earth, not upon it.)

---And refuse to admit that you are incorrect.

If you would read and not try to decipher according to your own ideas,

And look who's calling the kettle black....that's exactly what you did when you wrote "It is written that God sent Cain into the earth, not upon it."

I don't decipher Scripture according to my own ideas....rather is clear that Christ gave the authority to the Church for that purpose.

Deciphering Scripture according to one's own ideas is called the right to private interpretation of Scripture and it's the Protestant forefathers that brought that zany idea into vogue. No two of them interpret the Bible in the same way that's why there are so many different sects each with its own ideas of what the Bible says and means.

 

  

 

Reply #139 Top

My apologies for my mistake in quoting the passage.  I was using my own knowledge of where God sent Cain. instead of quoting word for word the passage that is in scripture.  You are correct and I am in error.

I did try to point out to you that being upon the earth does not necessarily mean on the face of the earth, but you must have missed that.  Instead you went on about Cain being a tiller of the earth and no longer being able to reap it's fruit,and totally ignored what I was asking  and saying to you, thinking that that was the answer to the question.  I understand however, I sometimes do that myself.

I do see that you have totally tried to ignore what I tried to point out to you as being the greatest concern to Cain, in saying that the only true version is the catholic one and blathering on about the protestants, but never addressing or even trying to refute what I said about that particular passage.  Do you realize, by chance, that I was correct?

I am begining to wonder, if instead of realizing that I am merely interested in talking about scripture and curious about what others think the meanings of passage are, you are  instead thinking that I am looking for someone to explain it to me.

Reply #140 Top

I did try to point out to you that being upon the earth does not necessarily mean on the face of the earth, but you must have missed that.

I don't know if I missed it or not, but below is one of your statements that got me wondering.

The fact that it says that Cain shall wander on the earth, doesn't mean a thing. One need not be on the face of the earth to wander the earth, scientific fact.

.........................

Whisper2 posts:

Instead you went on about Cain being a tiller of the earth and no longer being able to reap it's fruit,and totally ignored what I was asking and saying to you, thinking that that was the answer to the question.

I gave the following as a summary of what the passage teaches and note I said there are other ethical and religious lessons....which would include your point that Cain was cast out from the face of the earth and from the face of God. 

The short explanation of what the passage means is that Cain was a tiller of the soil and his younger brother Abel was a keeper of flocks. Urged on by jealousy and anger becasue God preferred the sacrifice of Abel, Cain killed him. After the fratricide, Cain was condemned to a life as a nomad and God put a sign on him signifying that blood revenge will be exacted if he is killed. There are other ethical and religious lessons that come from the way that God distinguishes Abel from Cain, one of them being that the Christian who does not love his brother is "like Cain, who was the evil one."

Another is that since Cain's life was spared, he went on to generate his ungodly line that eventually ended up in the destruction of the world. Gen. 4:17-24; 6:1-7.

......................

What did matter was being cast out from the face of the earth and from the face of God.

Yes, this, too, is an important lesson from these passages. 

Do you realize, by chance, that I was correct?

Yes, on this point....however, these passages about Cain teach many points. You touched on some while I touched on others.

blathering on about the protestants,

Well you accused me of deciphering Scripture according to my own ideas...and I don't so what do you expect?   Me to be like this and say nothing? :X

 

 

 

 

Reply #141 Top

I'm afraid that you didn't understand what I was asking.  It was about that specific statement regarding the fact that Cain was cast out from the face of the earth.  The other leassons had nothing to do with it.  I am already aware of those lessons and they were not the point although you tried to make them it.

I am not here to take lessons from you Lulapilgrim, I am here to discuss scripture and learn about other peoples points of view regarding them.  It is not necessary for you to try to teach me.  I am only interested in your opinion if you have one.  I in turn will express mine if I have one and the reasons behind them if necessary.

Of course I don't wish you to be silent.  I do wish that you'd focus on the crux of what is being asked and not wander off into the hinderlands however, giving opinions about things that were not asked. 

Reply #142 Top

I'm afraid that you didn't understand what I was asking. It was about that specific statement regarding the fact that Cain was cast out from the face of the earth.

OK, evidently I didn't understand what you are asking, but it wasn't for lack of trying.

I do wish that you'd focus on the crux of what is being asked and not wander off into the hinderlands however, giving opinions about things that were not asked.

Had I not wandered off into the hinderlands as you put it, your statement that "it is written that God sent cain into the earth, not upon it" may not have been corrected.

I am here to discuss scripture and learn about other peoples points of view regarding them.

Good.

I am not here to take lessons from you Lulapilgrim, I

And if you are here to discuss Scripture and learn about other peoples' points of view regarding Scripture, are you not placing yourself in a position to take lessons from those other peoples' pov? Of course you are.

Now whether you accept those pov or not is what inevitably leads to more discussion...and this can be a good learning experience too.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reply #143 Top

Tell me if you will KFC, what does "grace" mean to you? Does it mean just a new convenant. or is it more than that?

Good question Whisper. 

There is alot to it.  I could take days discussing just this subject I think.  The simple answer is that Grace is unmerited favor.  I've been given this grace although I certainly do not deserve it.  God in his mercy covered me in His grace.  It is nothing I have done but is of God (Eph 2:8-9). 

The law (old Covenant) was given to us to show us God's heart.  It was our custodian until Christ came.  It was only temporary and had been accomplished or fulfilled when Christ came.  Christ was the termination of the law but not in the absolute sense.  He did not abolish the will of God as expressd in the law.  But there's a qualifyer.  He is only the end of the law to him who believes.  His grace only extends to those who believe.  The others will be judged according to the law still.  They will find out they are still in debt and will have to suffer the consequences. 

We, who believe have been released from the law which once bound us (Romans 7:6) and are now under grace.  It's like having a debt or a credit card we owe.  Under the contract we have to make payment or suffer the consequences.   Normally we have a grace period; a time allowed to give us time to pay this debt.  But because our sin debt is so high and so deep, we can never make enough to pay it off.  So Christ stepped in and took over the payments for us.  We didn't deserve it but he did it anyway. By doing so he appeased the creditor and we are paid up.   So there's no need for a time period to pay it off because it's been paid in full.  That's sufficient grace; undeserved credit to our account.  

We are debt free!  Now is the time to express gratitude for this paid in full debt.  Now is time for us to show Jesus how thankful we are for His mercy and Grace.  That's why Paul in his writings always wrote "grace and peace."  It's only when we have grace can we have peace.

 

 

Reply #144 Top

I think that we've come  to an understanding Lulapilgrim.   Yes, speaking to other people regardng their points of view is like learning, you are correct in that.   Now if you would, tell me what you think "grace" is.

 

Interestng KFC, what you are telling me is that your soul is already saved, and you need do no more on your part?  Or are you telling me that your past sins are simply forgiven?   If that is so, and you were born long after Jesus died, how could he have possibley died for your sins, considering he'd already died for the past sins of others of his own time?   Please clarify if you can. 

Reply #145 Top

Interestng KFC, what you are telling me is that your soul is already saved, and you need do no more on your part? Or are you telling me that your past sins are simply forgiven?

I believe that all my sins are forgiven..past, present and future.  I am human.  I will still sin. I sin because I was born a sinner.   But I know where to go to for a cleansing when I do.  In John 13 when Christ washed the disciples feet he said this in reply to Peter requesting his whole body be washed:

"He that is washed (saved) needs only to wash his feet but is clean every whit and you are clean but not all.  For He knew who would betray him,  (Judas) therefore said He You are not all clean." 

Now remember.  Christ also knew that Peter would deny him.  But yet Peter was included in "you are clean."  What Jesus was saying is that once you are cleaned (born again; saved) you only have to wash your feet.  That means that while we are considered righteous in His eyes (born again) we still sin and get dirty.  We are living in a sinful dirty world.  We are walking in it and we are bound to get dirty with sin.  When we do, while our salvation is assured (we don't get unborn or unsaved) our relationship with God and others is affected.  We need to go to Him for a foot washing now and then.  John wrote later:

"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."  1 John 1:9

So to further answer your question...Yes, I am saved.   But my salvation is not of myself.  It's outside of myself.  We cannot save ourselves.  We need help.  It's God who saves.  He saved me.  He gets the credit.  Now my part?  My part is to serve him out of obedience for what He's done for me.  It's no different than one who feels he owes someone his life because he was saved physically by another.  Like someone who was drowning or perishing in a fire but another saved him in the nick of time.  That person is forever grateful to the one who saved his life.  Only in our case, Jesus saved us spiritually from a place of torment.  The wages of sin is death.  He saved us from eternal death. 

If that is so, and you were born long after Jesus died, how could he have possibley died for your sins, considering he'd already died for the past sins of others of his own time? Please clarify if you can.

God transcends time. That is, He's not bound by it like we are.   Jesus died for all sins, past present and future.  We are saved by going to the cross and accepting His death on our behalf.  For us, we're looking back at the cross and for those of old (like Abraham) they were looking forward to the cross.  Remember what Jesus said in John 8:56?

"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it and was glad." 

How could Abraham see ahead 2,000 years or so?  Or for that matter all the OT prophets?  David wrote much about that day that would come.   It had to be by faith.  He saw the promise by faith like we do.  Only we look back in faith.  Abraham was looking forward to the day when the Messiah would come to take away the sins of the world.  Jesus was referring back to Abraham and Gen 15:6.   

"And he (Abraham) believed in the Lord and He counted it to him for righteousness." 

Because of his belief he was saved just like we are today.  Remember what John 3:16 says:  "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believes on him shall not perish but have everlasting life." 

That belief extends to us today.   It's an urgent call.  There's not much time.  Today is the day.  We may not have another chance.   

 

 

Reply #146 Top

KFC posts:

There is alot to it. I could take days discussing just this subject I think.

True!

KFC posts:

I've been given this grace although I certainly do not deserve it. God in his mercy covered me in His grace. It is nothing I have done but is of God (Eph 2:8-9).

Yes, supernatural or sanctifying grace is a gift of God. We read in Scripture that some were "full of grace" indicating an interior holiness of their soul. However, as far as I know Scripture never speaks of being  "covered" or "cloaked" in God's Grace. Sanctifying grace is a real transformation of the soul where sins are wiped away and our soul becomes spotlessly pure and we are made holy and acceptable to God.

 

KFC posts:

We, who believe have been released from the law which once bound us (Romans 7:6) and are now under grace. It's like having a debt or a credit card we owe. Under the contract we have to make payment or suffer the consequences. Normally we have a grace period; a time allowed to give us time to pay this debt. But because our sin debt is so high and so deep, we can never make enough to pay it off. So Christ stepped in and took over the payments for us. We didn't deserve it but he did it anyway. By doing so he appeased the creditor and we are paid up. So there's no need for a time period to pay it off because it's been paid in full. That's sufficient grace; undeserved credit to our account.

KFC, Scripture doesn't use ledger sheet imagery to describe the relationship between the law (faith and justification) and grace and sin and this is where you go a bit afoul. Instead, we see Scripture using familial imagery to describe this relationship. For example Rom. 8:15-33 , Gal. 3:24-4:5 and Eph. 1:5 describe justification in terms of adoption. Justification is an ongoing process whereby God continually infuses (not merely covers) His grace into the individual soul, substantially changing the person to be pleasing to God. Adam was the first adopted son of God. Through his disobedience he became an outcast of his Father's family, but in His mercy God paved the way for Adam to repair his relationship by faith and obedience. Christ, in being our propitiation, serves to appease the wrath of God against his disobedient sons and to open the avenue of God's gracious mercy (Grace) upon His children. They must now respond in faith and obedience to their Father in order to attain the inheritance with which He wishes to bless them. If the sons disobey the Father (commit sins), they are subject to chastisements and condemnation.   

 

KFC posts:

By doing so he appeased the creditor and we are paid up.

So here, you're essentially saying, Christ died for me, I believe it, and therefore I am saved.  God threw a cover over my sins on my soul and treats them as if they were spotless, knowing all the while they are still there. God covers my sinfulness. Accepting Christ as my personal Lord and Savior makes God turn a blind eye toward my past, present and future sins. He hides my sinful soul under a cover of Grace.   Unfortunately this is fiction.

 Yes, Christ's Sacrifice on the Cross appeased God and unlocked the gates of Heaven that Adam and Eve's original sin had shut, but we are not paid up. Christ did His part; He redeemed mankind and paid the price for our salvation with the infinite value of His Most Precious Blood. If we want to pass through the heavenly gates, we must cooperate by doing our part  We are responsible for all the sins on our soul which stain it. God has pronounced the wages of sin is death. Rom. 6:23. This penalty must be paid, God in His Infinite Justice must punish sin. As long as we live in our sins we are dead spiritually and should we die subject to eternal death. 

"There shall not enter into it (heaven), anything defiled, or that worketh abomination or maketh a lie, but they that are written in the book of life of the Lamb." Apoc. 21:27. 

 

Reply #147 Top

So here, you're essentially saying, Christ died for me, I believe it, and therefore I am saved.

Yes.  It's very simple Lula.  So simple and yet man has made it hard.  

Go back to John 3:16.  That's basic.  Here's another...a jailer who just witnessed the power of God got on his knees and cried out to Paul and Silas:

"What must I do to be saved?  And they said, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shall be saved and your house."  Acts 16:30-31

And by him (Jesus) all that believe are justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses."  13:39

God threw a cover over my sins on my soul and treats them as if they were spotless, knowing all the while they are still there.

no God took my sins, threw them into the sea as far as the East is from the West.  He didn't cover.  He took them away.  Then he covered me in HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS by HIS GRACE.   That's what's behind the whole nakedness senerio with Adam and  Eve.  They stood before him dressed in their own filthy rags and God covered them.  That's the whole picture of God covering us with his righteousness, not our own feeble attempt (works) to make ourselves right before God. 

Why didn't Adam and Eve know they were naked BEFORE the fall?  Because they were not in the sense that they were covered with God's righteousness.  After God's righteousness was taken away (a result of sin) they looked at each other and were afraid.  They saw they were naked. 

That's what's going to happen to each one of us when we meet our maker if we are not covered by the blood of His Son which is what cleanses us from all unrighteousness. 

"As far as the east is from the west so far has he removed our transgressions from us."  Psalm 103:12

 

 

Reply #148 Top

Whisper2 posts:

Now if you would, tell me what you think "grace" is.

Yes, I’m glad to tell you what I know about Grace.

There are two kinds: supernatural or sanctifying Grace and actual grace, but first some background.

God is the author of the Salvation plan and the first Source of our holiness through which our souls are sanctified. God created us to be with Him in eternal life.  Scripture has it that nothing defiled will enter into heaven and in order for us to enter heaven we must be be holy and unspotted in His sight.  Now, we can't be made holy according to our own will, we must be so according to God's will.

Scripture teaches from eternity, God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. God decrees to call  mankind to share this eternal divine life. In Divine love, which we cannot fathom, God wills to beatify human beings by lifting them above their human nature to a new life.  Of these, God will give the name of children. By nature, God has only one Son; by love, He wills to have an innumerable multitude…that is the grace of supernatural adoption.

This perfection was realized in our first parents, Adam and Eve, who were endowed by God with sanctifying grace and with other preternatural gifts that were dependent upon their obedience to a moral command and threatened with death if they disobeyed. By their grevious original sin they fell from grace, loss their sanctity (original holiness) and as head of the human race, consequences would follow for all mankind.

This decree of Love is restored by God’s Infinite Justice, Mercy, Wisdom and  Goodness. The Son Who dwells eternally in the Father, unites Himself in time to a human nature…the wonderful mystery of the Incarnation, the Word made Flesh who is called Jesus, the Christ.

St.Paul compares the transgression  of Adam with the grace of Christ’s Redemption. “As by the offense of one,  unto all men to condemnation; so also by the justice of One, unto all men to justification of life. For as by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners; so also by the obedience of One, many shall be made just.” Rom. 5:18-19.

So, the same Divine life which proceeds from the Father into the Son and from the Son into the humanity of Jesus will circulate through Christ, with Christ and in Christ in all who will accept Him. It will draw them to the Father where Christ has gone before us, after having paid with His Blood the price of this Divine gift of supernatural life (Grace).   

So, all holiness (sanctity) consists of this: to receive the Divine life from Christ and keep this Divine life and increase it unceasingly by an ever more perfect adhesion.   Holiness is a mystery of Divine life communicated in God from the Father by the Son who sends the Holy Spirit to humanity. Some people are holier than others. The more we adhere to God by detaching ourselves from all that is not God or of God, the more this adhesion to holiness is made stable and firm.

Next...how does Almighty God fulfill His plan and design by which He wills us to have a part in this supernatural life and cause us to enter into His friendship so we might enter into His heavenly family?

 

Reply #149 Top

Some people are holier than others.

give me a verse on this would ya? 

 Let's see Paul himself..who wrote almost the whole NT and is considered one of the most Godly men of all time said himself "I am the chief of sinners."  Compared to Christ we are all like maggots..that's like saying one maggot is better than another. 

There are two kinds: supernatural or sanctifying Grace and actual grace, but first some background.

this is Catholic terminology..not biblical. 

Next...how does Almighty God fulfill His plan and design by which He wills us to have a part in this supernatural life and cause us to enter into His friendship so we might enter into His heavenly family?

please outline this on your own blog site Lula.  You answered Whisper's question already. 

 

 

Reply #150 Top

The answer to my last question is by adopting us as His children.

Grace is a supernatural gift of God bestowed upon us through the merits of Christ's Passion and Death and is absolutely necessary for our salvation.

God gives us a share in His nature which we call "Grace". Grace is real. Grace is an interior quality produced in us by God inherent in the soul, adorning it and making it pleasing to God. Same thing in the natural domain....beauty and strength are qualities of the body, genius is quality of the mind, loyalty and courage are qualities of the heart.

Sanctifying grace abides in our soul. It's what makes the soul holy. It gives the soul supernatural life. God's Grace is supernatural life. By His gift of grace, God gives us a share in His Divine nature and adopts us as His children and we become heirs to heaven.

Actual grace by contrast, doesn't live in the soul but is a supernatural help of God which acts upon the soul, enlightens our mind, and strengthens our will to do good and avoid evil. Actual grace is transient... that is, it's given to us only when we need it like to perform a good act or to overcome a temptation. 

God always give us sufficient grace to be saved. A true Christian should view his whole life in the light of grace. All God's gifts granted for man's salvation are Graces.

I hope this has been helpful.