Are we better off than Adam?
A question inspired by a comment by Timothy on the blog. Isaac Watts wrote:
the tribes of Adam boast more glories than their father lostWas he right? Are we now better off than Adam was in Eden? If not, shall we be better off in the next life than Adam was in Eden? If so, is that why God allowed the Fall, in order that we might be better off? And is that supralapsarianism?
posted by Daniel Hill | 6/17/2006 10:12:00 pm
4 Comments:
Yes, we will be better off than Adam.
We will be (and in a sense are) holy, not just clean. We will be (and are) united with Christ. We have been consecrated by the gift of the Holy Spirit.
God did it so that his glory might be better seen. Which is also so that it's better for us.
Thanks, custard. But how do we know that Adam wasn't holy and that Adam wasn't united with Christ and that he wasn't consecrated by the gift of the Holy Spirit?
Is your position supralapsarianism?
Just a thought:
As redeemed people, believers in Christ boast the glory of Christ, and all that Christ has done for them. This, in effect, glorifies God. Otherwise, had Adam not sinned, we would be glorifying Adam's holiness and faithfulness to God's covenant - to some extent, our blessing would be through Adam not Christ. Christ, the God-Man, would have been superfluous.
I don't like the supra-infra debate - I think it is very naive. I'd love to explore Barth's doctrine of Christ, election, and redemption - although he is far from satisfactory, I think his idea of the election of Jesus Christ is possibly a useful idea for more conservative (evangelical) thinkers - and it could possibly help us reconsider the conundrum of the supra - infra debate.
If Adam were holy and united with Christ, etc it could only be as a result of Jesus' death.
And my understanding of supralapsarianism is that it's contained within this position.
Post a Comment
<< Home