If I hear one more Christian exposition on the idea that we need to return to the blessed state that Adam and Eve enjoyed before they transgressed, I’m gonna…I’m gonna…I’m gonna keep on praying that the Lord’s truth be known and made manifest in His Church and speak whatever the Lord gives me to say whether it be by way of encouragement or rebuke. For there is no where in Scripture that it is taught that in Christ we are called to return to those “Mandates” which were set for Adam to walk in before he disobeyed and brought sin and death upon all of mankind. God has chosen that man should enjoy a higher calling through the redemption that came by the Lord Jesus. We are called to follow the Christ, not the “Cultural Mandate”. Don’t you think that if this was what the Lord desired He would have talked about it?
If anyone is interested in becoming familiar with this, what I’ll refer to as the “hippie heresy”, then read any of Nancy Pearcy’s Total Truth. This book is focused upon a Christian’s need to develop a world-view. This is true, except that Nancy Percy does not have a Christian world-view. Rather than forming her view in light of the revelation that came by Jesus Christ, she takes Jesus and uses Him to remove the guilt of sin and then returns to the Garden.
The Christian world-view must be based upon the foundation that God became man, suffered, was crucified, and on the third day rose from the dead. What are the implications of having such a world-view? They are more than any man could ever number or even imagine. But to have such a world-view one must believe in the Lord Jesus. Then you will know the truth and the truth will set you free. Not, set yourself free and then you will know the truth.
You are right with the ‘overload’ of returning to the Garden. Even as the book of Revelation talks about eternity, the Garden-talk has shifted to the New Jerusalem- an external CITY- with Christ on the throne. No more mention of the garden.
But Jesus also called us to something more than the ‘higher calling of redemption’. In Jesus’ words, ‘repent,for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.’ (Matt 3:2, 4:17, 10:7). We are called not back to the isolation of the garden, but the activity of God’s work today, building His kingdom now or, in other words, by following Christ we WILL affect our culture and the world around us.
Dallas Willard puts it this way, “Jesus came among us to show and teach the life for which we were made. He came very gently, opened access to the governance of God with Him, and set afoot a conspiracy of freedom in truth among human beings. Having overcome death he remains among us. By relying on his word and presence we are enabled to reintegrate the little realm that makes up our life into the infinite rule of God. And this is the eternal kind of life. Caught up in his active rule, our deeds become an element in God’s eternal history. They are what God and we do together, making us part of his life and him part of ours.”
I am more excited about seeing God walking among us today, Jesus reigning in his kingdom, than the quiet of the garden. God overcoming evil and establishing his eternal dominion, and BEING PART OF THIS, is more exciting than returning to the garden. IMHO.
David,
Regarding your claims about Nancy Pearcy’s <em>Total Truth</em>, you wrote:
Help me understand what you read in Pearcy’s book to come to that conclusion. Perhaps you could provide a citation or two? What makes you say that she does not have a Christian worldview?
Out of the twenty or so people that I know personally who have read Total Truth, you are the only person I know to interpret the book in this manner. Since you are offering a radically alternate understanding of this book, it would be helpful to me for you to show where your ideas are coming from.
By the way, I added a couple of paragraph breaks in your post to assist in its readability.
David,
Could you explain what is meant by the “blessed state” of the Garden and the “Mandates” of Adam, and then explain how/why they are inappropriate for Christians?
Michael,
In Total Truth, Nancy Pearcey writes: “How do we go about constructing a Christian worldview? The key passage is the creation account in Genesis, because that’s where we are taken back to the beginning to learn what God’s original purpose was in creating the human race. With the entrance of sin, humans went off course, lost their way, wandered off the path. But when we accept Christ’s salvation, we are put back on the right path and are restored to our original purpose. Redemption is not just about being saved from sin, it is also about being saved to something–to resume the task for which we were originally created.”
-I want to confess that when the idea for this post occured to me I was not reading Total Truth, and I cannot recall what prompted this “from the cross to Adam” issue. I was uncomfortable with this idea and felt that others should be aware that this “presupposition” is no starting point for the Christian. And now to my shame I must apologize for the statement:”Nancy Percy does not have a Christian world-view.” The quote above is from the first chapter. And this is not a foundation for establishing a Christian worldview.
But the last chapter is true to the Christian message, and oddly enough she finishes the book with this paragraph:
The reality is: that apart from this there is nothing to be gained or understood concerning the purposes God has planned for His chosen ones.
Ryan,
What I meant by the “blessed state” that Adam enjoyed before the Fall was simply “that state” which Adam enjoyed before the Fall. And what I meant by the “Mandates” was the command to “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it”. These were the high callings of man before the Fall, and are quite simply what man does by nature. And Christians are called to live by a new nature and to be led by it; that of the Spirit.
Everyone,
My point was to show that if our starting point is anything other than believing that Jesus is the Christ, our whole worldview and actions will be a witness agianst the Christian faith. “For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.” (1Co 3:11).
OK, maybe I’m missing something here. Before the Fall, humanity was sinless and in perfect communion with God. After the Fall, humanity was sinful and estranged from God. Christ came to remove our sin and bring us back into communion with God. How is that not a return to the blessed state of the garden? Isn’t “to be bought back” the very definition of redemption?
[Pearcy] “… when we accept Christ’s salvation, we are put back on the right path and are restored to our original purpose. Redemption is not just about being saved from sin, it is also about being saved to something–to resume the task for which we were originally created.â€??
I don’t see anything wrong with this statement of Pearcy’s. I agree, David, that believing that Jesus is God’s Messiah (Christ) is the foundation of what it means to be a christian. But this belief has meaning only in the context of an understanding that the world is not as it ought (was intended) to be. Christ is indeed the foundation, but the loss of Eden is the crumbling soil that necessitates a foundation.
It has honestly never occurred to me that God wants us to be something other than what he originally created humanity to be. Mike and David: where in the Bible do you find the theology of “beyond Eden” or “beyond the pre-sin Adam”?
Our redemption is our “being brought back” to the Father; but not back to that state in which we are susceptible to corruption. It shall be a new state of existence. One in which man has never known; yet looks FORWARD to.
[David "... not back to that state in which we are susceptible to corruption. It shall be a new state of existence. One in which man has never known ..."
Where in the Bible does it say that?
There is no evidence or hint from the Lord that His intent was to take us back to the Garden. This is my point about those who make such claims as Pearcey does. What this implies is that God did not know that man would fall and so had to go through this whole act of redemption to bring him back. I believe that God knew that man would fall and not only that, but he intended it to happen so that He would bring His creation to a better place. And in His infinite Wisdom this is the way it pleased Him to do it.
No,Ryan. You show me where Jesus says that He came to deliver us back to our original state.
“And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bare the likeness of the man from heaven.” 1Co15:49
“Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength.” Would that not be the way of life in Eden? “Love your neighbor as yourself.” Would that rule not apply also in Eden? Everything the Lord taught us about how to be, I understand is a teaching of how God has *always* intended us to be, whether before or after the Fall.
Furthermore, whether or not God is taking us “back to the Garden” has nothing to do with God’s foreknowledge (or lack thereof) of humanity’s fall. Assuredly, God “intended” for the Fall to happen (that is he knew it would happen and chose not to prevent it). However, that does not imply that His reason for doing so was to bring us to a better place than before, or to a place better than if we had not fallen. All it implies is that He deemed it better to let us have the choice of falling than for Him to prevent us from falling. Consider this: If God had not brought Job to a better place after his tribulation, would God be any the less?
Now, a side note on the rules of debate: David, you were the one who originated this conversation with the premise that “back to Eden” is un-Christian. It is your burden to prove your assertions, not the burden of anyone else to disprove them. So again I ask, where in the Bible do you find support for your theology? Where does it indicate that He is taking us to something beyond (or better than) the Garden?
To defend something is always to discredit it… Yes, the person who defends that has never believed in it. If he does believe, then the enthusiasm of faith is not a defence, no, it is the assault and the victory; a believer is a victor.”
-Soren Kierkegaard, The Sickness Unto Death
Ryan,
All I know is that in all the theology I have read from the Church’s history, I have never heard of this “returning to the garden”. Nor can it be found in the Bible. And thank you for that Job example!
David,
Ragarding the value of defending an idea: I will have that discussion with you off-line.
Regarding “back to the Garden”: My point is not that the idea of “back to the garden” is an explicit teaching of scripture, but rather that the Bible doesn’t give any explicit teaching on either “back to the garden” or “beyond the garden” as far as I am aware of. Both viewpoints seem to be at least superficially consistent with scripture and have some significant arguments in their favor. So unless you can show me where in scripture one view is favored over the other, I must remain unconvinced of your original point that “back to the garden” is un-Christian. However, I thank you for bringing up this idea as it is new to me, and looking into it may at some point lead me to a more accurate knowledge of God.
Ryan,
You know that that is my only desire.