03-29-2009, 03:38 PM
Hi Folks
I'm reading parts of Irenaeus at the moment, and found something pretty interesting. Irenaeus was the bishop of Lyon, France in the 2nd century, and was quite an authorititive church father, defending the church from heretics.
I found it interesting that the idea of Adam not being under Christ's sacrifice was considered to be heretical!
It was a group of disciples under a man called Tatian who were teaching that Adam could not benefit from the ransom sacrifice, and Irenaeus wrote an entire chapter to refute their argument.
He ended this chapter by saying: "Thus also do those who disallow Adam's salvation gain nothing, except this, that they render themselves heretics and apostates from the truth, and show themselves patrons of the serpent and of death."
Now, I appreciate that the word "heretic" is used nowadays quite extensively, but back in the 2nd century, it was usually only used when there was considered to be a serious deviation from the truth.
So the idea that Adam's salvation was "disallowed" was considered a serious deviation from the truth!
Personally, I find it amazing that the early church recognized this (the potential for Adam's salvation), and even the founder of the Watchtower Society, Charles Taze Russell, recognized that the ransom sacrifice needed a perfect man in order to include and cover Adam's sin - and yet, like so many other things, the Society changed this some time after Russell's death.
You can read Irenaeus' argument here:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103323.htm
Now, I don't fully agree with all of Irenaeus' arguments, but I think his key points are very sound.
1. Since we are captives of sin and death, it would be absurd for God to provide escape to the children of the one who was taken into captivity (the sons of Adam), but not to the original father (Adam) who himself was taken into captivity!
2. God pronounces a curse on the serpent directly (since it was directly responsible), but only upon the ground which Adam would work, not upon Adam himself.
3. The first thing Adam and Eve did after eating was they made loin coverings for themselves!... implying they recognized their nakedness was wrong.
4. While Cain's response to God's questioning about his brothers murder was insolence, when Jehovah wanted to speak to Adam and Eve, they were frightened and went into hiding. They knew they had done wrong. (I would suggest this is remarkably like children when they know they've done wrong.)
5. God's putting Adam out of the garden was a mercy, so that he would not continue in sin, but would be subject to death and thus release from sin. (Romans 6:7)
6. By denying the possibility of salvation to Adam, they are doing the same to themselves, because just as "in Adam all die", "so also in Christ shall all be made alive."
The fact is, well before the "Church" became the established religion in the 4th century, the concept of Adam being eternally destroyed was a considered a heresy, propagated by a small number of disciples led by Tatian.
It was Russell who, in modern times realized the concept of the "ransom sacrifice", saying that a perfect life (Adam) was needed to ransom the perfect life of Adam.
But if we remove Adam from the ransom, then we have to ask, Why does the ransom need to be a perfect life? If all God is doing is redeeming imperfect men, then why not use an imperfect ransom?
The point is, Russell included Adam in the benefits of the ransom sacrifice precisely because it was meant to cover both Adam (the perfect man) and his offspring (subject to death)!
The WTS removed Adam from receving the benefits, but in doing so, they inadvertantly removed the need for it to be a perfect sacrifice!
Furthermore, they proclaim both Adam and Eve to eternal destruction, even though Paul clearly says: "Adam was not deceived, but the woman was thoroughly deceived and came to be in transgression." (1 Timothy 2:14)
Clearly, Eve's being "thoroughly deceived" must be a mitigating factor in God's judgments! And, this seems to be the case, because God does not condemn Eve to return to the ground, neither does he cast her out of the garden!
In fact, if you read Genesis 3:20-24, it is exclusively the "man" Adam that is condemned and driven out of the garden. Since Eve later has intercourse with Adam, it is clear that Eve went with him... but she was not driven out.
Clearly then, something is seriously wrong with current Watchtower theology which condemns Adam and Eve to eternal destruction.
If the early church condemned as heresy those who taught that Adam could not benefit from the ransom sacrifice, and even the founder of the Watchtower Society saw Adam's salvation in Christ's ransom, then perhaps we should be a bit more careful before condemning Adam and Eve to the fiery pits of Gehenna.
Even Almighty God does not go that far. Returning to the dust is as far as He goes.
I'm reading parts of Irenaeus at the moment, and found something pretty interesting. Irenaeus was the bishop of Lyon, France in the 2nd century, and was quite an authorititive church father, defending the church from heretics.
I found it interesting that the idea of Adam not being under Christ's sacrifice was considered to be heretical!
It was a group of disciples under a man called Tatian who were teaching that Adam could not benefit from the ransom sacrifice, and Irenaeus wrote an entire chapter to refute their argument.
He ended this chapter by saying: "Thus also do those who disallow Adam's salvation gain nothing, except this, that they render themselves heretics and apostates from the truth, and show themselves patrons of the serpent and of death."
Now, I appreciate that the word "heretic" is used nowadays quite extensively, but back in the 2nd century, it was usually only used when there was considered to be a serious deviation from the truth.
So the idea that Adam's salvation was "disallowed" was considered a serious deviation from the truth!
Personally, I find it amazing that the early church recognized this (the potential for Adam's salvation), and even the founder of the Watchtower Society, Charles Taze Russell, recognized that the ransom sacrifice needed a perfect man in order to include and cover Adam's sin - and yet, like so many other things, the Society changed this some time after Russell's death.
You can read Irenaeus' argument here:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103323.htm
Now, I don't fully agree with all of Irenaeus' arguments, but I think his key points are very sound.
1. Since we are captives of sin and death, it would be absurd for God to provide escape to the children of the one who was taken into captivity (the sons of Adam), but not to the original father (Adam) who himself was taken into captivity!
2. God pronounces a curse on the serpent directly (since it was directly responsible), but only upon the ground which Adam would work, not upon Adam himself.
3. The first thing Adam and Eve did after eating was they made loin coverings for themselves!... implying they recognized their nakedness was wrong.
4. While Cain's response to God's questioning about his brothers murder was insolence, when Jehovah wanted to speak to Adam and Eve, they were frightened and went into hiding. They knew they had done wrong. (I would suggest this is remarkably like children when they know they've done wrong.)
5. God's putting Adam out of the garden was a mercy, so that he would not continue in sin, but would be subject to death and thus release from sin. (Romans 6:7)
6. By denying the possibility of salvation to Adam, they are doing the same to themselves, because just as "in Adam all die", "so also in Christ shall all be made alive."
The fact is, well before the "Church" became the established religion in the 4th century, the concept of Adam being eternally destroyed was a considered a heresy, propagated by a small number of disciples led by Tatian.
It was Russell who, in modern times realized the concept of the "ransom sacrifice", saying that a perfect life (Adam) was needed to ransom the perfect life of Adam.
But if we remove Adam from the ransom, then we have to ask, Why does the ransom need to be a perfect life? If all God is doing is redeeming imperfect men, then why not use an imperfect ransom?
The point is, Russell included Adam in the benefits of the ransom sacrifice precisely because it was meant to cover both Adam (the perfect man) and his offspring (subject to death)!
The WTS removed Adam from receving the benefits, but in doing so, they inadvertantly removed the need for it to be a perfect sacrifice!
Furthermore, they proclaim both Adam and Eve to eternal destruction, even though Paul clearly says: "Adam was not deceived, but the woman was thoroughly deceived and came to be in transgression." (1 Timothy 2:14)
Clearly, Eve's being "thoroughly deceived" must be a mitigating factor in God's judgments! And, this seems to be the case, because God does not condemn Eve to return to the ground, neither does he cast her out of the garden!
In fact, if you read Genesis 3:20-24, it is exclusively the "man" Adam that is condemned and driven out of the garden. Since Eve later has intercourse with Adam, it is clear that Eve went with him... but she was not driven out.
Clearly then, something is seriously wrong with current Watchtower theology which condemns Adam and Eve to eternal destruction.
If the early church condemned as heresy those who taught that Adam could not benefit from the ransom sacrifice, and even the founder of the Watchtower Society saw Adam's salvation in Christ's ransom, then perhaps we should be a bit more careful before condemning Adam and Eve to the fiery pits of Gehenna.
Even Almighty God does not go that far. Returning to the dust is as far as He goes.