Given that qualification, yes, but those who haven’t are still not free not to to sin.
1 Like
Hebrews 11:
“Without faith it is impossible to please God.”
Thus any action that pleases God requires faith, so without faith an action displeases God, which makes it sin.
Can we illustrate biblical support for Grace in the absence of sin?
I ask this because i do not see any texts in the Bible that make mention of grace before the fall of Adam and Eve. We also do not find any evidence of the continued need for grace after the restoration is complete when the new heavens and the new earth in the book of Revelation either.
I think that this construct about grace has serious issues in that it is attempting to unlink grace with the consequences of sin. Gace is why (or i suppose how) we are offered salvation…it is a gift given to us specifically because Christ was incarnate, lived among us and then died on the cross for the sins of humanity. Technically speaking, without the blood of Christs sacrifice there was no such thing as Grace…so it could not have existed prior to that time and yet it appears that the O.P is making the claim God extended Saving Grace to mankind before sin had even entered this world.
My understanding is that prior to the crucifixion, Grace for those in old testament times was dependent on the prophetic success of Christ…so the old testament sacrificial system by itself was useless if Christ didnt go through with it. Our God took a huge risk in doing what he did.
I know the question is about to be raised…how can you prove this point Adam? (answer - see below)
Hebrews 10:
1For the law is only a shadow of the good things to come, not the realities themselves. It can never, by the same sacrifices offered year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. 2If it could, would not the offerings have ceased? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt the guilt of their sins.
3Instead, those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, 4because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. 5Therefore, when Christ came into the world, He said:
“Sacrifice and offering You did not desire,
but a body You prepared for Me.
6In burnt offerings and sin offerings
You took no delight.
7Then I said, ‘Here I am, it is written about Me in the scroll:
I have come to do Your will, O God.’ ”a
8In the passage above He says, “Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings You did not desire, nor did You delight in them” (although they are offered according to the law). 9Then He adds, “Here I am, I have come to do Your will.” He takes away the first to establish the second. 10And by that will, we have been sanctified through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
The point is, there was no need for grace immediately after the earth was created because prior to Genesis ch 3, there was no sin in this world. If there was, the bible would say so, however, the reality is, it does not. There is no place anywhere in the bible where it gives us any statement that sin or the wages of sin (ie death), existed prior to Genesis ch 3.
Grace was not a term found in the creation story because it was not needed…there was no sin, and no death…no need for grace. Grace is about salvation from eternal physical death as a consequence of sin…that is the point!
you make the argument here that humanity was “predestined to sin”. That is not biblical that i am aware of (unless you can find texts to support your claim)
there is a big difference between freewill and predestination. God did not predestine that we should fail to live according to his commandments…but he absolutely gave us freewill and there is good reason for this doctrine. The charge Lucifer made in heaven against God was that we do not in fact really have freewill. God is selfish and self serving. the entire plan of salvation hinges on the premise that Lucifer’s charge against God was, up until the cross, on trial.
In the church Fathers there are three different uses of the term “grace” that I think are relevant. By these, humans being created in the image of God was an act of grace, humans being in fellowship with God before the Fall is an act of grace (closely linked to the first), and forgiveness granted through Christ and the Cross is grace. Setting aside sin in the Old Testament by not just killing humans off and starting over is regarded as an act of grace but that is connected with the grace of God in/through Christ; the Incarnation is regarded as an act of grace distinct but not separate from the grace of the Cross.
So “any grace before the fall of Adam and Eve” would be the grace of being created in God’s image and of being in fellowship, which is a very different thing from the grace of the Cross, though it is sometimes connected to the grace of the Incarnation because if Christ could not become incarnate then Creation itself would not have happened. But pondering that brings all grace back to the Cross since the grace of the Incarnation cannot be separated from that of the Cross – though given that the effects are different, the types of grace are different.
But from the perspective of eternity Christ had already “gone through with it”: He is the Lamb slain from before the foundation of the world! From that perspective, the Cross was a “done deal”, an event already established before the serpent slinked into the Garden. The Cross is thus the centerpiece of Creation since without it the lesser grace of all things being created would not have happened.
So what you say here:
Speaks specifically of the grace of the Cross – yet the grace of our existence cannot even be separated from that grace!
You are reasoning in this line:
Because the eternal Son was already slain before the foundation of the world, when humans appeared in the (already running) world, they couldn’t help but sin, i.e.: were not able not to sin, were predetermined to sin.
By contrast, my reasoning is as follows:
Before the foundation of the world the holy Trinity decided:
We want to make humans free,
and if they freely decide to sin, we want to give them the opportunity to repent,
and to facilitate this, we will show them our divine love by sending the Son to be slain.
Since God’s decision is what matters for defining what is truly real, my reasoning means:
The Son was slain before the foundation of the world,
for all practical purposes.
Although from our human temporal perspective the Son was slain long after the Big-Bang, when the world was already running embedded in the space-time fabric.
1 Like
Enevitable does not mean predestined. The possibility of sin was always there, but we do not have to take it or succumb to it.
Richard
Sin is not passive. Neither is it the automatic converse to pleasing God. Without the knowledge of God and His requirements we cannot please Him or sin. Ignorance really is bliss as far as sin is concerned. Sin is an an active and deliberate act
Richard
1 Like
Adam, I would be thankful if you quote the claim in the O.P. you refer to in order to comment suitably.
That is not the definition of sin.
Richard
We are told to worship and obey God. Can you obey if you do not believe he exists? Disobedience is sin.
1 Like
No. So it is not a sin.
I recently contested a fine for not paying a bill that I was not aware of. You are doing the same thing.
You can only sin against God if you understand what God requires and refuse to do it. If you do not know, you cannot sin. Adam’s sin was disobedience, not the act of eating. He knew he was not supposed to but did it anyway. That is sinning.
A child cannot sin because it does not have the understanding. It cannot worship or follow what it does not understand.
You can only sin if you know what is required and refuse to do it. If you do not know (God) you cannot sin. If, on the other hand, you choose to ignore God, that could be defined as sinning. But, that would assume that you have identified Him and chosen to ignore Him.
God is fair. it would appear that you are not.
Richard
Ignorance is not an excuse. Do you really think you are not subject to laws you are not aware of?
1 Like
We are not talking of legalism. We are not talking about any kind of law.
In the case I was talking about, I do not dispute the charge, only the fine for not paying it. Surely you understand the difference?
Richard
Did you succeed?
1 Like
Jury is still out (proverbially)
Richard
I find this interesting and would like to comment on it.
Could you please tell us, which claim in the O.P. are you referring to?
I do not accept this. Grace is the act of overlooking a debt, it does not rely on any means to achieve it.
Perhaps Jesus is the only way humanity could accept it? -There is no such thing as a free lunch!
Richard
As already suggested, before the foundation of the world the three divine Persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) decided:
We want to make humans free,
and if they freely decide to sin, we want to give them the opportunity to repent,
and to facilitate this:
-
We will let them on earth submitted to time, decay, and the Darwinian tendencies of death and life;
-
Show them our divine love by sending the Son to be slain;
-
Since we cannot be the cause of temptation, the first humans we make in our image ought not to be submitted to concupiscence coming from the very Homo sapiens flesh we will make them of. Accordingly, we will provide them with “original grace” to overcome the deficiencies aforesaid in point 1.
The cause of the deficiencies mentioned under point 1 is clearly the first sinner, although as far as these deficiencies may contribute to our salvation, they can be considered as originating from God’s mercy toward the sinners and, to this extent, the first sin can be considered a “happy fault”.
The cause of the “original grace” mentioned in point 3 is clearly God’s love, mercy, and omnipotence, and since it is inseparable from the decision mentioned under point 2, one can consider that the “original grace” originates from “the blood of Christ’s sacrifice”, as you rightly point out, and indeed to overcome the consequences of the first sin.