Blameless in the Law

[Soyeong]

So, ultimately you are justified by your faithfulness?

According to Romans 2:13, only doers of the law will be justified, so there is a connection between our justification and being a doer of the law and being justified, and the key is to correctly understanding what that connection is and is not. That connection is that being a doer of the law means that we have faith and that connection is not earning our justification as a wage even though perfect obedience. Only those who are doers of the law has faith and everyone who is not a doer of the law does not have faith, which is why only doers of the law will be justified.

 

[ladodgers6]

According to Romans 2:13, only doers of the law will be justified, so there is a connection between our justification and being a doer of the law and being justified, and the key is to correctly understanding what that connection is and is not. That connection is that being a doer of the law means that we have faith and that connection is not earning our justification as a wage even though perfect obedience. Only those who are doers of the law has faith and everyone who is not a doer of the law does not have faith, which is why only doers of the law will be justified.

Is that a yes?

 

[Soyeong]

Is that a yes?

The Bible states both that we are justified by our faith and that we are justified by our works, which is because the way to have faith is by doing works.

 

[ladodgers6]

The Bible states both that we are justified by our faith and that we are justified by our works, which is because the way to have faith is by doing works.

So, my faithfulness is the final deciding factor of my justification?

 

[FredVB]

Confession of sins is not any advantage while not repenting. Repenting is essential with faith for salvation and everlasting life that is promised, with that. That is all that is needed, through Jesus Christ, for salvation, with restoration to God. But we are saved to grow. We need obedience to God, with our repentance if it is real, for that, and it would show. None of us should stay to be just as we were when saved, even while we were really saved then.

Adam knew what sin was, and he didn't have the Torah.
After he ate the fruit he was ashamed and hid from God.

Adam, and his wife, were afraid. Nothing about him, or her, is written about being ashamed.

 

[Strong in Him]

Adam, and his wife, were afraid. Nothing about him, or her, is written about being ashamed.

You're quite right; my mistake.

 

[FredVB]

Faithfulness is an aspect of repentance in one's life, that is, not wanting to continue or return to what was sinful for that one, which was in unfaithfulness. Godliness we as believers should grow up in involves needed faithfulness.

Godliness is not what we learn for how we live from church we go to. It is with growing further in the fruit of the Spirit of God, which scriptures show with those listed. It involves no sin, what is sin is against one's conscience and specifically what the Bible shows to be sin, including wickedness, selfishness, and rebellion that is against God's will. All of what people call sin isn't that. What one calls sin that is not shown in the scriptures is just sin for that one, or another calling it such.

Adam and his wife were not in sin being without anything on, that is just part of God's good design for us. They were in sin when rebelling against God's will thinking to have something better than what God would give them. They found out immediately that this wasn't true, there was not shame in how they were, they were afraid. They sought to cover themselves well, and, hide in bushes, to not be found. Of course, nothing is hidden from God. And God sees all of us as naked as we would be, our bodies made by God are not hidden from God.

 

[Carl Emerson]

You're quite right; my mistake.

How do we understand this when in the matter of Lot uncovering is clearly a sin.

 

[Strong in Him]

How do we understand this when in the matter of Lot uncovering is clearly a sin.

Well I've always read it that Adam and Eve were ashamed - they hid from God and wanted to cover their nakedness.
But the text does say "afraid". Were they afraid because God could see they were naked - although he always could? Or were they metaphorically naked too - they knew they had done wrong and there was no way of covering up their sin?
That sounds like a possibility, though I don't want to read into the text something which isn't there.

 

[Carl Emerson]

How about they suddenly saw what sin was when they ate - they would freak out at the realisation...

 

[FredVB]

How do we understand this when in the matter of Lot uncovering is clearly a sin.

How so? It was incestuous sex while one was used drunk, that was sin?

Well I've always read it that Adam and Eve were ashamed - they hid from God and wanted to cover their nakedness.
But the text does say "afraid". Were they afraid because God could see they were naked - although he always could? Or were they metaphorically naked too - they knew they had done wrong and there was no way of covering up their sin?
That sounds like a possibility, though I don't want to read into the text something which isn't there.

They were afraid. They knew they had done wrong. The next wrong thing was thinking they could then hide from God, who before they were walking with. They had no issue with God before. It was not because God could see them naked. That is our perspective with our current understanding. They never knew yet what clothing was. How could they understand naked being something to be ashamed of with never knowing of anything to cover up with? They were hiding because of what they did wrong, surely not because nakedness was something to be ashamed of. That isn't even in the Bible, we have that understanding just from our own culture. But there is much of the Bible only understood with our present perspective in our own culture.

 

[Rose_bud]

The text says both
Genesis 2:25 Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame. (Strongs 954. bosh)
Genesis 3:10 He answered, "I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid." (Strongs 3372. yare')

 

[Strong in Him]

They never knew yet what clothing was. How could they understand naked being something to be ashamed of with never knowing of anything to cover up with?

They did cover themselves up, Genesis 3:7.
They did that before they hid from God.

 

[Carl Emerson]

It was incestuous sex while one was used drunk, that was sin?

Are you claiming that those who uncovered Lot were not sinning?

 

[FredVB]

Are you claiming that those who uncovered lot were not sinning?

You are talking about Lot? If we uncover a lot that is not itself inherently wrong. If you mean Lot, he was drinking and got drunk, with his girls plan for that. That they took things off was for sex with him, and that was wrong. I was saying Lot uncovering himself was not in itself the sin. But it was incestuous sex, as the girls planned that, to not die there childless, that was not right. But why confuse the issue? This was about Adam and his wife afraid, not ashamed of their bodies as God made them.

 

[Carl Emerson]

If God provided for them to have their nakedness covered then this indicates modesty is a virtue.

This is confirmed in later laws in Leviticus.

Leviticus 18:6
“None of you shall approach any one of his close relatives to uncover nakedness. I am the Lord.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

You are talking about Lot? If we uncover a lot that is not itself inherently wrong. If you mean Lot, he was drinking and got drunk, with his girls plan for that. That they took things off was for sex with him, and that was wrong. I was saying Lot uncovering himself was not in itself the sin. But it was incestuous sex, as the girls planned that, to not die there childless, that was not right. But why confuse the issue? This was about Adam and his wife afraid, not ashamed of their bodies as God made them.

One thing we need to understand before attaching a doctrine to this account is that it is historical narrative concerning another time, culture, place and specific circumstances. We can understand why these daughters did what they did in the light of the unlikelihood of they never be able to have husbands, and the fear of living the rest of their lives childless. Also they had recently lost their mother and husbands in horrific circumstances and that would have to have affected them mentally and emotionally. So, really, we can't apply our 21st Century western and religious principles to their actions. We just have to accept that it happened and it was what it was.

 

[bbbbbbb]

One thing we need to understand before attaching a doctrine to this account is that it is historical narrative concerning another time, culture, place and specific circumstances. We can understand why these daughters did what they did in the light of the unlikelihood of they never be able to have husbands, and the fear of living the rest of their lives childless. Also they had recently lost their mother and husbands in horrific circumstances and that would have to have affected them mentally and emotionally. So, really, we can't apply our 21st Century western and religious principles to their actions. We just have to accept that it happened and it was what it was.

What surprised me when I first read this account was the simple honesty of the narrative. It was not tidied up or moralized for later readers. We can draw our own conclusions from this story, but, as you wisely pointed out, it is really not for us to read into the account our own morality or preconceptions.

To provide a modern-day parallel I would suggest the practice of Christianity in otherwise non-Christian cultures. In China, for example, normal people work seven days a week, 52 weeks a year. There is no allowance for men not to work and support their families. The house churches, as a result, have a dearth of pastors. With the very low income levels of the average Christians there is no money to employ anyone as a full-time pastor. The net result is that women have taken on the responsibilities of shepherding Christians. Although some men are strongly interested in becoming pastors, they know that, in doing so, they can never afford to get married, much less have a child (preferably a son who will care for his parents in their declining years).

 

[FredVB]

If God provided for them to have their nakedness covered then this indicates modesty is a virtue.

This is confirmed in later laws in Leviticus.

Leviticus 18:6
“None of you shall approach any one of his close relatives to uncover nakedness. I am the Lord.

Why do you draw that conclusion? God gave them skins to wear. It does not show God indicated to them that nakedness must be covered, that view is imposed on passages. And modesty... it means not doing things to draw attention to yourself. We find elsewhere that putting some things on is contrary to modesty, it's still because that's done to draw attention to self. The rest of meaning to modesty was also imposed on passages. And finally, interpretation is imposed on levitical passages about incestuous relations with others, that there is warning to avoid. It is about who to not have sexual involvement with. If you think otherwise and believe it is about who to not be nude around, you are left still with being alright while nude with cousins, right? Your concluding nudity is inherently not virtuous does not stand up to even your interpretations. Again, the subject was about Adam and his wife, Eve, being afraid, and nothing showing they were ashamed of nudity.

One thing we need to understand before attaching a doctrine to this account is that it is historical narrative concerning another time, culture, place and specific circumstances. We can understand why these daughters did what they did in the light of the unlikelihood of they never be able to have husbands, and the fear of living the rest of their lives childless. Also they had recently lost their mother and husbands in horrific circumstances and that would have to have affected them mentally and emotionally. So, really, we can't apply our 21st Century western and religious principles to their actions. We just have to accept that it happened and it was what it was.

There is something to this, that you are right to point out, while we should agree some things done were wrong. But coming to this is rather far from what was posted about Adam and Eve, and does not say anything about that.

There is a real issue with those of us in our present world imposing our views on scriptures that are all from past millenia with people who understood things in different ways, and we could learn further to be aware of what was and wasn't valued in those earlier cultures, it wasn't all the same.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Why do you draw that conclusion? God gave them skins to wear. It does not show God indicated to them that nakedness must be covered, that view is imposed on passages. And modesty... it means not doing things to draw attention to yourself. We find elsewhere that putting some things on is contrary to modesty, it's still because that's done to draw attention to self. The rest of meaning to modesty was also imposed on passages. And finally, interpretation is imposed on levitical passages about incestuous relations with others, that there is warning to avoid. It is about who to not have sexual involvement with. If you think otherwise and believe it is about who to not be nude around, you are left still with being alright while nude with cousins, right? Your concluding nudity is inherently not virtuous does not stand up to even your interpretations. Again, the subject was about Adam and his wife, Eve, being afraid, and nothing showing they were ashamed of nudity.



There is something to this, that you are right to point out, while we should agree some things done were wrong. But coming to this is rather far from what was posted about Adam and Eve, and does not say anything about that.

There is a real issue with those of us in our present world imposing our views on scriptures that are all from past millenia with people who understood things in different ways, and we could learn further to be aware of what was and wasn't valued in those earlier cultures, it wasn't all the same.

Concerning Adam and Eve's realisation that they were naked, this came after they ate the forbidden fruit. When they told God that they hid from Him because they were naked, ashamed and afraid, God asked them, "Who told you this? Have you eaten the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil?"

Therefore it wasn't God who clothed them at first, because the Scripture record says that as soon as they realised they were naked they made for themselves loin coverings made of leaves. So they clothed themselves at first. God made them covering of animal skins to provide a more permanent covering.

Actually, animal skin covering was prophetic, because in order to cover them, an animal's blood had to be shed. Our spiritual nakedness is covered by the shedding of the blood of Jesus. Also, God told the serpent that "the seed of the woman will bruise your head." Notice that He did not say the seed of the man and woman. The fact that He said "seed of the woman" foretells the future virgin birth of Jesus. This shows that Jesus appeared right back in the garden of Eden, right after the Fall, and Adam and Eve were directed to faith in "the seed of the woman" for their future salvation and the salvation of mankind.