The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Paradise Regained?

I have a question and thought this would be a great time to join the board.
Is there a name given to the theological idea that our ultimate redemption is a restoration of the original state of things in Eden? vs. of course, the idea that the new creation is something bigger and better.

I'm looking for the historical context (assuming there is one) over the debate between God's initial purpose in creation.
ie. Was Adam (and Eden) the ultimate ideal, equivalent in all ways to our future glorified state? (I know this answer to be NO, but don't know what theological terms might exist to research the issue from a historical perspective).

Thanks.

Jyeager,

I hesitate to try to place a name upon the “paradise restored” view that you have presented for discussion. A few “isms” and “ists” came to mind while I read your post.

One example is the preterist view. Many will probably jump on my offered definition and point out errors in my understanding, but I think the preterists in general want a restoration of things to at least what they were in the “early church” (prior to AD 70 or the first century). I recently learned that preterists have “manifested” or organized themselves in roughly three modern day movements: the Pentecostals have wanted to “recreate” the miracles and signs associated with the day of Pentecost. Then a movement or “wave” occurred whose adherents are called “charismatics” who generally desire a state as when the gifts manifested in the Corinthian church. They want to believe that prophecy, miracles, ecstatic utterances, etc. should be common place and the norm. The third most recent “phenomenon” is the “vineyard” movement that is named after a fellowship where this teaching became popular (i.e. that ecstatic utterances, extreme emotional events should be common).

But that doesn’t help you, does it? So here is one that might hit a little closer home to Eden before the “fall”.

Again, I may get showered with tons of corrections and recommendations to read an article of one of the church fathers, but “premillenialism” may be closer to your ideal:

The premillenialist view states that we are living in an age prior to a yet future 1000 year reign with Christ. In this view, the ideal state that you mentioned in the garden of Eden prior to Adam’s sin could potentially be realized by the saints in the millennial, earthly kingdom. If my eschatology is correct, this state occurs prior to the “new heavens and new earth” mentioned by John in the book of Revelation. Satan is bound during this period and so many have concluded that the present earth (this current creation) will actually have the chance to experience what Adam and Eve had before this ugly thing of sin messed us all up.

Now, let me share some of my own heart on your question. I believe that the most important aspect of this discussion is the relationship that Adam and Eve had with God, our Father. I consider this relationship many times more valuable than their physical condition in the garden. I know that weeds and various toilsome, troublesome things came about as part of God’s curse that he had to pronounce upon Adam after his rebellion. I also am to understand from God’s word that the creation itself groans to be clothed upon with the glory that is to be revealed. See Romans 8:18-22. The Jews in Jesus time were waiting for a prophet or Messiah who would “…restore all things”. So you might want to do some research on the subject of restorationism.

However, I believe that the way that we get back to what Adam and Eve had prior to Adam’s fall is the miracle of “regeneration” or “rebirth” as Jesus described to Nicodemus in John’s gospel, chapter 3. The physical aspect of creature comforts in the garden and the cool of the day when God walked with Man is not the essential aspect of “paradise restored”. It is rather the restoration of relationship that Adam had with God. Before sin came, God visited with man and walked with him. There was a sweet communion, a friendship, a relationship that cannot be equaled anywhere. Excepting in our hearts; when we receive Christ as savior.

So the essential aspect of paradise regained is the restoration of fellowship with God, the restoration of the relationship that had been lost through disobedience. Then the physical benefits follow as a secondary aspect. I think our natural inclination (and this may not be wrong) is to expect that as creation was corrupted by the “fall” of the first Adam, it should then see a restoration or “regeneration” under the reign of the “last Adam”, Jesus Christ. But our primary focus can remain as the New Testament truth of rebirth of our spirit. It could be that the cleansing of our corrupted earth (physical environment) may be linked to the physical elements once again coming under the obedience of Jesus Christ.

God's richest blessings!

Wow, I thank you for your detailed thoughts!

You've certainly touched on many ideas relating to the question. It seems as though it stops short of getting at the heart of my question (or my reading of it stops short of understanding your response).

Let me try to ask in another way:

Yes or No: Will our future glorified state be a restoration of the pre-fall state of Adam?
I'm sure many would say yes, but I say no. For one thing, prior to the fall there was the potential for the fall. Are we to believe there will be an eternal potential for future falls after our redemption is complete? The answer would seem to be a clear 'NO'.

So, the original creation must not have been God's ideal intended creation. In short, He foresaw (and I would say fore-ordained) the fall and the initial creation was intended as the starting place for the plan of redemption.

Another example is the question of Adam's pre-fall mortality. Was Adam immortal before the fall? To say no would seem to deny the Biblical doctrine that death came through the fall. To say yes means that immortality isn't really immortality <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
Sproul said it this way (and he was only reiterating what previous theologians said): that if Adam hadn't sinned he'd be a very old mortal. Mortal, meaning he had the potential to die, but wouldn't have died due to God's sustaining perhaps.
However, Scripture promises us a future immortality, not just a long-lived mortality without the potential death occurring.

I may have just rambled quite a bit, but I'm wondering if theologians from time past have been asking these questions and if so were there any convenient labels applied to the differing schools of thought.

jyeager,

Welcome to The Highway Discussion Board.

I am one who agrees with your conclusion, i.e., the New Heaven and New Earth is not specifically a restoration of the Garden of Eden. Most significant, as you pointed out, is the fact that the New Earth will be populated with those who will never fall nor even have the ability to fall through disobedience. Some other points which I think are salient are:

• The saints will have new "resurrection" bodies, similar to that which the Lord Christ had.
• There will be no marriage
• No disappointments, pain, sorrow, death, etc.
• The saints will be in total harmony and communion with their Redeemer and not just their Creator
• There will be no "Covenant of Works", but one which is all of grace upon grace; i.e., no provisional existence but rather one of a gracious and permanent providential existence

Many have speculated as to what the New Heaven and New Earth will look like. I shall not do so as I am not given to speculation. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> What I do know is that it will exceed the glory of the corruptible far beyond what I could possible imagine. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

jyeager,

Let me try again, NO. Ok, that was easy...NO.

As Pilgrim pointed out, our resurrected bodies will be glorified as is Jesus' body. Adam was formed by God from the dust of the earth. I will not speculate how long Adam might have lived, had he not sinned. Perhaps the natural body would have been more robust and resistent to disease had Adam not sinned. It is a fruitless quest as well to imagine what would have transpired in man's history had Adam not sinned. Pilgrim mentioned that we would miss out on the privelege of knowing our redeemer.

How about the prodigal? What if he had stayed home and submitted himself to his father. Would his love for him have been as great? I am not suggesting that we all go out and sin so that God's grace can be tested and manifested.

Could God have purposely made us with weaknesses and limitations so that we would come to the end or ourselves and be forced to depend upon His spiritual provision?

Remember the servants, one who owed his master a little and he was forgiven his debt and then the one who owed a fabulous sum. The master frankly forgave them both. Which one of His servants would love Him more?

Back to your original question: No, the state of man in the garden of Eden was apparently one of innocence. He was mortal, I think he could die physically, but he had no knowledge of good and evil, like a child before he is held responsible. A non-sinning Adam would not pass the sinful nature to his offspring. So we could assume rebellion would never have occured.

So, this age was the so-called "age of innocence". It is a far cry, however from the future state of glorification where we shall know even as we are known.

So, let me ask others this question: Are we wrong to assign the corruption of earthly phenomena (destructive floods, earth quakes, etc.) to the result of Adam's fall?

Maybe the garden of Eden wasn't such a utopia after all?

That's a great question. Many believe that death first resulted after the fall; and that includes death of any kind. They claim the earth cannot have been more than a few years old at the time of the fall or animals would certainly have died. Also, carnivores didn't eat animal flesh, they ate plants until the fall...They even have to go so far as to postulate that the 2nd law of thermodynamics didn't apply pre-fall because a universe with entropy couldn't have been God's perfect creation...they say the laws of physics actually were changed as a result of the fall.

What would be the purpose of having death occuring during the first days of creation? Also why should we think that in the record of Genesis 1-3 that years would have passed? Isn't it more likely to view the fall as something that happened on the seventh day?

Certainly, many would say that the fall happened on the 7th 24 hour day. I wasn't addressing that. Many people are open to longer than 24 hour creation days, but some of those people are predisposed to the idea that no animals could have died prior to the fall simply because death entered the world as a result of the fall.
So for those who hold this view, some of them might allow for a somewhat longer period of time between creation and the fall, but there would be an outer limit to the timeframe because presummably animals couldn't have existed for extremely long periods of time without any dying.

One argument that at least one of the days was more than 24 hours is based on the naming of the animals. How long would it take Adam to name all the animals? Forget the fact that he had to observe them all and find fitting names based on their characteristics. Let's just say he took 3 seconds per species. That would enable him to name only 28,800 species in one day. There are more than that. So either he only named a small portion or that 'day' was longer than 24 hours.

What are your thoughts?

Sorry, but I am of the opinion that when someone rejects the literal 6 day/24 hour creation view, they are already on a downward slide and thus it isn't surprising that they would come up with what you are noting here and much more which is based mostly on novel speculation. There is nothing in Scripture that would indicate that death was not existent prior to the Fall. There is nothing to indicate that antecedent to the Fall, carnivores were actually herbivorous and would have remained so except for Adam's curse. Of course, there is Gen 1:30 which could be taken to mean that ALL creatures were herbivores. However, one would be hard-pressed to explain the reason God created carnivores originally with their specialized teeth, digestive systems, etc... And this doesn't take into account all the birds that feed on insects nor any of the other predatory animals. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratchchin.gif" alt="" />

Secondly, when God told Adam that he would "surely die" should he eat of the fruit of the Tree, if death was non-existent, then what exactly would Adam have understood by those words? Did God give Adam a pre-mortem lecture with graphic pictures to explain to him what death would be like? and that the entire creation would be effected by this death? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/Ponder.gif" alt="" />

If can inject my thoughts here too? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> The premise upon which this argument is built (sand) can't stand up to even a slight wind. It is assumed that there were more than 28,800 "species" of animals at creation. In fact the argument assumes to have a relative idea of how many species there were. The fact is, that one cannot know how many original species of animals God created from which other species developed. Secondly, it was just animals Adam was to name and not every creature that was made, was it not? (Gen 1:19, 20) And thirdly, does the Scripture even allow for a proposed contracted time element between Creation and Fall?

In His Grace,

Pilgrim, I'm very interested to delve a bit deeper in to your comments.

You say that Scripture gives no reason to assume that animals didn't die prior to the fall. That's encouraging since I don't see that Scripture mandates that view either. Typically I see this reason as being the underlying premise for which most people arrive at the need to hold to the 6 consecutive 24-hour day view. (Well, that and the perspective that I began this thread about...the idea that the original creation must have been God's perfect intention and death wouldn't be a part of that)
However, you seem to be advocating that position simply from the Scriptures. I'd like to talk more about that if you'd like. I have a quote from Augustine that indicates He wasn't willing to assume 24 hour days. Perhaps you could briefly explain why you feel that interpretation is mandated by the text. In a nutshell, I'd say that if someone like Augustine (in the pre-science era) wouldn't assume 24 hour days from the Hebrew then why now, when we have so much more information available via natural revelation, would we conclude they must have been?

In regard to the 28,000 or so species statement. We may end up getting into the issue of what role natural revelation plays. We see from zoology and paleontology that there have been innumerable species since the creation. (here we're assuming that God had stopped creating by day 6). We could talk about what the Hebrew actually says and perhaps build the case that not all species or 'types' were necessarily included...is that your position? You seem to leave the door open also for some super hyper speed evolution to have populated the world. Science/Evolution is one of my specialty areas and I'm adamant that macro-evolution doesn't and hasn't happened.

My reasons for holding to a 6 day/24 hour creation is actually very simple; grammatically, linguistically, there is no other way that the creation account can be understood. Arguments to the contrary are weak at best, e.g., suggestions that "yom" is found to be used to refer to eras, etc., in Scripture and therefore it could also be used in the creation account in Genesis in the same way. However, the context won't allow "yom" to be interpreted in any other way but 24 hours. (cf. "And the evening and the morning were the first day.", et al) Some other factors involved are, (1) using the Grammatico-Historico hermeneutic of the Bible, it must have been the case that a 6/24 creation was the view held for hundreds of years by the Jews as well as those during the time of the writing of the N.T. who didn't have the "privilege" of having at their disposal all the various theories proposed by unregenerate scientists. 2) Although I realize that the following may be deemed highly subjective, it remains a cogent argument, IMHO. When I read the creation account(s) in Genesis, the 6 day/24 hour time frame "screams" off the page. 3) There is no logical or biblical reason that can be given that would provide evidence that God could not have created the entire universe in a span of 6 24-hour days; i.e., a mature earth, etc. 4) I believe that this is also logical in that God created the earth as "inhabitable" in anticipation of His bringing forth mankind.

See also here: Reformed Theology and Six Day Creation, by Dr. Kenneth Gentry.

In His Grace,

"...grammatically, linguistically, there is no other way that the creation account can be understood."
That seems to be a recklessly strong statement. If you were to say that it is 'clearly the best' interpretation given only the evidence from Scripture I'd probably agree completely. To say that it rules out any other understanding is pretty strong and completely leaves out natural revelation. What is your view of natural revelation by the way? Would you agree that it's a less-reliable yet valid form of revelation and that the 2 revelations, if properly understood, will never contradict each other? And if they appear to then one or the other is being misinterpreted?

I read the link you provided, thanks for that. I seems to me that the author really has 2 arguments:
1. The Westminster Confession says it's 24 hour days
2. The best Biblical exegesis would be 24 hour days

I've already commented on #2. However, #1 seems fallacious. Who cares what the authors of the confession believed Scripture to say? Have we decided that the Westminster Confession is inerrant?

If we are going to argue from authority (not that I really think you were, but please don't think I am either), then isn't this document more authoritative than the document you provided? http://www.pcanet.org/history/creation/report.html
Why weren't these people able to say that 24-hour days were a mandatory interpretation for Presbyterians?

Honest, friendly questions here. I hope that the above doesn't read as argumentative.

Thanks for entertaining these questions.

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/yep.gif" alt="" /> pretty strong because in my estimation there is no other viable alternative. Scripture is THE sole and final authority in all matters of faith and practice. The Bible must dictate all we believe. Thus all things must be brought before the light of Scripture for a proper understanding. Where the Scripture speaks, it speaks infallibly. So, in regard to this matter of the creation days, since it does speak, and again according to the Bible's own hermeneutic, i.e., Grammatico-Historico, the creation account is a 24 hour/6 day event. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

As to "natural revelation" it speaks of the existence and power of the triune God and His judgment upon mankind. (Ps 19:1; 50:6; 97:6; Rom 1:18f) All else which can be perceived is but "raw data" which must be interpreted by the light of Scripture. Secular science begins with the premise that there is no God (Ps 14:1) and therefore they have set forth "theories" which for the most part contradict the clear teaching of Scripture. Evolutionary theories, including theistic evolution, either ignore or disregard the clear teaching of Scripture and consequently the conclusions reached are inherently flawed. For example, all secular estimations concerning "dating" begin with the presupposition that matter has evolved by natural consequence, thus the earth is millions/billions of years old. This flies in the face of the biblical witness which testifies that God created a "mature" earth. Thus the age of the earth is very "young" and not "old". Please don't ask me to provide you with an exact date for the earth's creation, for I wasn't there when God created it and the Bible doesn't provide, nor do I believe it was God's intention to provide that information. What I do believe is that the age of the earth is thousands of years old in contradistinction to millions or billions of years old.

Yes I do hold that there is no contradiction between the natural revelation and special revelation, for God is the Author of both. However, natural revelation should not and cannot determine the correct understanding of Scripture.

Lastly, as to your total dismissal of the Westminster Confession and like documents which the Church has produced seems a bit arrogant, IMHO. The right place, and these documents do have a place, which they are to be held is that they are secondary sources of authority only; i.e., that where they are in agreement with Scripture, they are authoritative as a summary statement of biblical teaching. The are applicable, therefore, only to those who have agreed to place themselves under them (denominationally). And although they are secondary sources of authority, it would be rather silly, IMHO, to dismiss the wisdom of those who wrote them. The Scriptures are a closed Canon. But the doctrines of the church were not given in full as the church itself grew not only in size but in knowledge of the Scriptures over time; aka: History of Dogmatics, as the Holy Spirit enlightened men as to the Bible's teaching, usually during times when that which was believed was attacked. And thus, what was held to be true was put into writing by way of judgment, e.g., Nicean Creed, Athanasian Creed, Chalcedon, Council of Orange, Canons of Dordtrect, et al.

Lastly, as to the PCA report, found at the link you provided, knowing the state of that denomination, I am not at all surprised that they were not able to reach a consensus concerning the length of the creation days. Again, I rest my case on the biblical statements, which when taken in context along with all the other items, which e.g., Gentry mentions in his article concerning the text itself, can only be understood to teach a 24 hour/7 day creation. Regardless of the problems which some may have, for example, with the creation of the sun, etc... it is not prudent to try and resolve those issues by relying upon theories which are grounded in naturalistic science that begins with a denial of God.

One other site, which I am confident you are familiar with which offers much in the way of answers to such questions can be found here: Answers in Genesis.

In His Grace,

Hi Pilgrim,

First of all, I firmly believe in 7 day/24 hour creation. I also believe the earth is relatively young (thousands of years). So, I pretty much agree with everything you've stated so far. But, could you expand a little on the following statement.


Are you suggesting that there was some sort of evolution after the original creation through which other species developed? Or, that possibly God created more species after the original creation was over?

Thanks,
John

Methinks the reason for your question is due to terminology, re: "species". Let me answer your last question first with a solid, "No!" <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> God ceased creating on the 6th day. I also do not hold to any form of "Theistic Evolution". Okay... now that we got that out of the way . . . I do not believe that every "type" of animal was created on the 5th day (Gen 1:21-23). The various "varieties" of animals which now exist, I believe did not exist at first, but rather they came to be over time through various changes and adaptations. For example, the big huff in the Northwest over the "Spotted Owl" which the humanistic environmentalists headed was because it is said that this bird is a "species". But I maintain that it is simply a "mutation", if you will, of the owl species. Perhaps a better example might be "albino" animals. They are not unique "species" but rather mutations of a much larger species.

I confess, I am no biologist and to be honest, I am more comfortable knowing what I don't know than I am with what I might know. :giggle" . . . with the exception of this one thing of which I am absolutely sure; the conclusions reached by unregenerate secular humanistic scientists should not ever dictate or influence how a believer interprets the Scriptures. An interpretation may be wrong. But let that error be grammatical, linguistic, and/or a failure to gather all the biblical data concerning a particular subject spoken of in a passage.

'Nough said! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,