Nei til islam: Mye mer nødvendig om Magnus Lagabøter og vår uvisse tid i dag

Denne posteringen er en oppfølger til denne, om Magnus Lagabøter:

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2024/11/kong-magnus-lagabter-var-kabbalist-en.html

Det virker og hviler mange ord i et lite pust, et lite kast.

Like tunge, vakre, skremmende.

Som i det siste åndedrag.

Alt er ikke semanitikk og bare ord. Det ligger mye kabbala – det har mottatt det vi mottar og sender ut - i og med ordene. Derfor denne posteringen.

Fremmedord til nå? Vel, ikke så mye lenger. Har du hørt følgende ord, pust og lyder, i det siste?

Hawiya

Jahim

Na’ir

Jahanna

Laza

Sakar(Saqar

Hatuma/hatama

Hivs du altså ikke har hørt om dette før, vil det ikke gå mange år før du vil høre dine barnebarn benytte og bruke disse ordene – sentimentalt og innlevende - som om det var en selvfølge å ha et forhold til dem. Vi er kommet langt i internaliseringen, men ingen vil se det, og ta inn over seg betydningen av det. Dine barnebarn vil kanskje kritisere deg for å være uvitende eller ondskapsfull som ikke vet hva det dreier seg om, og påpeke med dirrende finger at vi ha da «trosfrihet for alle» her i landet …

Hvordan jeg kan vite det? Jo, fordi det allerede skjer. Det har allerede begynt. Jeg hører rett som det er yngre vakre kvinner, ikkemuslimske kvinner, i utgangspunktet, snakke om Jahanna e l, når de f eks snakker om muslimske kamerater eller venner de enten har blitt kjent med på jobben, i voksen alder, eller de ha blitt venner med på 9-årig. Det faller helt naturlig for å snakke om Jahanna, som er Helvete og Jannah som er det riktige ordet ifølge islamsk terminologi for himmelen, og det kan oversettes med «hage». De fleste legger vekt på «hage» og ikke på «helvete».

Grunn til å stusse? Nei, man skal ikke puste ukorrekt i dag; man kunne støte noen, spesielt hvis man presiserer at Helvete i islam er noe helt annet enn helvete i den vestlige tradisjon, tro og kultur. Men foreløpig vil mange av yngre bare gå ut fra som noe selvfølgelig at både muslimer og kristene som tror går rett til himmelen når man dør.

Det begynner altså med at «kristne» i sitt enfold og sin velmenthet, med sine korrekte emosjoner, går ut fra at muslimene jo skal har «de samme muligheter» som «vi» kristne, også etter døden.

Det er bare slik det er; det er slik det har gått seg til, og så prise alle seg over at vi har hatt et svært humant Arbeiderparti som har gjort alt dette mulig, så da må det jo bare være bra.

Hvis man tydeliggjør dette med ulikheter etter døden, kan man bli beskyldt for bl a intoleranse og islamofobi, - og brutalitet, ved at vi kan komme til å fornærme noen, ikke bare muslimer, men også personer blant de vi kan kalle «våre egne» (enda et fy-konsept, i og med at det forutsettes et skille mellom oss og dem og antyder at noe kan betraktes som bedre enn det annet).

De fleste av dine barnebarn vil kanskje tror at muslimvennenne, som alltid har oppført seg pent, vil komme direkte til himmelen, hvis hen dør. Er det sant?

Nei, det er ikke det. Alle muslimer skal ha sin tid i Helvete. Det ser ut til at renselse må til, i noen som kan forekomme ganske litt forestillingen om Skjærsilden i en viss kristen tradisjon, en tradisjon og en tro som visstnok opprettholdes med nebb og klør i visse tradisjoner, innen kristenheten.

Se om nobelprisvinner Fosse her:

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2024/02/limbo-et-levende-faktum-og-muslimer.html

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2024/04/frykt-og-redsel-for-endetid-og.html

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2023/12/mystikeren-fosse-og-nobel-prisen.html

Sitatene under er hentet fra to litt tynne, men likevel «vektige» bøker fra en tid tilbake, av Samuel M. Zwemer, d 1952 og F. S. Coplestone, d1974. Begge forfatterene bidro i sin tid til å forsyne inslamkritikken i dag med sine innsikter og uredde sammenligner og kontrasteringer. Vi lever i en helt annen tid i dag enn hva de gjorde den gang, da det faktisk ikke var så mye frykt og da ordet «islamofobi» ikke, den gang, var oppfunnet – for å ta kål på trosfriheten, til fordel for islam.

Zwemer: Litt om renselse i islam.

All commentaries I have seen leave out the idea of moral purity and use at the most the word tahir as a synonym; this means ceremonially clean, circumcised etc. In the dictionaries, too, the idea of holiness, for kuddus, in the Old Testment sense, is absent. The Taj-al Aroos and the Muheet-el-Muheet dictionaries tell us skuddas is pure (tahir); but when our hopes were awakened to find a spriritual idea, the next defininition reads: kuddus, a vessel used to wash the parts of the body in the bath; this is the special name for … I closely examined alle the verses having any references to this subject and did not find a single passage pointing out the neccessity of man’s beeing holy og becoming sanctified in his heart, mind or thoughts. I remember finding no passage … if they were true believers … Muhammad declared them to be muthiroon, «purified» … because he had ascertained that they performed their purifiction in the proper manner, with tree clean stones … !.

The whole idea of moral purity as utter separated from sin, is unknown to the Koran vocabulary … s 57 ff.

«The relation of Allah to the world is such that alle free-will not only, but alle freedom in the exercise of the intellect is preposterous. God is so great and the charackter of His greatness is so pantheistically absolute that there is no room for the human. All good and evil come directly fram Allah – is said to lead men astray … has created a multitude of spirits and of men expressly for torture in such a hell as only the Koran and the Tradition can paint. Sure 16. 181 og 32. 13. … even for the true believer there is no sure hope. One celebrated verse in the Koran, sure Miriam, vs 72, says that every one of the believers must enter Hell too! Hope perishes under the Weight of this iron-bondage and pessimism becomes the popular philosophy.

«Islam saw God, but not man, saw the claims of Deity, but not the rights of humanity; saw authorithy, but failed to see freedom – therefore hardened into despotism, stiffend into formalism and sank inot death … the worst form of monotheism is that it makes of God pure will – will divorced from reason and love … « s 73 f.

«Hence he (Allah) is ever more ready to punish than to reward, to inflick pain than to bestow pleasure, to ruin than to build» s 66

Kommentar: Visse sterkt avvikende kristne i Norge i dag vil at troende skal legge noe til i Fader Vår, sik at man faktisk ber om å få lide mer, ikke at Gud skal gi mer "pleasure" se:

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2023/11/morken-samlet-til-na.html

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2021/10/hvilken-gud-tror-man-egentlig-pa-i.html

Nothing is right or wrong by nature, but becomes such by the fiat of the Almighty, s 51.

The Koran is silent on the nature of sin not only, but tells next to nothing about it’s origin, result and remedy. The Attribute of Holiness is ignored … S 49.

Muhammad had a false conception of His moral attributes or no cenception at all. He saw God’s power in nature, but never had a glimpse of His holiness and justice … Muhammed had no true idea of the nature of sin and it’s consequences … s 49

Det heter «inshaallah», hvis gud vil, ikke «Thy will be done», la din vilje skje, som i kristentroen. S 95.

«To understand the great lack of the moral element in the attributes of Allah we must go further. In the Moslem system according to the Koran and fortfied by tradition, all sin is, after all, a matter of minor importance. It is the repitition of the creed that counts, and no the refomation of character.

To repeat the kalimah, There is no god but Allah and Mohammed is Allah’s prophet, - ipso facto constitutes one a true believer. … even if one should repeat the kalima accidently or by compulsion, it would make him a muslim …

The portion of unrepentant sinners is hell-fire, Sure 18, 51, 48. 89, 20. 76.The punishment is eternal, 43. 74-78 and there is no repentance possible, 26. 91-105.

It is remarkable that nearly all the references to hell-punishmen are in the Medina Surahs … they are in every case directed against unbelievers … not aginst sin … Allah does not appear to be bound by any standard of justice… s 52 ff i Zwemer.

Allah – reveals truth to His prophets, but also abrogates it, changes the message, or makes them forget it, sure 2. 105. The whole teaching of Moslem exegets on the subject of Nasikh and Masookh, or the Abrogted verses … is utterly opposed to the idea of God’s immutability and truth … There are 20 cases … Allah’s moral law changes, like the ceremonial law … Al-Ghazzali says: Allah’s justice is not to be compared with justice of men … for there is nothing which he can be tied to perform … nor can he be under any obligation to any person whatsoever. (Se postering om Magnus Lagbøter der Sunde regner opp SANNHET som et kristent kriterium hos kongen og som en forutsetning for den nye lovgivingen degang).

Kommentar:

· Allah's navn i kontekst 4

· Allah's navn i kontekst 3

· Allah's navn i kontekst 2

· Allah's navn i kontekst 1

Se også alle etikettene om synd i islam og kristendom her på bloggen.

Videre:

According to one tradition, the seven chief attributes of Deity are: Life, knowledge, purpose, power, hearing, sight and speech … Allah can annihilate the univers if it seemes good to him and recreate it in an instant and if alle believers became infidels, it would not cause him loss … (sammenlign med Salme 138 i Bibelen. Se også vår tidligere postering om Magnus Lagabøter og det jeg vil påstå viser hans tilknytning, dog svakt, til Kabbala, etter påvirkning fra jødisk mystikk utviklet den gang Magnus hentet sine forarbeider til sin nye Landslov for Norge, den gang).

Zwemer igjen:

Mrk: The Koran has no word for conscience.

Så fra Coplestone, Jesus Christ or Mohammed? Mrk: Sitatene skjenker ikke hele boken rettferdighet, men antyder «retningen» for vårt formål her.

Koranen hevder at Gud (dvs Allah) er allmektig, allestedsnærværende og allvitende. Det smaker av kristentro? Vel. Mange surer i Koranen snakker om Guds kjærlighet, men ingen snakker om at Gud elsker de som ikke har gjort seg fortjent til denne kjærligheten eller som ikke er rettferdige, slik en nådig eller miskunnelig Gud ville gjøre. S 21.

Koranens doktrine om Gud er Unitariansk, en matematisk Unity, i kontrast eller motsetning til «the unity of creative life». Kristi guddommelighet blir fornektet og Den hellige ånd blir identifisert med engelen Gabriel.

To preserve God’s independence and selv-sufficience, muslims deny that God loves … the love of God is conditional upon merit in the individual believing in God along with accompanying good works. God guides all whom He wills to guide … in bestowing grace and mercy … is wholly arbitrary … no sura reveals the universality of Allah’s grace and mercy … a great dilemma, to deny that Allah loves is to deny the truth of the Koran. (Mrk: Coplestone kunne godt ha undersøkt mer om hva grace kan og ikke kan bety i Koranen, se andre steder på bloggen).

If Divine reighteousness is not to be satisfied, then there is nothing to prevent sinners from receiving these blessings in Hell …

Muslim prayer substanially consists in uttering statements of belief, including ejacilations about the lofte characte of Allah, Bolus, s 35.

C: It is impossible for both good and evil to spring from the same source. That is why it is necessity of regeneration, s 36. Christ allowed the impossibility of God having two opposing natures within himselv. There is no virtue in uninteressed obediece. Those who do not believe will live eternally with the consequences of their sin … the Koran makes God both unjust and umerciful … s 39

The inadequacy of the God of the Koran to meet the spiritual need of Moslems is well attested by the fact that some Moslems (especially among the mystics) speak of Muhammed as an intercessor for them. Yet the Koran states that he is only one who warns, sure 88. 21 og 22. … sins are washed off, the Koran assures, by good deeds, and by these alone, s 41. (men er godt godt også utenfor Koranen?).

Muslims continue to believe that Allah saved Jesus by causing another man to bear the sentence of condemnation … they cannot logically object to the Biblical doctrin which states that God saved sinners by Chirst’s substitution (!?).

Contradictions: … none will be helped on the Day of Judgement … yet angels will intercede for people …

Coplestone: It is not our suffering that God desires … , s 57.

Kommentar: Dette lyder selvsagt for de fleste, men det fins (troende) mennesker i vårt land i dag, som mener at vi bør ta inn en ekstra bønn i Fader Vår om at han vil «skjenke» oss mer lidelse. Man kan da spørre seg om hvorvidt disse folkene tror de er utsendinger fra Allah og profeten snarere enn statssubsidierte misjonærer for Jesus Kristus, se:

http://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2021/10/hvilken-gud-tror-man-egentlig-pa-i.html

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2023/11/morken-samlet-til-na.html

Coplestone: One muslim tradition relates … one man was pious, the other man totally neglected his religious duties … saw the good man writhing in the torments of hell … the evil man enjoying the wine and houris (maidens) of paradise … Allah replied «Have I not the right to do as I please with my own?» … s 85.

Nothing is said of enjoying fellowship with Allah, s 87. … Love, justice, mercy, truth, goodness, righteousness and evil are to mean the same thing for man as they do for God (i kristentroen, jfr hva Magnus Lagabøter bygget på her:

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2024/11/kong-magnus-lagabter-var-kabbalist-en.html):

Sunde nevner: Når Sunde så opererer med «Guds fire søstre», er det lett å assosiere til kabbala, ja, man kan nesten ikke annet, selv om Magnus bruker en mer forenklet begrepsbruk, folk skulle jo forstå dette på mest mulig riktig pedagogisk måte, tiden og forholdene tatt i betraktning.

Sunde og kong Magnus koker dette ned til: Sannhet, Miskunn, Rettferd og Fred. Med litt fantasi, vil det være lett å foreta en reell kobling til kabbalaen …

Vi ser over i siteringene fra Zwemer og Coplestone at Sannhet, Miskunn, Rettferd og Fred har et ganske annet fokus i islam enn i kristenstroen, som Magnus Lagabøte(r) sto midt oppi, med begge bein – noe som ble til stor velsignelse for landet.

Før vi går videre nå, må vi legge ved en del linker som relaterer seg flere grunnleggende triangler og hvilken virkning og funksjon de har hatt i vår «judeo-kristne tradisjon og tro»:

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2022/12/var-jesus-gal-eller-er-du-spr.html

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2024/07/frsteprinsippene.html

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2024/02/vil-du-ha-den-store-oversikten-som-kan.html

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2023/01/serviliteten-og-vestens-selvpafrte.html

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2021/03/mer-om-det-moderne-postmoderne.html

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2022/01/paradoksene-og-vart-instinkt-for.html

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2020/12/allmakt-makt-myndighet-autoritet-avmakt.html

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2021/07/treenigheten-og-vare-dagers-totalitre.html

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2022/03/den-russisk-ortodokse-kirke-putin.html

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2024/05/treenigheten-dens-utrolige-letthet-i.html

Om bl a Hobbes:

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2023/07/robotisering-kunstig-iq-liberalisering.html

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2018/09/tankeforutsetninger-og-det-juridico.html

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2021/01/big-tech-hypemagi-makt-avmakt-og-klare.html

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2022/08/antifa-etter-crash.html

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2017/06/allahs-kjrlighet-allahs-nade-grace.html

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2016/12/norsk-islam-fact-or-fake.html

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2018/11/sosialkonomiske-teser-om-godhet.html

Pavene Gregor og Bonifacius. Morken, Horn og Hadia Tajik:

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2020/10/hadia-tajik-knuser-morken-og-horn.html

Jeg spør: Hvor et det sanne, gode og skjønne i det følgende, i denne klare kabbalistiske vinkelen, og som er nevnt i forrige postering med anmeldelse av Sundes mektige bok?

11 Deg, Herre, tilhører storhet og makt,

herlighet, ære og majestet,

alt som er i himmelen og på jorden.

Ditt er riket, Herre,

og du er opphøyd som overhode over alt.

12 Rikdom og ære kommer fra deg,

og du rår over alle ting.

I din hånd er kraft og styrke.

Du har i din makt å gjøre alt stort og sterkt.

13 Og nå, vår Gud, takker vi deg

og lovsynger ditt herlige navn.

https://www.bibel.no/Nettbibelen?query=8j1V5Xwaqqd279VOilez1G0qxynZpNhVTSmEvW4PMdrgmIEYrF14kghdUyFOq7qdelære

Som vi ser, er bibelsitatet sprengfullt av kabbalistiske forestillinger og begreper og Magnus har nok lært disse formuleringen utenat. Men kjente Magnus Platon, og de andre store greske filosofene? Jeg for min del er overbevist om at han kjente dem, i hvert fall kjente til dem, såpass at han kanskje burde ha fått nevnt dem i lovforarbeidene til hans Landslov. Jeg er også overbevist om at Jesus Kristus ikke bare kjent til, men var helt «avhengig» av dem, for å kunne formulere sin egen lære ut fra de hebraiske tekstene, Skriften. For Magnus kan alle disse greske tankeforutsetningene ha vært så selvfølgelige, så selvinnlysende, akkurat som hos Jesus, at det føltes unødvendig å nevne eller presisere dem og belære folket om det. Loven skulle ikke være et filosofisk verk, men et lov-verk. Kort og godt. Var filosofi bare for overklassen og makteliten? Å undersøke dette, har ikke vært Sundes anliggende i boken hans, så spørsmålet står åpent; boken er selvsagt verdt å lese for det, i overmål, vil jeg si.

Bøker man kan finne noe interessant og lærerikt i:

Islam in Europen thought, Albert Hourani, 1991/1992

The Good, the True and the Beautiful av Michael Boyland, 2008

Hidden Worldviews, Steven Wilkens and Mark L.Sanford, 2009

Disse to siste bøkene er gode på sine premisser, men begge advarer helt irrelevant, etter min mening, mot «nasjonalisme», et begrep som de som amerikanere av sin tid ikke helt har forstått annet enn som tilknytning til nazismen og WW II.

Boyand, bare for å ha nevnt det, skriver noe jeg festet meg ved: To have virtue is to move within action – voluntary – actively; In emotion we are moved (involuntary) passiv, s 122.

Vi må også nevne «the soul is composed of three elements: Reason, will and appetite … the reason must rule the appetite … Plato meant that justice is not whatever suits the rich and the powerful in the way Mao suggested: He who has the gold, makes the rules … (fra Political Thought, a students guide, Hunter Baker, David S. Dockery, 2012.

Videre:

Coplestone: One can hardly call the Koran a revelation. It conceals the very God it is supposed to reveal … s 87. Han siterer ibn Hazm: While the Koran uses the name for God which means «the most merciful of those who show mercy», this cannot mean that he is meciful in the way we understand the word. For God is eveidently not merciful. He tortures His children with all manners of sickness, warfare, and sorrow. What then does the Koran mean? Simply that merciful is one of God’s names, a name that is not in any ways descriptive of God or throws anay light on his nature. We use it because the Koran uses it, but do not pretend to understand what is meant by it», s87f.

Kommentar: Dette minner om de (veldig få) kristne jeg nevnte over som ber Gud i et «nytt Fadervår» om å få lide mer: dette er bare så mye verre enn det jeg nettopp siterte over fra Coplestone …

The Law of Mohammad disproves its claims to be divine law by its licence towards sexual indulgence and its sanction of polygamy and concubinage … slavery, child marraige, easy divorce for men, the scourging of wifes and inferiority of women to men … s 101.

In scripture we find the word Mashia, the anointed one, applied to the High Priest, the King and also to prophets … 2 105

The Jews themselves claimed that God was their Father, John 8. 41. kfr Salme 82. s121.

Since it is spirit in man alone that makes him personal, it is impossible that the Sprit of God should be impersonal … s 128. The original meaning of person did not contain the physical element, which confuses us today when we think of three persons … s 136

Her følger visse utdrag fra hva jeg tidligere har skrevet her på bloggen, - alt for å belyse de store kontrastene, som grunnlag for sammenligningene som foretas, med og ut fra islam selv:

Truth Decay, av Douglas Groothuis, s 122 ff: John 1, 1-3, handler om den preinkarnerte Kristus som Logos eller Ordet. Dette betyr bl a at det personlige Ordet gjør seg forstått og at det er rasjonelt, at Han skapte en verden vi kan vite noe om og som befolkes av skapninger som kan kjenne sannhet via rasjonalitet. Ordet er Gud i kommunikasjon, dette at Gud taler. Enhver sannhet som oppdages av ikke-kristne filosofer ble oppdaget på grunn av Logos, Gud.

Skiller man åpenbaring fra logikk, kommer man inn i en farlig dikotomi. Når McGrath – en kristenapologet - spør: «Hvems logikk, hvems rasjonalitet?» så tåkelegger han tingene fordi intet menneske eier eller kontrollerer logikken og logikken forandrer seg ikke med individene som anvender den. Mennesker anvender logikk enten vist eller svakt, mennesker skaper ikke logikk slik som førsteprinsippene om selvmotsigelser og loven om «excluded middle», men de kan manipulere meninger, ta i bruk propagandametoder og fallby falsk argumentasjon. Førsteprinsippene og argumentasjonsformer som f esk modus ponens og modus tolens er riktige tenkemåter og ikke vilkårlige sosiale konstruksjoner.

Kenneth Richard Samples, Without a Doubt, s 249: «Guds rådslutning er hans evige plan og formål hvilket innebærer at han har forutbestemt alle ting som skjer; den dekker alle Guds inngrep og handlinger i skapelsen og frelsen og den omfatter menneskets handlinger, uten at menneskets synder er ekskludert. Men mens dette innebærer at synden kom inn i verden, så innebærer det ikke at Gud blir ansvarlig for våre syndige gjerninger. Hva hans rådslutning med hensyn til synden angår, så er dette hans «permissive decree», Gud tillater synden. Det kan da innvendes at Gud faktisk er ansvarlig for synden. Synden følger nødvendig av rådslutningen, men Gud selv produserer eller skaper ikke synden ved noen direkte handling. Det må derfor sies at Guds relasjon til synden forblir et mysterium som vi aldri kommer til å forstå fullt ut». Dette altså i motsetning til i islam hvor det synes ganske opplagt at Allah faktisk ikke bare skaper synd, men også at Allah er ansvarlig for den.

J. K. Grider i Elwells Evangelicl Doctionary, 97 ff: Arminius var ingen pelagianer. Han trodde dypt på arvesynden og at det falne, naturlige menneskets ikke evnet å gjøre noe godt, uten forutkommende nåde eller prevenient grace. Men på den annen side: Skriften tas bokstavelig når den nevner at Kristus døde for alle mennesker, dette i motsetning til puritanerne som mente med dette bare de som på forhånd var forutbestemt til det. Troende kan miste sin frelse og dermed blir fortapt for alltid, mener arminianerne, men de forsøker likevel å oppmuntre troende slik at de fortsatt kan stå i troen. De innrømmer på den annen side at de ikke har hatt større hell med seg når det gjelder den ubetingede frelsesvisshet, unconditional salvation. Mange arminianere i dag kan fortelle deg at Kristus betalte straffen for våre synder, mens å si dette i virkeligheten ikke er arminiansk lære i utgangspunktet, en lære som sier at Kristus riktig nok led for oss. Arminianerne lærer at hva Kristus gjorde, gjorde han for enhver person, (evry person), og at han derfor ikke måtte betale straffen, siden da ingen vil havne i evig fortapelse. Arminianere har et problemer med å samarbeide med kalvinister i menighetsarbeidet. De vegrer seg, for å si det mildt, for å si at Kristus måtte lide ved å bli straffet, fordi jo Kristus var både syndefri og gjeldsfri. Gud Fader ville ikke være tilgivende overfor oss hvis hans rettferdighet skulle kreve straff. De hevder at det kan enten dreie seg om enten straff eller tilgivelse: Et barn blir enten straffet eller tilgitt, ikke tilgitt etter at straffen er blitt betalt.

B. Demarest, s 109 i Elwell: Skriften er klar på at man kan være genuint frelst, men likevel mangle full visshet eller sikkerhet om sin forutbestemte frelse, se 1 John 5. 13. Dette minner om katolisisme og arminianisme.

Michael Green s 43 siterer Lewis: Det fins ingen parallell i andre religioner. Hvis du hadde gått til Buddha og spurt han om han var Bramah, ville han ha fortalt deg at du hadde illusjoner; hvis du hadde gått til Sokrates og spurt han om han var Zeus, ville han ha ledd av deg. Hvis du hadde gått til Muhammed og spurt ham om han var Allah, hadde han kappet hodet av deg.

s 21: Islam tilbyr ikke den troende noen intimitet med Allah. Allah åpenbarer sitt budskap, men aldri seg selv. s 49: Allah er så stor at han er vanskelig å forestille seg og så adskilt fra sitt skaperverk at mennesket ikke kan ha noe intimt – eller personlig – forhold til ham. Synd blir derfor i islam ikke betraktet som å knuse Guds hjerte, men som et opprør mot hans vilje.

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2021/07/treenigheten-og-vare-dagers-totalitre.html

Et forsøk på å belyse visse vesensforskjeller mellom en kaprisiøs, monadisk gud og Gud, hvis vilje er paktsbegrenset, og som er Logos, dvs fornuft, - eller fornuften selv - , orden, kjærlighet, intelligens og Person i evig relasjon:

Nathan Busenitz i Reasons we believe: s 80 Bibelen svarer på spørsmål som bare Gud kan svare på, som f eks at det eksisterer orden i universet, Apgj 14. 15 og Åpenb 4. 11, og på menneskets verdighet og dette å være til og skapt som person, 1 Mos 5. 1 og 9. 6, på fornuftens og kunnskapens opphav i Guds ”sinn”, Job 28. 28, Salme 111.10 og James 1. 5, realiteten av lidelse og det onde, 1. Mos 3. 1 – 24, Rom 5. 12, 17, 8. 20 – 22, menneskets iboende samvittighetsbevissthet og moralske bevissthet og på grunnen til at mennesket ikke kan finne noen endelig tilfredsstillelse utenom i Gud, Salme 16. 11, Ecclesiastes 2. 25 – 26 og Timoteus 6. 17. Bare Bibelen gir oss troverdige svar på livets dypeste spørsmål. Skriftens Gud, Salme 19. 7-14 er også universets Gud, Salme 19. 1-6.

Elwell: s 510 Gud relaterer seg til mennesket i et paktsperspektiv, dvs i et ordnet eller kommandert forhold mellom de ulike deler eller partnere (deltakere?), 1. Mos 6. 18 og 1 Sam 20. 8. Gud vil sørge for å sikre menneskelig felleskap, Mik 6. 8.

Det gode er imidlertid kun mulig ved hjelp av Guds nåde, siden ingen gjør godt, men ondt kontinuerlig, Rom 3. 12. Jesus sier at mennesket må bli gjort godt for å kunne produsere godt, Matt 12. 33 – 35.

Samples og Groothuis: Guds skaperverk, islam og vitenskap:

Universet foreligger som en objektiv eller ontologisk god, verdig og vakker virkelighet utenfor Gud, skaperen, og med innebygde lover og regelmessigheter i en samlet og forutsigbar orden, som vi kan bruke vår fornuft til å arbeide i, avdekke eller forske i og forvalte og arbeide i, siden Gud skapte oss i sitt treenige bilde og i sin treenige likhet for å kunne kjenne og relatere til Ham, og derfor til oss selv, (i alle fall så langt og til nå):

Salme 19. 1-4, 1. Mosebok 1.1, 1. 26-28 og Joh 1.1

Universet i seg selv er derfor ikke guddommelig eller identisk med Gud, som er en Person, og heller ikke farlig eller truende i prinsipiell forstand, og det kan derfor heller ikke tilbes. Dette åpner for eksperimenter og empirisk forskning basert på visse konstante eller aprioriske logiske førsteprinsipper eller teoremer og metoder. Det er en integrert del av Guds lov at vi er satt i stand til å drive med vitenskap i og med at vi forventes å være ærlige, ha integritet, ydmykhet, mot og flid: 2. Mosebok 20. 1-17

I islam, derimot, er mennesket ikke skapt i Guds bilde (og likhet) og Allah kan derfor i prinsippet ikke kjennes verken personlig eller i form av kunnskap eller i form av evidentielle slutninger, noe som forutsetter kontinuitet eller konstans. Skapningen kontrolleres og opprettholdes i islam av Allah fra øyeblikk til øyeblikk vilkårlig i kraft av hans vilje, som når som helst kan forandres, hvis så Allah måtte ville. Grunnleggende forutsetninger for vitenskapelig arbeide er dermed fraværende eller i hvert fall ikke tilstrekkelige til at slikt arbeid kan prioriteres eller verdsettes fremfor rituelle bestemmelser og lydighet imot Allahs forordninger. Allah kan ikke reduseres til noen form for rasjonalitet idet dette ville begrense Allah’s vilje og hans ære. Dette åpner igjen lett for en magisk, panteistisk og animistisk verdensforståelse, hvilket gjenspeiler seg innen islam den dag i dag. (Fritt etter Kenneth Samples i hans Without a Doubt og i Douglas Groothuis s 102 noe tillempet).

Spencer, i Islam Unveiled s 126: Koranen sier at jødene sier at Guds hånd er bundet, sure 5. 64 (eller mulig sure 5. 164). Dette kan bety at Gud faktisk velger å opprettholde eller holde seg til de lover Han skapte og dette blir så grunnlaget for senere og moderne vitenskap.

Aquinas: Gud kan ikke bryte formalprinsippene for tingene, som f eks at alle rette linjer som tegnes fra sirkelens omkrets mot sentrum må være like lange …

s 127: Jaki: Det var Ghazali som avskrev naturlovene som blasfemiske og irrasjonelle …

s 128: Mer enn 200 år etter at Den Blå Moske ble konstruert, kunne ikke muslimske arkitekter kalkulere lateraltrykket for kurver og heller ikke forstå hvorfor «the catenacy curve», som brukes ved skipsbygging også kunne brukes ved konstruksjon av «cupolas». A propos: Vesten var flere hundre år før ute enn muslimene til å oppdage blyets skadevirkninger.

Spencer, i Religion of Peace s 154/155: Sure 21. 63 – Allah kan ikke begrenses; han er ikke bundet til å styre universet i samsvar med konsistente og observerbare lover. Rodney Stark: Allah blir ikke presentert som en lovlydig skaper, men betraktet som ekstremt aktiv og som den som inngriper i verdens anliggender slik han vil (deems appropriate). Moses Maimonides: «… fornuften tilsier at en eksisterende ting kan være forskjellige både i form og posisjon fra hva og hvor den virkelig er: Ild forsårsaker varme, vann forårsaker kjølighet, i henhold til en viss vane(tenkning), men det strider ikke mot fornuften at det skal kunne forekomme avvik, alik at ild skal kunne forårsake kulde».

s 156: Stark om slaget ved Lepanto, som de vestlige allierte vant over muslimene den 7. 10 1571: Bibelen forutsetter at Guds lover for skapningen er naturlige lover og Gud forutsettes å være like perfekt som Hans håndarbeide som fungerer etter ubrytelige prinsipper.

s 173: Roger Scruton: Samvittighetsfrihet krever et sekulært styresett. Pave Gelasius på 400-tallet gjorde skillet mellom kirke og stat til ortodox doktrine. Biskop St. Optatus av Milevis er den første kristne forfatter som bryter med den oppfatning at den kristne frihet er fristilt fra Moseloven. Han rettferdiggjør statens inngripen mot dissentere. I 1252 tillater Innocens den 4 tortur.

Reilly, i Closing of the muslims Mind s 58: Konsekvensen av å se Gud som ren vilje hindrer demokratisk utvikling. Det metafysiske fundamentet for naturlovene la ikke bare grunnlaget for moderne vitenskap, men ble i tilleggselve basisen for konstitusjonelle styresett.

s 136: Sharia innholder intet konsept om «borgerskap», for hvilket det ikke finnes nor ord for på arabisk.

s 138: «Mennesket er ganske enkelt ikk i stand til å tilegne seg attributter som egen evne til å velge eller se seg selv som et individ med rettigheter og mulighet for autonome handlinger uten referanse til kilden, namlig Allah» (Ali Allawi). Reilly: Kraft til å velge anses ikke som nedlagt i menneskets natur. Men hvis ikke rettigheter er egentlige og uavhendelige, så kan ikke demokratiet danne en moralsk basis for styresettet.

s 140: Bare fornuften er ikke-sekterisk. I det øyeblikk makt blir det ledende prinsipp, blir bruk av vold den eneste vei som står åpen og dette bygger igjen på prinsippet om «viljens primat».

Spencer i Infidels Guide s 90-91: Den første medisinske håndbok ble skrevet av en kristen prest og oversatt til arabisk av en jødisk lege i 683 e Kr. Det første hospitalet i Bagdad ble bygget av en nestoriansk kristen. Det første universitetet var Den assyriske skole i Nisivis og ikke alAzhar i Kairo. Klippemoskeen ble kopiert etter en byzantisk modell. Astrolaben ble konstruert lenge før Muhammeds tid.

Al Ghazali benekter eksistensen av en naturlig lov og kaller ideen om den blasfemisk og en benektelse av Allah’s frihet eller ubundethet. Allah’s vilje kontrollerer alt.

Rodney Stark i For the Glory of God s 156/157:

«Det synes å være klart at gjenoppdagelsen av gresk visdom ikke førte Europa tilbake til det vitenskapelig sporet. Sett i lys av den påvirkning grekernes lærdom hadde på grekerne, romerne og muslimene, ser det ut for at denne lærdom ikke var tilgjengelig før etterat de kristne lærde hadde etablert en uavhengig intellektuell basis og dette viser seg i at når de først fikk kontakt med de gamle greske verkene og muslimenes «bearbeiding» av dem, så kunne de på helt selvstendig grunnlag begynne å motsi eller argumentere mot dem … det var i eksplisitt opposisjon til Aristoteles, Platon og de andre at de middelalderske lærde som Albertus, Ocham, Buridan og Oresme utviklet sitt fokus mot vitenskapen. … det Descartes, Galileo og Keppler erkjente var at de virkelig trodde på en skapergud hvis skapelse inkorporerte rasjonelle lover som ventet på å bli oppdaget».

Stark gjør på s 287 oppmerksom på et faktum som forhindret at muslimer skulle anse seg for påvirket av magi og heksekunster. Muslimer tror nemlig at de ved å fremsi de siste setningene i Koranen etter de fem obligatoriske og daglige bønnene vil være beskyttet mot alle onde krefter. «This is the final and fatal irony about europeen witch-huntes. They were the result of reason and logic applied to false premise».

Dr. Henry Morris i The long War Against God s 305: Stanley Jaki, en ungarsk benediktinerprest og professor i vitenskapshistorie, siterer Salme 136. 4-9 som en illustrasjon på guds kreative design og kontroll over himmel og jord: Det burde derfor ikke komme som noen overraskelse at den faste og varme tro på JHWH produserte en varm, tillitsfull og optimistisk verdsettelse av naturen som nok en gang skiller paktenes riker fra de rkene i dens omgivelser». «Hvordan kunne Vesten oppnå sitt overraskende overtak innen vitenskapene?

Jo, den gjorde det ved å ta avstand fra det fundamentalt hedenske i den greske vitenskap».

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2019/09/8-syndene-og-synden-i-kristendom-og.html

Geisler, Encyclopedia, s 428/429:

Mennesket kan ikke vite noe om Guds spesiell åpenbaring uten å være skapt med evne for logisk tenkning og etter logikkens førsteprinsipper. Loven om selvmotsigelse er nødvendig for å kunne skille mellom om hvorvidt åpenbaringen er fra Gud eller Djevelen. Vi ville heller ikke kunne skille mellom kjærlighet og hat.

Når Bibelen hevder at Gud kan gjøre det umulige, referer dette ikke til hva som faktisk er umulig, men hva som menneskelig sett er umulig. Det er derimot umulig for Gud å ikke ville være Gud fordi Gud ikke kan motsi sin egen natur som nettopp er å være. Den allmektige Gud kan altså ikke bokstavelig gjøre alt. Det er f eks umulig for Gud å lyve, se Heb 6. 18 og 2 Tim 2. 13. Han kan heller ikke motsi sin moralske natur like lite som han kan motsi sin rasjonelle natur. Gud kan ikke gjøre en firkant til en sirkel. Men Gud skapte de mekanistiske naturlovene, som er deskriptive, mens moralloven er preskriptive. Jesus gikk på vannet og derfor kan Gud bryte disse mekanistiske lovene, ved mirakler.

Gud skapte imidlertid ikke logikkens lover eller førsteprinsippene, de manifisterer Guds uskapte natur. De kan ikke forandres akkurat som Gud selv ikke kan forandres. Hvis selvmotsigelser er sanne, så er enhver tenkning umulig eller irrasjonell. Gud er ikke underlagt vår fornuft. Gud er fornuftens ”forfatter” og Han skapte oss til sin likhet og i sitt bilde. Førsteprinsippene blir derfor ikke tilfeldigvis tilført Gud; de kommer fra Gud og er et essensielt aspekt av Guds generelle åpenbaring.

Predestinasjon og menneskets frie vilje bryter ikke mot logikkens førsteprinsipp, dvs loven om selvmotsigelse. Det er ikke en selvmotsigelse å si at Gud har utvalgt alle som vil bli frelst så lenge som han bestemte at dette kunne skje via menneskets frie valg.

288/289/ Gud må nødvendigvis ville sin egen godhet. Gud kan ikke skape ondt. Guds vilje kan aldri ikke skje. Gud vil noe via sekundære årsaker eller defekter i disse fordi førsteårsakene noen ganger blir forhindret av disse defektene. Guds vilje kan heller ikke forandres, men dette betyr ikke at han ikke vil forandring. Å hevde at alt har sin årsak er mindre presist og mindre faktisk riktig enn å si at all finit, kontigent væren har en årsak. Et nødvendig vesen kan ikke ikke eksistere.

Følgende er en av meg sterkt omarbeidet og forkortet kronikk av Ingolf Kanestrøm i Dagen fra 2009:

Pyhtagoras, ca 600 f Kr, forsøkte å forstå naturfenomener og mente at hele universet var fundamentert på tallmønstre. Hipparkos arbeidet med trigonometri og Euclid utformet sin geometri.

Arkimedes målte overflate og volum av krumme figurer. Hans oppfinnelse av «vannskruen» blir fremdeles brukt i dag. Aristharkos grunnla teoretisk mekanikk og satte solen, ikke jorden, i sentrum av universet. Platons idelære satte fokus på teoretiske begreper avgrenset til bevisstheten eller sinnet og verden slik vi ser den blir da bare en skygge av ideenes verden, eller virkelighet. Men Anaxagoras studerte metereoitter og konkluderte med at stjernene ikke var guddommelige eller besjelede vesener. Samtidig så grekerne på tiden som syklisk og altså tilbakevendende, slik man oppfatter den i den judeokristne tradisjon. Dette motiverte neppe til ytterligere observasjoner og eksperimentering med naturen. Kineserne kom langt innen vannkraft og jern-og stålteknologi og oppdagelsen av tallet null, negative tall og desimaltall skjedde tidligere enn i India. Yin og Yang fikk stor innflytelse: Det ble fokusert enten på det som fantes av rundt, tørt og vektløst eller på fenomener som var firkantede, våte og tunge. Det oppsto følgelig et virvar av begreper slik at det var vanskelig å oppdage forståelige mønstre i tingene og sammenhengene.

Kan dette ha sammenheng med et bakenforliggende utilstrekkelig gudssyn eller gudsbilde, en begrenset teologi?

I den judeokristne tradisjon betraktes aldri Gud som inkonsistent eller vilkårlig og verden gjenspeilte Guds egenskaper, hvilket i sin tur viste Hans godhet, i kontrast til livssyn eller virkelighetsoppfatninger hvoretter verden ble betraktet som verdiløs eller uvirkelig og truende eller ond. Det var først med kristendommen at det oppsto et miljø som la forutsetningen for utvikling av moderne vitenskap, dette i kontrakt til hva som har vært vanlig å tenke i Vesten, at kristendommen – og den kristne Middelalderen - var den viktigste hindringen for en slik utvikling.

Origines, d 254 e Kr, betraktes, i flukt med Bibelen, at verden ble skapt god og ut av ingenting av en rasjonell gud, en verden med systematisk orden og en verden vi kan forstå og som vi oppfordres til å utforske.

Augustin, d 430 e Kr, mente at universet var endelig i tid og rom og tiden hadde sin begynnelse ved skapelsen. «Jeg kan ikke se på kroppen til noe levende vesen uten å finne noe målbart, eller noe som kan telles … alt er laget etter målbarhet, tall og vekt». Han observerte at tvillinger oppførte seg forskjellig og trakk den konklusjon at stjernene ikke kunne påvirke menneskene, slik astrologene hevdet.

John Philopponu, d 570, gikk til sterkt angrep på den deduktive metode hvor man trekker slutninger fra det generelle til det spesielle. Astrologi var en kjettersk disiplin og himmellegemene beveget seg ikke i sirkler. Ideer bør bekreftes av observasjoner. Uten dette er det umulig å bedrive vitenskap.

I 1288 utformet Kirken på initiativ fra paven – at det skulle utarbeides en erklæring i 219 punkter som var ment å skulle vær retningslinjer for Universitetet i Paris. Det ble hevdet at den naturlige verden var uniform i sin sammensetning og sine lover, og at himmellegemene ikke var levende vesener.

Det er for øvrig videre godt dokumentert at foregangspersoner innen naturvitenskapen hadde en tydelig kristen tro:

Copernicus, d 1453, mente at Gud var ansvarlig for alt som skjedde i himmelrommet. Reglene han fant i planetenes bevegelse bekreftet Skaperens pålitelighet.

Galilei, d 1642, observerte han Jupiters måner med et nykonstruert teleskop, også dette ble betraktet som bekreftelse på Guds pålitelighet.

Kepler, d 1630, oppdaget tre love for planetbevegelser som senere skulle danne grunnlaget for Newtons gravitasjonsteori.

Newton, d 1727, ga blant mye annet ga vitenskapen mange av de redskaper som var nødvendig for videreutviklingen innen vitenskapen. Han mente at solsystemet bare kunne utgå fra en beslutning og herredømmet til et intelligent og mektig Væren.

I 1925 uttalte Alfred North Whitehead at kristendommen var vitenskapenes mor fordi Middelaldren klarte å fastholde guds rasjonalitet og at Gud styrer ved lover og er en av mange naturguder som kan styre individuelt.

Verden og naturen oppviser med dette en enhet som muliggjør dens tilgjengelighet for menneskets egen rasjonalitet, fordi mennesket er skapt i Guds bilde og likhet.

Hva med kristen predestinasjonalisme? Her følger en liten bukett av blandede uttalelser eller trossetninger lånt fra kristent og islamsk ståsted, (fra David Bennett (2009):

“So God is the One Who leads astray, as well as the One Who guides. He is the One Who brings damage, as also does Satan. He is described also by terms like the Bringer-down, the Compeller, or Tyrant, the Haughty—all of which, when used of men, have an evil sense. In the Unity of the single will, however, these descriptions co-exist with those that relate to mercy, compassion, and glory.” --

Kenneth Cragg, The Call of the Minaret (New York: Oxford University press, 1964), 41-42

[“Now since the arrangement of all things is in the hand of God… He arranges… that individuals are born, who are doomed from the womb to certain death, and are to glorify him by their destruction…” John Calvin III:xxiii, 4]

["I believe that nothing happens apart from divine determination and decree. We shall never be able to escape from the doctrine of divine predestination - the doctrine that God has foreordained certain people unto eternal life". Charles H. Spurgeon (1834-1892)]p. 30

Orthodox Islam teaches the absolute predestination of both good and evil, that all our thoughts, words and deeds, whether good or evil, were foreseen, foreordained, determined and decreed from all eternity, and that everything that happens takes place according to what has been written for it. There was much discussion among early Muslim theologians as to free will and predestination, but the free-will parties (al-qadariyya) were ultimately defeated. – Arthur Jeffrey, Islam: Muhammad and His Religion, 1958. 147-48

[“…by his eternal providence they were before their birth doomed to eternal destruction.” John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, III:xxi,7.]

[“But if all whom the Lord predestined to death are naturally liable to sentence of death, of what injustice, pray, do they complain …because by his eternal providence they were before their birth doomed to perpetual destruction… what will they be able to mutter against their defense?” John Calvin III:xxiii,3]

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2019/08/6-synden-og-syndene-i-islam-og.html

INTRODUCTION. Genesis 8:15 through 9:17

In our study of God's covenant we have on previous Lord's Days spoken of different matters. We have seen that the covenant is not a contract or agreement, but a relationship; that the origin and source of God's covenant with His people is in the Divine Trinity and in the relationship between the three Persons of the Trinity; that Christ in our flesh is the Mediator of the covenant; that there is only one everlasting covenant of God; and that the one covenant of God has different revelations or dispensations throughout history.

We have also seen that the first revelation of the covenant was to our father Adam in paradise, a dispensation of the covenant that is sometimes referred to as "the Covenant of Works." When Adam fell God revealed His covenant faithfulness to Adam and Eve and their descendants in His dealings with them and in the promise of Genesis chapter 3 verse 15. But after that there was not another significant revelation or dispensation of the covenant until the time of Noah.

Genesis chapter 8 verse 15 through Genesis chapter 9 verse 17 record the revelation of the covenant that God gave to Noah. That covenant with Noah has some unique features, so much so that it is sometimes difficult to see how it can be a revelation of God's one everlasting covenant of grace. It seems at first glance to be, as dispensationalism teaches, a separate covenant altogether, especially because God speaks of this covenant being established with "every living creature of all flesh" (Genesis ch. 9 v. 15), "of the fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth."

I will, therefore, be speaking of this revelation of God's covenant as His "Covenant With Creation". In speaking of that covenant, I wish to show you three things. First, I want to show that there is such a covenant of God with the creation and that it is part of God's one everlasting covenant of grace. Secondly, I would like to point out some of the unique features of this covenant of God with creation. Especially I want to connect this revelation of the covenant with the work of Christ as the Mediator and Head of the covenant. And, thirdly, I want to answer the question, "Why does Scripture speak of that covenant?" It might seem to you and me, that even if there is such a covenant of God with the creation, that it has nothing to do with US. But if you keep this question in mind throughout our study, you will not only see that Scripture has an answer for it, but perhaps you will even come to the answer before I do.

In our study, then, we will be looking not only at Genesis chapters 8 and 9 but also at some other Old and New Testament passages that shed God's light on Genesis chapters 8 and 9. Those passages are Jeremiah chapter 33 verses 19 through 26, Romans chapter 8 verses 19 through 22, Colossians chapter 1 verses 19 through 21, and Revelation chapter 21 verse 1. May God speak His Word to us in them.

EXPOSITION. . . .

I. THE FACT OF THIS COVENANT:

First: Turning to Genesis chapter 9 verses 9 and 10, we read there what God said to Noah: "And I, behold I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you." That is not much different from what God said to others with whom He established His covenant, to Abraham, (Genesis ch. 17 v. 7), to David (Psalm ch. 89 v. 3 and 4), to Israel (Exodus ch. 6 v. 4 and 5), or to us (Acts ch. 2 v. 39). However, in Genesis chapter 9 verse 10, God adds "and with every living creature that is with you, of the fowl, or the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you, from all that go out of the ark. . . ."

God is saying: "I will establish my covenant with the birds, with the cattle, and with all the beasts of the earth." That is what we are referring to as God's "Covenant With Creation." And God speaks of that covenant with creation again in the verses that follow, especially in verse 13 (of Genesis ch. 9): "I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth." And again in verse 15 God shows us plainly that the covenant referred to is not only His covenant with Noah and Noah's descendants. His covenant embraces "every living creature of all flesh."

The rainbow is the sign of that covenant. When you see a rainbow in the heavens, it arches over the whole earth embracing, as it were, the whole order of created things. Arching over God's world it is a sign that He has a covenant with the creation.

Second: We should see, that even though this covenant is established with every living creature, it is not a different covenant from the covenant that God establishes with His people. In Genesis chapter 9 verses 9 and 10 God does not establish one covenant with Noah and His descendants and another with the creation. It is all one covenant. Not only that, but it is the same covenant that God established with Abraham, with Israel, with David and with us in Christ. The same language is used here in Genesis 9 that is used with every revelation of God's covenant in Scripture, "I will establish my covenant with you and with your seed after you" (cf. as above, Genesis ch. 17 v. 7, Exodus ch. 6 v. 4 and 5, Psalm ch. 89 v. 4 and 5, and Acts ch. 2 v. 39).

That language, "I will establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you," is the usual language of the covenant, and identifies this revelation with every other revelation of God's covenant in Scripture. Only, here in Genesis chapter 9 the covenant is also "with every living creature that is with you." That makes this revelation of the covenant unique. It is not the revelation of a different covenant, but it is a new and different revelation of that one everlasting covenant of God.

Third: Nor is Genesis chapter 9 the only passage that speaks of this covenant of God with the creation. Jeremiah chapter 33 verses 19 through 26 also refers to it. In turning to Jeremiah chapter 33, I want to remind you of that question I asked at the beginning; "What does this covenant of creation have to do with us, and what profit is there for us in speaking of it?" To some extent Jeremiah chapter 33 answers that question and so we will be coming back to Jeremiah chapter 33.

Now, however, I want to show you that Jeremiah does speak of such a covenant.

In Jeremiah chapter 33 verses 20 and 21, God speaks of His covenant of the day and of the night: "Thus saith the Lord, if ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season, then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne." God refers to that covenant again in verse 25.

There is, then, a covenant of God with day and night - a part of God's creation. What is more, the Word of God tells us in the rest of Jeremiah chapter 33 that the covenant with day and night involves God's appointing the ordinances of heaven and earth (vs. 25). In other words, when God appointed the law (ordinance) that sets the sun in its place in the heavens, and the moon and stars also, then He was making a covenant with the day and night. And so it is with all the so-called "laws of nature." They all belong to God's ordinances of heaven and earth and are part of His covenant with creation, just as His moral laws are part of His covenant with His people (Deuteronomy ch. 5 v. 2 and 3).

We see, too, from Jeremiah chapter 33 that this covenant with creation was not first made with Noah, but goes all the way back to the beginning when God first appointed those ordinances of heaven and earth. It was to Noah, however, that God first revealed this part of His covenant, and He revealed these things to Noah because at the time of the Flood He changed some of the ordinances of that covenant, sending the seasons for the first time, giving the animals to man for meat, lifting the curse from the ground, but promising that He would not again change these ordinances "while the earth remained."

Romans chapter 8 verses 19 through 22 also speaks of the covenant with creation, but it takes us a step farther. These verses do not use the word "covenant" but the idea is there. The covenant comes into Romans chapter 8 verses 19 to 22 when the Word of God in those verses speaks of the final glory of believers in terms of sonship. In glory we will be "manifest as the sons of God" and will "enter into the glorious liberty of the children of God." The manifestation of the sons of God is the final realization and perfection of God's covenant, the highest glory of that covenant relationship in which God is our God and we are His people.

But if you read Romans chapter 8 verses 19 through 22 you will see that the creation also shall participate in that glory of God's people: "The earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God!" The "creature" here refers to what we sometimes call the "brute creation" - sun, moon, stars, planets, flowers, trees, grass, beasts and birds. The brute creation "was made subject to vanity (= emptiness, uselessness)" (v. 20), that is, it no longer served the purpose for which God had created it, and that as a result of man's sin. This happened, "not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope." In other words, this did not happen to the brute creation by its own act of willful disobedience, but came about as a result of Adam's sin (cf. Genesis ch. 2 v. 17 and 18).

Nevertheless, even the creature is not without hope. Its hope is, as Paul says in verse 21, that "the creature also itself shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God." That will be the final realization of what God was talking about when He spoke to Noah in Genesis chapters 8 and 9. The creature itself also shall be renewed and glorified with God's people. Then God's covenant with creation will be consummated! That covenant, too, is sure and everlasting!

Colossians chapter 1 verses 19 through 20 takes us even further into this truth. Verse 19 tells us that it is the eternal good pleasure and purpose of God that "in Him (that is, in Christ) should all fullness dwell. Verse 20 makes it clear that the all fullness does not only include the fullness of God's elect people, but the fullness of all things on earth and in heaven: "And, having made peace, through the blood of his cross, by him (by Christ) to reconcile ALL things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven."

Now, you might say, Is not that a reference to God's elect people and to the elect angels? Are not they the "all things" to which the Word of God refers? But the next verse makes it clear that God's elect people are not even under discussion in verse 20! It is not until verse 21 that Paul begins to speak of God's elect people: "And you," he says, "that were sometimes alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled. . . ." You too! but not only you! God's purpose encompasses all things in heaven and in earth!

And that this purpose has to do with His covenant we see from the word "reconciliation." That is very much a covenant word in that implies a relationship, first established, then violated, and finally restored again. So, when God speaks of reconciling all things to Himself by the blood of Christ's cross, He is no doubt speaking of the fact that He will keep covenant with them forevermore.

Revelation chapter 21 verse 1 also speaks of these things. In the last chapters of Revelation the Word of God takes us beyond the history of this present world to those things that "eye hath not seen, nor ear heard" (1 Cor. ch. 2 v. 9), things that God has prepared for those who love Him. In speaking of such things Revelation 21 speaks first of a new heaven and a new earth. When John sees the new Jerusalem (according to verses 9 and 10, the Church, the Bride, the Lamb's wife) he sees also a new heavens and earth. The purpose and covenant of God, you see, have to do not only with the church, that holy city in which God dwells with His people and is their God, but with all things. His covenant embraces not only the new Jerusalem and all those who dwell therein, but the whole of the created order, cleansed, renewed and glorified!

Revelation chapter 21 verse 1 is an important verse because it explains something that puzzles a lot of people and leads them astray. They look at passages from the Word of God, especially in the Old Testament, passages like Isaiah 11, that speak of the lion lying down with the lamb, and the bear with the calf, and they conclude that there must be some future earthly kingdom which we are still waiting for - a kingdom in which some of the effects of sin will be overcome in this present world. But Revelation chapter 21 reminds us that such passages are not talking about this present earth, but about the new heaven and the new earth - that heaven and earth "wherein dwelleth righteousness" (2 Peter ch. 3 v. 13). In that new heaven and earth the lion will indeed lie down with the lamb, for "the creature also shall be delivered . . . into the glorious liberty of the children of God."

That, very briefly, is a review of what the Scriptures teach concerning God's covenant with creation, first revealed in all its splendor to Noah in Genesis chapters 8 and 9 - not a second or third covenant, but part of the one everlasting covenant of God, a covenant that embraces the whole created order.

II. THE UNIQUE FEATURES OF THIS COVENANT

So then, by way of continuing to look for an answer to the question, "Why does Scripture speak of this covenant of creation?" we must see first several other truths that Scripture teaches concerning this covenant. We begin by going back once more to Genesis chapters 8 and 9.

From the last verses of Genesis chapter 8 we learn that this covenant is most emphatically in Christ. You would expect that, of course. If this covenant is simply another facet of the one everlasting covenant of God, it must be in Christ. We learn that this is so from Genesis chapter 8 verses 20 and 21: "And Noah builded an altar unto the Lord; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. And the Lord smelled a sweet savor; and the Lord said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake. . . ." And please understand that everything that God says and does in revealing this covenant of creation follows from the fact that God smelled a "sweet savor" in those sacrifices of Noah.

I hardly have to tell you that the sweet savor God smelled in the sacrifices of Noah was not the savor of burning flesh, but the sweet savor of Christ who was pictured in those sacrifices. All the promises and revelation of God concerning this covenant result from that. This covenant of God with creation is, therefore, is as firmly established in Christ, as those aspects of God's covenant that concern us.

Colossians chapter 1 says the same thing. I did not say much about those verses when they were under discussion earlier on, but Colossians chapter 1 verse 20 says something that is not only difficult to understand but most amazing. Remember now that Colossians chapter 1 verse 20 is not talking about God's elect people, but about all other things in heaven and in earth. Only in verse 21 does Paul begin to talk about us. In verse 20 he is talking about everything else, angels, the brute creation - everything else but us, and he says, (please notice this) that all those things, too, are reconciled to God by Christ and by the blood of the cross! Not an easy passage to understand, is it?

It must, however, refer first to the fact that sin has dragged all things out of their proper relationship to God. The sin of Satan certainly affected the whole heavenly order (especially if Satan, as some believe, was the chief of the angels before his fall). The sin of man, too, had consequences for the whole world in which he lives, so that even the ground was cursed for his sake (Genesis ch. 3 v. 17). If you ever doubt the horror of sin, then you should remember that. For the sake of Adam's sin even the very ground on which he walked came under the terrible curse of God. That was true, of course, because Adam was Head and King of the earthly creation (Genesis ch. 1 v. 26).

Only through Jesus Christ and through the blood of the cross are all things brought back into their proper relationships to God and to the place God created for them. They are all reconciled to Him through Christ. That does not mean, of course, that Christ had to make atonement for birds, beasts, trees, and angels. The word reconciliation is not the same as the word atonement. It only means that because of man's sin and God's curse all things needed to be brought back into a proper relationship to God - they needed to be reconciled to Him and are reconciled in Christ.

We should notice, too, in this connection that "all things" in these passages has to be understood in the same way as the references in Scripture to "all men." In neither case does "all" mean "all without exception" but means "all without distinction." In other words, the "all" of Colossians chapter 1 verse 20 does not mean every individual thing that God created. In fact there is no ground at all in Scripture for believing that the individual trees and animals we have around us now will be in the new creation. But the "all" does mean that all things that God has created will be represented in the new heavens and earth.

There is a hint of this in Revelation chapter 4 verse 8, where John sees the throne of God in heaven in the midst of the four and twenty elders (the church), the seven spirits, the four beasts, and the angels. Those four beasts, the first like a lion, the second like a calf, the third like a man, and the fourth like a flying eagle suggest the same thing as Colossians chapter 1 verse 20. Wild beasts (the lion), domestic beasts (the calf), man himself, and flying fowls (the eagle) are all symbolically represented before the throne. It must be so in order that God may be ALL AND IN ALL for the glory of His Name.

All of this reminds us that God who created all things and put the whole earthly order under man's dominion, does not allow man, by his sin, to take ANYTHING away from Him. All shall be renewed and have its place in the new heavens and earth. All, in the end, will serve the purpose for which it was created. "The creature also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God" (Romans ch. 8 v. 21) and in hope of this it groans and travails together even until now" (v. 22).

This, by the way, is true Biblical universalism. Not every person shall be reconciled to God and glorified, but God will gathers "together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth, even in him" (Ephesians ch. 1 v. 10). Thus, God's world, His Cosmos, will be saved, even though not every individual person or every thing in it will be saved.

III. THE PURPOSE OF THIS COVENANT

That brings us to our last point and to the question we asked at the beginning.

Why does Scripture speak of these things to us? What does all this have to do with you and with me? Is there any profit for us in knowing these things? Is not our only concern our own place in God's covenant and in the new heavens and earth? Why should we care that God has made a covenant with His creation and that in fulfillment of the covenant all things will be gathered in one in Christ?

Starting with Colossians chapter 1 verse 20, we see that Scripture speaks of these things to humble us. Colossians chapter 1 reminds us that we are not everything in the covenant of God. We have a place in that covenant, a very high place as God's own children, but we are not everything and must not think we are everything. God is so great, so high in glory, that His glory is revealed finally in the ingathering of all things. He must be ALL AND IN ALL. That, then, is first reason for speaking of these things, that by them we may learn humility before God.

The second is to assure us of God's covenant faithfulness.

Turning from Colossians back to Jeremiah chapter 33, we learn from that passage that God reveals His unchangeable faithfulness in His covenant with creation! Jeremiah tells us that God is faithful in His covenant of the day and night. Day and night have come in their turn for thousands of years because God is faithful. He keeps His covenant with the day and night so that those ordinances do not cease. Genesis chapter 8 verse 22 tells us the same thing: "While the earth remaineth," God said to Noah, "seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night, shall not cease."

So, in Jeremiah 33 the prophet says to us, "Do not you see that if God is faithful in such things He will also be faithful to you? How can you doubt the unchangeable faithfulness of your covenant God if He is faithful even in His covenant of the day and night? Do you not understand that though you are often unfaithful to Him, He will never be unfaithful to you? No more than you can break His covenant of day and night can you break His covenant of grace with you!" - "If ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season; then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant. . . ." (Jeremiah ch. 33 v. 20 and 21). That is the second reason why we must know these things, that we may be assured of and trust in God's faithfulness and grace and not in our own works or strength.

In Romans chapter 8 Paul looks at the matter a little differently. There Paul wants to show us how great the glory that shall be revealed in us really is. In verse 18 he says: "I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us." Not worthy to be compared! It is not, however, always so easy to believe that, is it? We have only heard of and not seen that glory? How can we be sure it is really so great - worth everything? It is no so easy to believe that all "the sufferings of this present time," added up and weighed together, are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is coming - not when you think of all the suffering that is in the world at this moment!

Knowing our doubts, therefore, Paul sets out to prove that the glory God has prepared is indeed as great as he says. To prove it he speaks of a three-fold groaning. Beginning with verse 23 he speaks of our own groaning in hope as we wait for the "adoption" and "redemption of our body." That is one evidence or proof that the glory is very great. By the grace of God we desire that glory so strongly we groan while we must wait for it. You do desire and groan for it, do you not? The grace of God which makes you groan is one proof of the greatness of that glory that shall be revealed in you! In verse 26 Paul also speaks of the groaning of the Spirit as further proof of the greatness of that glory. Even the Spirit of God prays for that glory for God's people with unutterable groanings!

But here in verses 19 through 22 Paul gives another evidence of that great glory, the groaning of the creation. Speaking as though the creation is alive like we are, he describes it as groaning and travailing in hope for that glory that shall be revealed in US. That glory is so great that even the creation shall have a part in it and now groans for it. That is the proof, therefore that the glory to be revealed is indeed incomparable. You believe that, do you not? You must if you are to have hope in this life and patience in suffering.

Finally, and above all, the purpose of this revelation of God's covenant with the creation is to magnify our Lord Jesus Christ, to exalt Him, and to show (as Paul says in Colossians chapter 1) that He has the preeminence in everything. He is the One through Whom the whole purpose of the Father is realized. He is the "for whom and by whom all things were created," the One in Whom all fullness must dwell, and the One in Whom all things are gathered in One. Who, then, is like HIM? And being so exalted can we doubt that He also accomplishes the Father's purpose with us? Will we not also someday dwell in Him in whom all things must dwell? He who reconciles all things to God, is He not able also to reconcile us? Doubt Him not. He is exalted as a Prince and a Savior also by those Scriptures that we have studied this evening. Put your faith and trust in Him and you shall not be ashamed!

But it is not only Christ who is exalted and magnified by this covenant of creation. His blood is also - that blood of the cross of which Paul speaks in Colossians chapter 1 verse 20. If you understand what Paul is saying in that verse - that His blood is the means of reconciliation and peace for ALL things, for you also who believe in Him, then you will understand that there is NOTHING so precious as that blood of Christ. It is, as Peter says (1 Peter ch. 1 v. 18 and 19), more precious than gold and silver. Understanding that, you will see what power and value there is in the blood of Christ to reconcile all things unto God, and you also! Seeing that, you will smell what God smelled in the sacrifices of Noah, the sweet savor of Christ crucified, and that savor will never cease to be sweet to you.

That blood of Christ, the "blood of the cross" stands, therefore, as the focus and center of everything, not only of our redemption, but of the reconciliation of all things to God, to Whom alone be glory. May that blood be the focus of our faith, that upon which we depend today and always for life in the midst of death and for the hope of glory that eye hath not seen nor ear heard!

http://www.prca.org/sermons/genesis8.15-9.17.html

The Westminster Confession of Faith (WCofF) [Chapter 7.2] states: “The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.” There are a number of key ideas presented in this short statement, including:

The existence of a covenant between God and Adam. This indicates that the authors believed that God’s dealings with men, from the beginning, have been structured in the form of covenant.
This covenant was the first covenant God made with man. This indicates that the authors believed that God made a number of covenants with mankind.
This covenant represented all mankind. This indicates that the authors understood that Adam’s covenantal headship was the basis for including Adam’s posterity under the obligations and punishments of the covenant.

In this paper I wish to address these ideas by answering the following two questions:

Did God in fact make a covenant with Adam, when there is no explicit statement that he did?
In what way is the “covenant of works” different from, or the same as, the other covenant administrations between God and man?

God Made a Covenant with Adam

For there to be a covenant between God and man, it is not necessary that it be explicitly named. Just as the Church has defined a term for the relationship between the persons in the Godhead—a trinity—so we can call a relationship between God and man a covenant if the constituent elements of a covenantal relationship are present. Even if the Bible does not call the relationship between God and Adam explicitly a covenant, it still may be one.

However, it is possible that the Bible does explicitly refer to the relationship between God and Adam as a covenant. In Isaiah 24.4-6 we read of the earth being cursed because the people had broken the everlasting covenant of God (v. 5). This statement of Isaiah may include an oblique reference to the covenant made with Noah (Gen 9.8-17). The curse mentioned in v. 6 may refer to curse that God promised (Gen 8.21-22) would never again fall on the ground. However, the reference to the curse on the earth appears to fit better as an allusion to the curse on the ground recorded in Genesis 3.17-19. If Isaiah is alluding to the curse made in the Garden of Eden, then it is reasonable to conclude that Adam broke the everlasting covenant and brought the curse on the earth. If Adam broke a covenant, then there was a covenant between God and Adam.

In Jeremiah 33.20, 25 God makes reference to a covenant that he established with the created order. It seems to refer to the week of creation, and it appears to indicate that a covenant has been in place from the time of creation. If this is the case, then it is possible that Psalm 8 provides us with information about the human representative in this covenant. Psalm 8 verses 3 and 4 tie the context of the Psalm to creation, and verses 5 and 6 identify man as a vassal with responsibilities over the creation on behalf of the Great King. Jeremiah 23 and Psalm 8 together appear to confirm that God made a Covenant of Creation and that man (Adam) was the recipient, or human (federal) representative, of that covenant.

In addition, in Hosea (6.7) we read: “Like Adam they have broken the covenant.” (NIV[1]) This passage has been translated differently in other translations of the Bible (e.g., “at Adam”, or “like men”). The reference to a geographic location is possible (i.e., the word “there” in the second part of the verse), but this introduces the problem of identifying the location of this place called Adam. Also, it is questionable if there is a warrant for rendering the preposition as “at” instead of “like.” The translation “like men” does not seem to make sense, since the effect of the comparison would be lost; for how can men do other than act like men, and the word adam is in the singular (even though it could be understood as a collective). If the translation of the NIV is accurate, there may be a reference here to the covenant made between God and Adam.

So it is possible that the Bible explicitly informs us that there was a covenant between God and Adam, and that this covenant is the Covenant of Creation.

The Elements of a Covenant are Present in Genesis 1 & 2

Even if the passages in Isaiah, Jeremiah, Psalm 8, and Hosea do not provide direct evidence for the existence of a covenant between God and Adam, this does not necessarily mean that such a covenant does not exist.

There are commands given to Adam in Genesis 1.28 and 2.16,17 which may in fact be the obligatory component of a covenant. It is true that they do not appear in the context of an expression such as: “Today I make a covenant with you ...” And it is true that a command alone is not a covenant. Nevertheless, the larger context (Genesis 1 and 2) in which these commands are placed does appear to provide all of the elements of a covenantal relationship.

Using one model of a covenant (adapted from the work of Meredith Kline[2]) we can find the following elements of a Covenant in Genesis 1 and 2:

Elements of a Covenant Found in the Genesis 1 and 2
PREAMBLE
The Great King (Suzerain) named	Gen 1.1
Initiated by the Great King: “and God said"	Gen 1.26-30; 2.3; etc.
The Great King’s presence with vassal: “God with us”	Gen 2.15, 16; with Gen 3.8
The vassal named: man to rule under God	Gen 1.26, 27
Title, designation	Gen 2.4; possibly Gen 1.1a
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND	Gen 1.1-2.14
TREATY RESPONSIBILITIES
Duties, obligations: Not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil: perfect obedience required	Gen 1.28; 2.15-17
Blessings: eternal life	Gen 1.28, 29; 2.15, 22-25
Curses, penalty for transgression: Death	Gen 2.17 with Gen 3.14-19
RATIFICATION CEREMONY
Promise, oath: “when you eat of it you will surely die”	Gen 2.17
Names given, changed	Gen 2.7 (‘man’); with 3.20 ('Eve')
Eating a ‘meal’ from the tree of life	Gen 2.9,16,17; (compare Rev 22.2,19):
WITNESS
Sacramental signs, seals: The Sabbath[3] The Tree of Life	Gen 2.2, 3 Gen 2.9,16,17; with 3.22-24[4]
Descendants, heirs	Gen 1.28; (compare Gen 17.6)
Duration, time element	Gen 2.17: by implication it is a perpetual covenant (compare Isa 24.5)

A review of the elements associated with typical ancient covenants in Scripture shows that most of them can be associated (at least to an extent) with the relationship between God and Adam described in Genesis 1 and 2. Based on this correspondence, it seems reasonable to conclude that God made a covenant with Adam.

The fact that Adam was not consulted in the matter of making the arrangement does not mean that there was no covenant enacted. The covenants which God makes with man are not equivalent to contracts made between two human parties. God and man are not equals. Even in the named covenants in the Bible we do not find God consulting with man before he enacts a covenant. For example, God announced to Noah (Gen 9.1-17) that he was making a Covenant with him, he did not confer with Noah to determine if he was willing to accept the terms of the covenant before he ratified it with the sign of the rainbow. In Abraham’s case (Gen 15), although there was dialogue between Abraham and God, it is God who takes the initiative and who lays out the conditions of the covenant. There is nothing in the transaction which indicates that God and Abraham were considered equal parties in a contract. In fact, Abraham was asleep when God ratified the covenant.

Jesus is the only mediator of the Covenant with whom God deals on equal terms. The covenants God makes with mere-human representatives are of the nature of sovereign dispositions imposed upon man. God simply announces the covenant and its terms, and demands that man will agree. In the Covenant of Creation, God announced the terms and Adam immediately accepted them. He was in a perfect state, and his will was in complete conformity to the will of God.

In addition, we find in Romans 5.12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15.22 that all men represented by Adam are held accountable for the first sin of Adam. Without a covenant being in place between God and man, with Adam as the human representative, it is difficult to explain how we are held accountable for Adam’s sin; why only for his first sin and not for his subsequent sins; and why we are not held accountable for the sins of our other progenitors. The existence of a covenant between God and Adam clarifies the responsibility of Adam and the applicability of his first sin to all mankind. Adam, in a covenant relationship with God, was designated as the federal representative of all mankind. When he ate the fruit, he broke the covenant and, as the federal representative, brought the consequences of the curse upon himself and upon all mankind.

A consideration of Adam’s representative role seems to imply that a Covenant of Creation was made with all mankind through him. Jesus, as the second Adam, came to fulfill the obligations of the same covenant (and all the other covenants in the Bible). The Covenant of Creation, having been made with the first man, applies to all whom he represented—all mankind—just as Jesus’ fulfillment of it applied to all whom he represented—all who believe (1 Cor 15.22; Jn 17.9).

Some conclusions that can be derived from the existence of a universal and perpetual Covenant of Creation made with Adam, are the following:

Mankind’s obligation of obedience to God is perpetual and the specific obligation of the covenant is still in force (compare Gen 1.28 with 8.17; 9.1; Isaiah 24.4-6). The covenant is not annulled anywhere in Scripture, which implies that it remains in force.
The curses (Gen 3) as a result of the breach of the covenant still affect all mankind.
The promises and blessings of the covenant have not been withdrawn (compare Gen 1.28,29 with Gen 8.21-9.3), but they are applied only to those who keep the covenant—either directly or through a mediator.
Adam is designated as the federal representative of all mankind in a covenantal relationship with God. In Adam, all men became parties to the covenant, and in Adam all broke the covenant (Rom 5.12, 18; 1 Cor 15.22).
Mankind’s breaking the covenant did not annul it. Mankind continues to be held accountable to the obligations of the covenant. Only God, as the author of the covenant, could annul it.
Christ came to fulfill the Law. He was placed under the Law. He came not only to fulfill the laws given through Moses but also to fulfill the Law as it is revealed by God’s character and as it was communicated to Adam. What Adam did not do—obey perfectly—Christ did. He is our covenant-keeper (Rom 5.19; 1 Cor 15.22).
The Sabbath, the seal of the Covenant of Creation, remains in force (Heb 4.9). It is the only seal of the Covenant that is consistent through all covenant administrations.
The Tree of Life, a sign of the Covenant of Creation, will be in heaven; and those who, in Christ, are restored covenant keepers will partake of the sign of the covenant in eternity (Rev 22.2,19).

The first two chapters of Genesis document a covenant relationship between God and man. Man’s existence on earth begins in a covenantal context. Life before God is portrayed throughout Scripture as being rooted in a covenant. From the very first moment of his existence Adam stood in a covenantal relationship with God. He is portrayed as the vassal of God. As an office bearer, and a representative of God he is given dominion over God’s creation under God’s sovereign rule. Man (all men, women, and children throughout the earth and through all time) is either a covenant keeper or a covenant breaker. The Covenant of Creation is not incidental to the history of redemption, it is an essential element in God’s dealings with mankind.

The Covenant of Creation is a Covenant of Grace

That fact that God made a covenant with Adam seems to be established. But there remains the second question: In what way is this covenant different from, or the same as, the other covenant administrations between God and man?

There are many views of how the various covenants in the Bible relate to one another. Some views about the relationship among the covenants include the following:

Each covenant in the Bible is to be understood as a distinctly different administration, and there is no essential connection among the covenants and as such, God’s dealings with men from one age to the next are distinctly different.

The OT covenants are in one class and the New Covenant is in a separate class. Under this view, God dealt with men according to Law in the OT and now deals with men according to Grace. The older covenants failed and had to be replaced with a new covenant.

Most of the covenants (e.g., Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and New) are re-statements of a common covenant. Each re-statement adds elements unfolding God’s redemptive plan through history.

There are variations on these basic conceptions of the covenants, but for our purposes it is not necessary to consider them.

I will however go beyond the three alternatives above and propose that God has dealt with man in the same way throughout all of history under only one covenant. As such, all of the Biblical covenants are re-statements, or administrations, of one common covenant – an overriding Covenant of Grace.

This view does present some difficulties since by using the word ‘all’ I include the Noahic and the Adamic covenants in the same class as the other covenants. In this paper, we will not consider the covenant made with Noah. But there still remains a big question: Is the covenant made with Adam in the same class as the other covenants in the Bible? The immediate response of many will be that it is not, since the covenant made with Adam is a covenant of works and the other covenants are covenants of grace. They may also argue that the Covenant of Grace became necessary only because of the sin of Adam whereas the covenant made with Adam, if it existed at all, was made with Adam in the sinless state.

We should note first that nowhere in Scripture is the covenant made with Adam called a ‘covenant of works’. This term is used by theologians to make a distinction among the various administrations of the Covenant. The use of theological terms has been very helpful and important during the history of the Church for clarifying relationships described in Scripture and for settling doctrinal controversy (e.g., ‘trinity’, ‘person’ and ‘nature’ of Christ, procession vs generation, etc.). So it is not wrong, and in fact it is a good thing, to use a theological term when it proves useful for making clear the distinctions between truth and error. However, it is important that that the terms clearly communicate the distinctions that are necessary and do not make distinctions which are unnecessary.

It appears that the authors of the WCofF define the term ‘covenant of works’ with the remainder of their statement: “wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.” It was probably felt that the use of the term ‘works’ helped to distinguish, and to classify, this particular covenant administration by what appears to be its primary attribute—obedience.

The emphasis of the covenant administration in the Garden seems to be on Adam’s required obedience rather than on God’s grace. The covenant required that Adam walk before God in perfect obedience. Therefore, the use of the word “works” in the WCofF certainly is not incorrect. However, the term ‘covenant of works’ could be misleading, because it emphasizes one aspect of the covenant—and possibly over emphasizes it so that people might think that Adam could have obeyed God without the power of God’s sustaining grace

The covenant made with Adam has similar attributes as the other covenants enacted in the Bible . The following considerations demonstrate that the covenant made with Adam is essentially no different from the other covenants with respect to obedience (works) and grace:

The covenant was made with Adam to remind him that he was a servant of the Great King (Gen 1.26), and also to confirm that he was a son in God’s household (Lk 3.38). Like Adam, Moses and Israel were in the same relationship with God (Ex 6.7; Num 12.7). David also was a servant of the LORD, in the same relationship to God as was Adam (e.g., Ps 2.2, 7[5]), and so are all of God’s people (2 Cor 6.18). The Covenant teaches all mankind (the people in the OT, and those under the New Covenant) through Adam that he is under God’s Divine Providence and that he must rely on God, and not himself, for all things. The covenant made with Adam demonstrated that man could not of himself obtain (or retain) the promised reward. Ultimately man is dependent on God for all things.

The condition of obedience in the covenant made with Adam is the same condition that we find in all later covenant administrations. It is the overriding condition of the Covenant. For example, in the covenants made with Abraham and Moses it is clear that obedience is a key component of each covenant administration. In the covenant made with Abraham obedience is required (e.g., Gen 17.9ff), and so also in the covenant made with Moses (e.g., Dt 4.1). In the Covenant mediated by Christ, obedience is also required (e.g., Mt 5.17-48; Jn 14.15). Jesus had to obey every condition of the covenant perfectly (Heb 10.7).

To single out obedience through works in the covenant made with Adam may lead to the identification of a distinction where there is no difference. The covenant made with Adam had no more to do with works than did any of the other covenants.

The condition of obedience demonstrates an organic connection between the covenant made with Adam and later covenant administrations. But the offer of life also demonstrates this connection. Compare Genesis 2.16,17 with Deuteronomy 30.15-20 and note that in both covenant administrations God offers man life or death. Life is obtained through continual obedience to the Covenant. “Thus that covenant of works into which God entered with man was a gracious thing [emphasis added]. It contained, indeed, a possibility of death, but it contained also the promise of assured and eternal life. If the temptation was yielded to, there would be death; but if the temptation was resisted, even the possibility of death would be removed.”[6]

Obedience was required, but this obedience could not be accomplished through man’s efforts. In this respect, the covenant made with Adam has the same characteristics as the other covenant administrations. It came from God and its fulfillment rested ultimately with God’s gracious dealings with man.

Adam, along with Noah, Abraham, and the Israelites, was able to continue walking before God in the way of obedience only as long as God continued to offer his preserving strength. Adam was created with the law of God written in his heart and had the power to fulfill it. Yet, for a time, it was possible for him (as with the angels) to transgress. While Adam had liberty to obey or disobey, his continued obedience was dependent on God’s providential restraint.

It is difficult for us to align God’s sovereignty with man’s supposed moral liberty. We must be very careful not to make God the author of sin, but it is clear that ultimately it is only as God restrains man from sin that men and women are able to obey. Even Jesus said that he could do only what the Father willed (Jn 5.19; 6.57; 12.50; 14.31). The obedience of Jesus, in his human nature, was dependent on the Divine will. So, with Adam, the provision of providential protection from sin was dependent on a gracious action on the part of God. In this respect, the covenant made with Adam is a covenant based on grace.

The administration of grace was applied differently to Adam than it is to those whom Christ represents. Adam was created with a personal righteousness whereas those represented by Christ have an imputed righteousness. Also the grace given to believers is perpetually sustaining (a believer cannot lose his salvation, Romans 8.35-39) whereas the grace given to Adam in the garden was not. Because of the difference in the status of man, with respect to obedience, before and after the fall, the application of grace is different. Nevertheless the covenant made with Adam is as much an administration of grace as are any of the other covenant administrations found in the Bible.

Christ came into the world as the Last Adam (1 Cor 15.45) to fulfill the obligations of the covenant made with Adam—perfect obedience. Christ fulfilled not only the Davidic and Mosaic covenants, and all the other explicit OT covenants, but he also fulfilled the covenant made with Adam. This demonstrates that God had planned from eternity that Christ would keep all the covenants on man’s behalf. All the covenant administrations in the Bible are earthly manifestations of the Eternal Covenant made between Christ and the Father. All the covenants are administrations of God’s grace through Christ. The covenant made with Adam is just one of the many instances of the Covenant of Grace provided by God for the provision of perfect obedience, through Christ, on man’s behalf.

There is evidence within the documents produced by the authors of the WCofF that they included the ‘covenant of works’ in same class with all the other covenants.

They give chapter 7 the following title: “Of God’s Covenant with Man.” For this chapter they use the word ‘covenant’ in the singular. This seems to imply that they believed that there was only one overriding covenant between God and Man, of which the ‘covenant of works’ was one administration.
They open chapter 7 with the following words: “The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works ...” By using the word ‘first’ they seem to indicate that this was the first in a sequence of many covenantal administrations. By using ‘first’ they imply that there was at least a ‘second’ in the same class. This may show that, in their view, there is only one Covenant and that the covenant made with Adam was the first administration of that Covenant.
In the Shorter Catechism (Q 12) they call the covenant made with Adam a ‘covenant of Life’ rather than a ‘covenant of works’: “What special act of providence did God exercise toward man in the estate wherein he was created? When God had created man, he entered into a covenant of life with him, upon condition of perfect obedience; forbidding him to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, upon the pain of death."

If these considerations are correct, there has been, and is, only one covenant between God and man. Christ is the ultimate mediator of this covenant. There have been a number of administrations of this covenant and a number of earthly typical human representatives including Noah, Abraham, Moses, and David. Adam was the first human (federal) representative of the first enactment of the Covenant.

Based on the above, it would seem that:

Man is perpetually under a covenant obligation to God (from creation to consummation),
God made a covenant with Adam, who represented all mankind,
The obligations of the covenant made with Adam continue to apply to all mankind, and
Christ, as the Last Adam, has fulfilled the obligations of the covenant made with Adam on our behalf.

http://www.epctoronto.org/Press/Publications_JRHughes/Covenant_of_Creation_Web.htm

Nei til islam

onsdag 13. november 2024

Mye mer nødvendig om Magnus Lagabøter og vår uvisse tid i dag

Ingen kommentarer:

Legg inn en kommentar

Etiketter

Om meg

Bloggarkiv