Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

God’S 1St Example Of Grace


Donald

Recommended Posts

  • Members

As I have demonstrated in some of my previous threads, I have some prOBlems with what seems to be “established IFB teachings”.  And I have learned from this forum, that all IFB’s are not the same.

Today’s thread has to do with Adam & Eve and what they did themselves, to cover their nakedness.

This is what the Bible says they did.......
“And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they [were] naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.” (Genesis 3:7)

The IFB pastors that I am hanging around now seem to teach, that if Adam & Eve had sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves coats, then God would have been satisfied and would not have seen the need to make them coats from animal skins!

Don’t get me wrong, these men do not teach a works based salvation and they always make it very clear, that our good works have NOTHING to do with our salvation.  But they seem to be so enamored with the idea of any kind of nudity, that they sometimes go too far.

For sure, we all see the great value of women dressing in “modist apparel”.  But to STRETCH this passage in Genesis to MAKE IT about an issue of modesty, instead of a foreshadowing of our Lord’s sacrifice for us, is a dangerous practice.
-----------
My question is.... is this view of Gen.3:7 as widespread as I think it is?
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Never heard that one before.  Sounds like someone is adding a lot to scripture that's not there. Whatever happened to just preaching what IS written.  I for one don't care for the "what ifs" that aren't written. 

 

Plus, we do have this that kind of throws a wrench in their wheel...

 

Hebrews 9:22
And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
 
Adam and Eve sinned...blood had to be shed. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I'm not trying to be hard-nosed about this, but it's stuff like this that really gets under my skin. 

 

If they had covered their whole body, God would have been satisfied and not killed an animal.

 

Well...if that was the prOBlem, why didn't God just tell them to cover up the rest of the way? 

 

That ranks up there with...Did Adam have a bellybutton?

 

1 Timothy 6:20-21

20   O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
21   Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I'm not trying to be hard-nosed about this, but it's stuff like this that really gets under my skin.

If they had covered their whole body, God would have been satisfied and not killed an animal.

Well...if that was the prOBlem, why didn't God just tell them to cover up the rest of the way?

That ranks up there with...Did Adam have a bellybutton?

1 Timothy 6:20-21
20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

Yes Adam had a belly button - it is where the Lord poked him when he was finished and said "you're done!" Poke! :lol:

Op - never heard anyone say that - it removes the picture of the blood sacrifice to cover sin......
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

The sewing of the fig leaves was a picture of man's works; God would not have accepted it had they sewed together fig leaves to cover themselves even as though wearing a burka.  From the beginning, God is teaching us that we cannot cover our sins. Totally agree that it is a dangerous practice to try to link it to modesty.  

 

One thing that does link to modesty, though, is the coat God made - when looking into the word itself, it means a long flowing garment (that's why the animal couldn't have been a little lamb....). For both.  I believe that teaches us that God wants His children covered - spiritually by the blood of Christ, physically by clothing.  But to teach that He would have overlooked their nakedness had they made coats is adding to scripture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

One of my former pastors taught that Adam and Eve were never really naked: he said they were "shrouded" or "clothed" in the the glory of God.

But the Bible clearly says they were "naked". Why would the phrase "and were not ashamed" need to be there if they weren't really naked?

 

And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. Genesis 2:25

 

When sin entered the picture, then there was shame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The sewing of the fig leaves was a picture of man's works; God would not have accepted it had they sewed together fig leaves to cover themselves even as though wearing a burka.  From the beginning, God is teaching us that we cannot cover our sins. Totally agree that it is a dangerous practice to try to link it to modesty.  

 

One thing that does link to modesty, though, is the coat God made - when looking into the word itself, it means a long flowing garment (that's why the animal couldn't have been a little lamb....). For both.  I believe that teaches us that God wants His children covered - spiritually by the blood of Christ, physically by clothing.  But to teach that He would have overlooked their nakedness had they made coats is adding to scripture.

 

Hello HappyChristian

In all fairness, this pastor doesn’t actually say that “God would have overlooked their sin and their need for Him, if they made coats”; (because the message he is preaching, on these occasions, is about a need for more modesty.)
But he does stress, that what God was displeased with(in Adam & Eve), was their nakedness.  And he doesn’t say anything about their disOBedience and rebellion.
---------
And I am glad to hear, that this practice(of twisting what this passage in Gen. really means), is not as widespread as I thought.

But I know this pastor well enough, to know what he would tell me if I called him on this:
He would explain that this was a proper application of this passage, in order to drive home his point about the wickedness of people not covering themselves up enough.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators

Hello HappyChristian

In all fairness, this pastor doesn’t actually say that “God would have overlooked their sin and their need for Him, if they made coats”; (because the message he is preaching, on these occasions, is about a need for more modesty.) Ok - thanks for clarifying that! =)
But he does stress, that what God was displeased with(in Adam & Eve), was their nakedness.  And he doesn’t say anything about their disOBedience and rebellion. I understand the teaching of modesty, because God did cover them (but was it for modesty sake? They were married; they were alone...).  There is a physical application of the coat God created, but to stress that God was displeased with their nakedness is still adding to scripture (as you OBviously know!).  Adam and Eve were naked before they disOBeyed God so there is no way their nakedness was what displeased God. 
---------
And I am glad to hear, that this practice(of twisting what this passage in Gen. really means), is not as widespread as I thought. Yeah - I've heard a lot of goofy teaching on Adam and Eve, but never the idea that their nakedness was what displeased God. SMH.

But I know this pastor well enough, to know what he would tell me if I called him on this:
He would explain that this was a proper application of this passage, in order to drive home his point about the wickedness of people not covering themselves up enough.
Proper application cannot be made when one adds to what God has presented.  Yes, the Bible is rife with teachings on modesty, but I don't think this is one (other than the fact of the long flowing garment being what the coat was...but the picture there isn't really modesty, it is complete coverage of our sins by the blood of Jesus).  A stretch very often becomes man's teaching instead of God's...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

One of my former pastors taught that Adam and Eve were never really naked: he said they were "shrouded" or "clothed" in the the glory of God.

But the Bible clearly says they were "naked". Why would the phrase "and were not ashamed" need to be there if they weren't really naked?

 

And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed. Genesis 2:25

 

When sin entered the picture, then there was shame.

The glory of God surrounding them "clothed them" and when they sinned the glory vanished and they were able to see each other's nakedness.  I believe that this is the ancient Jewish rabbinacle understanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The glory of God surrounding them "clothed them" and when they sinned the glory vanished and they were able to see each other's nakedness.  I believe that this is the ancient Jewish rabbinacle understanding.

Brother, how can lost men, "blind leaders of the blind" understand or rightly divide scriptures?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Brother, how can lost men, "blind leaders of the blind" understand or rightly divide scriptures?

Well, you can take the 4th Century Catholic understanding as your authority.

The Emperor's Catholic Church totally "dismissed" and ignored any Jewish sources,

as the "Church" replaced Israel and so the "Church" was the only authority on Scripture.

Since Replacement Theology is so prevalent today, that means that all we know about

the Old Testament is from people such as St. Augustine, Origen, the Papacy, and the "Reformers".

I mean, why would "Jews" know anything about the Torah? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...