Sounds great! But Genesis tells that's not how it happened. God created us out of dirt (inorganic stuff, as Alex correctly put it in another post). Adam and Eve were not "adopted" through [sic] Jesus Christ.
Why were Adam and Eve not adopted through Jesus Christ like everyone else who is saved? After they sinned, they needed saving. Adam was created out of dirt, Eve was created out of bone, and we were created out of flesh. All of us need saving just the same. He knew all of us before we were created physically.
Being born spiritually is a figure of speech. It is a metaphor for belief. The way it is used is a play on words. A misleading play at that. We come to a belief when we realize that something greater than we can imagine created all this.
While it does mean belief, it is no figure of speech. It refers to a very literal thing. Upon being born again, there is an emergence of a completely new being, not existent before (2 Cor. 5:17). I don't understand why you think it is a play on words.
FK: Jer 1:4-5 : 4 The word of the Lord came to me, saying, 5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations." This is also classic predestination...
He wrote that in retrospect. Anyone can say the same thing: "God predestined me to do this..." in retrospect. What is always lacking is prospective knowledge of this kind.
What??? He was DIRECTLY quoting God, AND it's in the Bible. It almost sounds like you are asserting the possibility that God never said this. ...... What do you mean by "prospective knowledge of this kind"? You know of prophecy proven true in future times. Do you mean someone prophesying the future words spoken by God? If you do, then see every OT quote made by Christ.
Fact is, the Church does not teach Paul as the Protestants interpret him because the Church concentrates on other apostolic teachings and find a common denominator or the most prevalent denominator as the orthodox teaching. The protestants simply take Paul as the standard and fit or reject the rest.
But that doesn't make logical sense. I am often reminded that I should be thanking the Church for giving me the Bible. Yet, the Church made Paul "THE STAR" of the entire NT in terms of ink. Why would the Church do that, if their intent was just to send Paul to the corner in favor of other teachings?
For obvious reasons, the Church will never say that any one of the Apostles was wrong. But at the same time, the Church will not build its theology based on one of them, even an essential one (who also happens to be a controversial self-appointed later-comer whose teachings were not always in synch with the rest).
I'm not aware of anyone who builds his theology based on only Paul. We base ours on the whole of the Bible. Since Paul's writings consume a disproportionately large amount of the NT, many of our teachings come THROUGH Paul, as opposed to "from" Paul. It can be a subtle difference, but our belief is not hinged on whether Paul "understood" correctly, or anything like that. We KNOW that everything that Paul wrote was God-inspired, and therefore perfect. It is the same with every other Biblical author. IOW, we don't judge the "correctness" of a scripture quote based on any theological "favorites". ALL scripture is equally God- inspired.
Do you really think that Paul was self-appointed? To me, that would make him a fraud.
AMEN!
VI. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.[12] Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word:[13] and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.[14] VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all:[15] yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.[16] VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which, at the time of the writing of it, was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and, by His singular care and providence, kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical;[17] so as, in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them.[18] But, because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them,[19] therefore they are to be translated in to the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come,[20] that, the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner;[21] and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.[22] IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.[23] X. The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.[24]V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture.[10] And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.[11]
The souls are not pre-fabricated in advance. That is a pagan, even Gnostic belief.
Why were Adam and Eve not adopted through Jesus Christ like everyone else who is saved?
Because God apparently thought the world needed to wait a few thousand years before Christ showed up. In the meantime, He tried everything else, it seems, floods, giants, plagues, you name it.
Besides, I already told you I don't know where the Church is getting the idea that Christ went to Hades to rescue the OT "righteous," including Adam and Eve, nor do I know why Adam and Eve would have been "righteous." All this is nebulous, legendary and mythical to me — and certainly not biblical.
But it's part of our Tradition because this is mentioned in the Divine Liturgy which goes back at least 1,700 years if not longer, which means that the Church believed it as early as the 4th century, probably earlier.
The only hint is from +Peter saying that Christ preached to the dead (one can understand that as spiritually dead too), but that's a far cry from breaking down the doors of Hell, and yanking the OT righteous, including Adam and Eve.
Let's not forget that at His Transfiguration on Mount Tabor, Moses and Elijah were there...physically! That means Moses was not in hell...
Upon being born again, there is an emergence of a completely new being, not existent before (2 Cor. 5:17). I don't understand why you think it is a play on words.
There is no new being born. There is one and the same person who dropped his arrogance and pride and decided to obey God's will, to accept God's free offer and follow Him, as in "sell everything you have and follow Me." Clinging to God is a decision.
What??? He was DIRECTLY quoting God, AND it's in the Bible. It almost sounds like you are asserting the possibility that God never said this
It is in retrospect because Jeremiah is talking about his past, concluding that God set him apart. As far as directly quoting God, this is where we do not agree. I do not believe the Bible is a literal word of God. I believe it contains God's truths, along with legends and myths, embellished with human desires, culture and historical issues.
Yet, the Church made Paul "THE STAR" of the entire NT in terms of ink. Why would the Church do that, if their intent was just to send Paul to the corner in favor of other teachings?
The Church does not diminish +Paul. The Church interprets him differently than the Protestants or, for that matter, heretics (i.e. Marcion).
Do you really think that Paul was self-appointed? To me, that would make him a fraud
I have a strong suspicion that he did appoint himself, but that he honestly believed it was his destiny.