Was Adam Elected to Salvation or Damnation?

[DHK]

I would expect that Adam was sinless until he first sinned, then he was damned (God is not a liar!) needing salvation. He did not "fall from grace" as he had never accepted salvation in the sense of a lost person before his fall into sin. Once he did fall into sin, he was in need of salvation like every other human.

No philosophy please. Chapter and verse. Where does the Bible say that Adam was "damned" that is condemned to hell? To my knowledge it says no such thing. Please prove me wrong if you can. If you cannot prove me wrong, then he was not in need of salvation was he?
I'll wait for your answer here before I respond to the rest of your post as the rest is irrelevant until this question is answered first.

 

[glfredrick]

Gen 2:16-17 (ESV) And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, "You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

I anticipated this response, which is why I parenthetically stated that God is not a liar. Genesis 2:16-17 above are God's command to Adam. Adam ate of the tree. He died, spiritually and eventually, physically. His relationship with God was shattered. His relationship with Eve was shattered. He was ousted from the Garden, and not allowed to eat of the Tree of Life.

It was the Enemy who made the claim that Adam would not surely die:

Gen 3:4-5 (ESV) But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

God was no longer the gentle God who walked and talked with Adam in the coolness of the evening. He now exhibited a wrathful side -- a side that also exhibited ultimate judgment -- but also, God exhibited His grace. He "covered over" Adam and Eve with the skins of animals that had to be sacrificed for that "propitiation" (to be fair, a type or shadow of the blood-clothing of Christ to come).

Adam and Eve restored (in a sense, they were forever "naked" and needing "covering") their relationship enough to remain as husband and wife (what other choice was there?) and to bear children, some of whom walked with God and others who did not (at least not well).

Further, Paul elucidates the concept of Adam's sin:

Rom 5:12-19 (ESV) Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned--13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. 16 And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. 17 For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 19 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.

I believe the case is clear...

 

[Steadfast Fred]

Adam's relationship with Eve was not shattered. He hid from God, not his wife. They both hid. It is obvious his relationship was not shattered as their marriage produced children.

 

[DHK]

Gen 2:16-17 (ESV) And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, "You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

I anticipated this response, which is why I parenthetically stated that God is not a liar. Genesis 2:16-17 above are God's command to Adam. Adam ate of the tree. He died, spiritually and eventually, physically. His relationship with God was shattered. His relationship with Eve was shattered. He was ousted from the Garden, and not allowed to eat of the Tree of Life.

His relationship was not shattered, it was broken temporarily. Find out the definition of death. The word in the Bible simply means "separation." Adam and Eve were separated from fellowship with God until their sin was confessed and they had a right relationship with Him. There is nowhere in the Bible that says they were "damned." You have not given one verse that says that. Step by step God wooed them into a place of repentance.
Their repentance is evidenced in the names of their children.
Cain, the first born, means "of the Lord," a name expressing gratitude to God for their acceptance by God.
The things you mention are consequences of sin. All sin has consequences. In this case loss of salvation is not one of those consequences, and nowhere can be proved.
The consequences of their sin were as you listed:
1. They were ousted from the Garden.
2. They died spiritually--separated from God for a temporary period of time.
3. They eventually died physically.
4. They were not allowed to eat of the tree of life (would not live physically forever).
--Those are the only viable consequences that you listed. His relationship with Eve did not change. In fact his love for her was proven to be strong as he was willing to die for her in his rebellious act against God. Eve sinned being tempted or deceived. Adam had to make a choice. Risk losing Eve (a possibility), or rebel against God and be with Eve though he knew he would face a tougher consequence. He chose the latter, no doubt out of his love for his wife.

It was the Enemy who made the claim that Adam would not surely die:

Gen 3:4-5 (ESV) But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. 5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

So? This is moot.

God was no longer the gentle God who walked and talked with Adam in the coolness of the evening. He now exhibited a wrathful side -- a side that also exhibited ultimate judgment -- but also, God exhibited His grace. He "covered over" Adam and Eve with the skins of animals that had to be sacrificed for that "propitiation" (to be fair, a type or shadow of the blood-clothing of Christ to come).

God's character never changes. "I change not" he says. He is forever the same. You are just plain wrong here.
The sacrifice was to cover the sin, yes, but not to grant the salvation that he already had. Remember that even Mary had to offer a sin offering after giving birth to Jesus. For every sin committed the Jews offered a sin offering. Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. This does not just apply to salvation.

Adam and Eve restored (in a sense, they were forever "naked" and needing "covering") their relationship enough to remain as husband and wife (what other choice was there?) and to bear children, some of whom walked with God and others who did not (at least not well).

This is a red herring. They were created to bear children, to go and multiply, and fill the earth. That was their purpose. They loved each other. Adam and Eve did not need to be restored to each other. They were never estranged from each other. What are you talking about??

Further, Paul elucidates the concept of Adam's sin:

Rom 5:12-19 (ESV) Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned--13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. 16 And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. 17 For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. 19 For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.

I believe the case is clear...

Clearly you are wrong. The Scripture simply tells how sin entered into the world, and how Christ came to die for that sin.
You have not demonstrated that Adam had lost salvation; nor that Adam was ever damned. Not one shred of evidence have you given.

 

[quantumfaith]

No philosophy please. Chapter and verse. Where does the Bible say that Adam was "damned" that is condemned to hell? To my knowledge it says no such thing. Please prove me wrong if you can. If you cannot prove me wrong, then he was not in need of salvation was he?
I'll wait for your answer here before I respond to the rest of your post as the rest is irrelevant until this question is answered first.

"Philosophy is the handmaiden of theology" (Pete Kreeft)

 

[quantumfaith]

glfrederick,

I have not given thought to your posts, my comment is to encourage you to use all that God has granted you (Scripture, reason, sentience, rationality and philosophy) to make your case and point.

 

[glfredrick]

About all I can say is that you and I certainly do not share the same theological perspective...

If you are wanting "proof texts" then we will have to toss out a whole lot of the doctrines of Christianity which are built precept upon precept from the revelation of God. Trinity, for instance, immediately becomes problematic in your view because there is no verse that says "Trinity was..."

I'll return the favor and ask where your proof text is that says that Adam did not suffer the exact same fate for his sin that all the rest of humanity sees.

I also notice that you contrast Adam with Mary... Do you consider Mary sinless as well? How does that reconcile with Paul?

Rom 3:23-26 (ESV) for all (g3956 πᾶς pas) have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

I'm not trying to be snarky here, but you seem to have a different definition of the word "all" in reference to our sin than I do, based on Paul's writings in the Text.

 

[DHK]

About all I can say is that you and I certainly do not share the same theological perspective...

If you are wanting "proof texts" then we will have to toss out a whole lot of the doctrines of Christianity which are built precept upon precept from the revelation of God. Trinity, for instance, immediately becomes problematic in your view because there is no verse that says "Trinity was..."

1. In Scripture all three persons are referred to as deity.
2. In Matthew 3 all three persons are present at the same time at the baptism in Jesus: Christ being baptized, the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, and the voice of God the Father.
3. The clear straight testimony of the trinity in definition form in 1John 5:7 which cannot be denied.
--It is clearly taught in the Bible.

Your argument runs like this: The words: theology, Christology, soteriology are not found in the Bible, therefore there is no such thing as the study of God, Christ or salvation. These are all myths. Correct?
--I am afraid you are the one that is throwing out the complete Bible by your own reasoning.
--I don't simply use "proof texts" but rather the whole counsel of God.

I'll return the favor and ask where your proof text is that says that Adam did not suffer the exact same fate for his sin that all the rest of humanity sees.

And what fate is that?
The wages of sin is death. He died. He died physically.
He died spiritually in that he was separated from God. But once a child of God, a child of God cannot be unborn. Adam was created. He was created as God's child. He never lost that which God gave him. There is no Scripture to indicate that he did.

I also notice that you contrast Adam with Mary... Do you consider Mary sinless as well? How does that reconcile with Paul?

You missed my point completely. Mary, a believer, needed to atone for her sin as a believer. Adam needed to atone for his sin in the same way Mary did. They both needed a blood sacrifice--not for salvation, but to restore fellowship with God. Where do you get this Mary was sinless bit??
She needed to provide a sin offering, because she was a sinner!

Rom 3:23-26 (ESV) for all (g3956 πᾶς pas) have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

I'm not trying to be snarky here, but you seem to have a different definition of the word "all" in reference to our sin than I do, based on Paul's writings in the Text.

Who is arguing with that? Where did I deny that all have not sinned?
All have sinned. Did I say otherwise? Quote me if I did.

 

[Steadfast Fred]

Jesus said in the Gospel of John:

John 3:3 (KJV) Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

John 3:5 (KJV) Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

When was Adam born again? According to Jesus, one had to be born again in order to enter into God's Kingdom.

We know Adam was created. I do not dispute that. And yes, Adam was made in the image of God. The question is, does that truly equate to Salvation?

After the fall, we do see that Adam confessed his sin to God. But his confession is kind of interesting. In confessing, he did not take responsibility himself. He told God, 'The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.' This is called 'shifting the blame.'

So, in light of the fact that he blamed the woman for his downfall, was his confession truly a repentant confession?

 

[DHK]

So, in light of the fact that he blamed the woman for his downfall, was his confession truly a repentant confession?

Not all that Adam did and said is recorded in the Bible. The same is true for any other individual.
1. Adam was created not born. To put the analogy parallel to the NT analogy you would have to say that Adam would have to be re-created not re-born. The analogy doesn't fit.
2. Adam was created a child of God. When God looked upon his creation he exclaimed that it was all "very good." There was no evil found in Adam. Contrary to that situation every man, woman and child has a sin nature and is born into this world as a child of the devil. Hence he must be born into God's family (John 1:12,13), being made a child of God by faith.
3. Repentance is not shown immediately but slowly. Ultimately it is accepted by God when God Himself provides a blood sacrifice. Would God provide a blood sacrifice without repentance? The same question could be asked of John: Would John the Baptist baptize those who did not repent? There is a definite pattern in the Bible that not even God would break.
4. When God meted out the consequences of their sin in the Fall or the curse of the Fall, what he gave to Eve was the promise of the Messiah in Genesis 3:15, the protoevangelium. An unsaved person does not look forward to the coming of a Messiah; Adam and Eve did, and a promise of a Messiah was given to them.
5. The fruit of their repentance is shown in the names of their children:
a. Abel--"of the Lord," gratitude given to God for this child.
b. Seth--"appointed" Perhaps he was the appointed one, chosen of the Lord.

There is no Scripture anywhere to suggest that Adam was unsaved or ever lost his salvation, or died an unsaved man. Such a view is not consistent with Scripture.

 

[glfredrick]

I guess that I am merely confused then... So perhaps I need some help walking through the steps here.

1. Adam was born a sinless "free man" (this is important to the argument)
2. God's stated penalty for sinning is death
3. Adam willfully disobeyed God -- sin -- and surrendered his freedom to become a slave to sin
4. Adam was confronted in his sin by God
5. Adam breaks his relationship with his wife when he blames the woman for his own sin
6. Adam was ousted from paradise -- and from the tree of life
7. God cursed the line of Adam forever more -- all who were born of Adam's seed are born sinners
8. God proclaimed to Adam and all his line to follow the promise of a redeemer, Messiah, Jesus -- the hope of redemption
9. Adam accepted this hope in faith as evidenced by his later walk, his interaction with God, etc.

Where are we told this "specifically"? We are not told in a proof-text verse. But, Adams sin is shown plainly. So too is God's curse against Adam. So too is Adam's later walking with God after God shared the proto-gospel with Adam. the "good news" is for "sinners" in need of salvation. God's sharing the promise with Adam indicates that Adam was in need of salvation.

Adam's sin and the penalty for that sin is implied by all the other verses in the Word that explain and detail God's judgment for those who sin and who do not believe by faith in the promise of Messiah, that those who sin are spiritually dead. Adam obviously did believe in the promise of Messiah to come though we are not shown the point where that happened.

We are also not shown that point for the Apostles (save Paul), or for most of the believers listed in the Scriptures. Though the revelation is sufficient, it is not exhaustive of all the activity of God throughout the ages. Some things are implied and through proper hermeneutic can be grasped and used, just like we do with doctrines such as the Trinity, justification, etc. You admitted this concept above.

Back to the "free man" issue with Adam. Much debate has transpired over the years concerning human free will. The arguments are old and well-rehearsed, yet Adam (and Eve) were truly the only humans born on this earth (save Christ) who were actually born "free" and who had the opportunity to choose whether or not to fall into sin. Adam chose wrongly. He entered into sin and slavery. At that point he, like all other human life, needed a redeemer to set him free.

I would make the point that no other human born since Adam has been born with the same level of free will that Adam had as a sinless man who was no slave to anyone. The rest of us have problems, and Adam is the one who first gave us the sin-problem. Paul said as much, as I cited above. "By one man sin entered the world..."

 

[DHK]

Back to the "free man" issue with Adam. Much debate has transpired over the years concerning human free will. The arguments are old and well-rehearsed, yet Adam (and Eve) were truly the only humans born on this earth (save Christ) who were actually born "free" and who had the opportunity to choose whether or not to fall into sin. Adam chose wrongly. He entered into sin and slavery. At that point he, like all other human life, needed a redeemer to set him free.

I would make the point that no other human born since Adam has been born with the same level of free will that Adam had as a sinless man who was no slave to anyone. The rest of us have problems, and Adam is the one who first gave us the sin-problem. Paul said as much, as I cited above. "By one man sin entered the world..."

You are reading too much into this text. In the Fall, God cursed Adam, Eve, the serpent, and even the earth. Are we to assume that the serpent would be saved (or Satan who inhabited the serpent), or the earth? No. We know that the serpent will never be redeemed. We also know that someday the curse will be lifted off the earth during the Millennial Kingdom, but that is still well into the future. The curse on Adam and Eve have nothing to do with their salvation, but definitely with the salvation of all their offspring and descendants.
They were created without a sin nature. They suddenly just did not get a sin nature. One is born with a sin nature, and that would happen with all their descendants. Thus these created beings could not be born again, for they were created.
But they did have to face the consequences of their sin, which has already been listed for you. Nowhere does it say that this has anything to do with their salvation, but only with their fellowship with God. God calls out to them. Obviously they were still God's children. God does not call in such fashion to unsaved individuals. God's wrath was not abiding upon them as it does upon unsaved man today.

Adam blamed Eve.
Eve blamed the Serpent.
God immediately cursed the serpent.
--Is this any different than today. Even today believers will try to put the blame of their sin on another. It is a natural reaction. It is not an evidence of an unbeliever. It is the trait of a human whether saved or unsaved. All of mankind does it. My children to it all the time. Do you have children? Have you ever noticed this phenomena? Believe me it exists. People don't lose their salvation over it.
--And those who deceive others are not cursed to crawl in the dust of the earth either. You are obviously taking things far too literally here, and applying them too literally. It simply speaks of the consequences of sin of Adam and Eve as related to their walk with God, not their salvation. God did not disown them! They did not lose their salvation.

 

[glfredrick]

Neither does God "disown" us today. By His manifold grace, we get a chance to hear the gospel and respond, which is the remedy (by Christ's completed atoning work) for our sin.

I'm sensing a disconnect in your thought process on this issue, which seems to be hung up around the concept of Adam not being born into original sin.

True that -- he was, first, not born, and second, not created a sinner. But, he sinned, and his sin was such that he passed on to the rest of humanity a sin nature.

In order to be heritable, as sin is, it must have first resided in the father of all humans.

What of the "curse of God." Can God curse someone and they not be spiritually dead? Seems rather contrived to suggest otherwise. Of course the serpent did not repent and trust God. He was God's enemy by choice and remained such (and according to the Word was not offered the chance at salvation as are humans created in the image of God). But, I believe that Adam did repent and trust God even if I cannot proof text the occurrence. The evidence exists in his life after the fact, where he lived according to God's dictates, even though separated from God and from the Tree of Life (the metaphor and reality of a true sinless life for eternity).

I'm also noticing that you make the same error in your thinking about being "born again" as did Nicodemus in John 3: John 3:4 (ESV) Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?"

Being born again has nothing at all to do with physical birth or in the case of Adam, being created instead of birthed. It has everything to do with God bringing the imputed power of the atonement into the "dead in sin and trespass" individual and making them "a new creation." I believe that this happened to Adam, as it did to any or every other OT character who was saved in the biblical way, by grace through faith in the only name that brings salvation, Jesus.

 

[DHK]

Neither does God "disown" us today. By His manifold grace, we get a chance to hear the gospel and respond, which is the remedy (by Christ's completed atoning work) for our sin.

You admit that God does not disown us today. Why do you find it so hard to believe that God would not disown Adam? He wouldn't. Adam never lost the salvation that God gave Him when he was created. There is no Biblical evidence to support such an idea.

I'm sensing a disconnect in your thought process on this issue, which seems to be hung up around the concept of Adam not being born into original sin.

Quite true. He wasn't. He wasn't born but created. He was created directly as God's child, not as one of the devil's children as we are (John 8:44; Eph.2:1-3). We are born in sin; Adam was not.

True that -- he was, first, not born, and second, not created a sinner. But, he sinned, and his sin was such that he passed on to the rest of humanity a sin nature.

And please explain how that magically and mystically gave Adam himself a "sin nature" that he didn't have before. If that is not directly stated in the Bible then you are reading into the Bible a very mystical belief.

In order to be heritable, as sin is, it must have first resided in the father of all humans.

That is your philosophy; your opinion. You are entitled to it; but it isn't worth much unless you can back it up with Scripture. Nowhere does the Bible state that sin resided in Adam as in a sin nature. Show me chapter and verse.
Adam committed sin. It was his choice. But choice was not because of nature. Go back to chapter three. Eve never had a sin nature. She came into this world in a state of innocence created in perfection. Yet she was tempted by Satan and sinned. And then Adam rebelled against God and sinned also--both without having sin natures. It was their choice. Sin did not reside in them before hand.

The consequence of that sin was that a "sin nature" (which Adam did not have) would be passed on throughout all generations. That was God's curse because of Adam's sin. It was part of the Fall. Are you trying to tie the hand of God by your own philosophy saying that God can't do things unless he does them your way? I go by the Scriptures, not by philosophy.

What of the "curse of God." Can God curse someone and they not be spiritually dead? Seems rather contrived to suggest otherwise.

The entire line of all of Coniah's descendants were cursed. Part of the curse, though Coniah was related to David, that none of them would ever be heir to the throne of David. Joseph was one of the descendants of Coniah. One of the many reasons why Christ had to be born of a virgin is because of the curse on Coniah and his descendants (Joseph). Had Christ been born of Joseph and Mary he would have been born of a cursed line which would have made him ineligible to inherit the throne of David, as Joseph was.

Jeremiah 22:30 Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah.
--Joseph was under this curse, but what did Joseph do to deserve it?
"Can God curse someone and they not be spiritually dead?" Joseph was.

The entire nation of Israel was many times. Achan sinned and Israel was cursed as they went up against the city of Ai.

Of course the serpent did not repent and trust God. He was God's enemy by choice and remained such (and according to the Word was not offered the chance at salvation as are humans created in the image of God). But, I believe that Adam did repent and trust God even if I cannot proof text the occurrence. The evidence exists in his life after the fact, where he lived according to God's dictates, even though separated from God and from the Tree of Life (the metaphor and reality of a true sinless life for eternity).

Adam repented not to gain salvation (that he already had), but in order to restore fellowship with God. He never lost any salvation. Adam and Eve clothed themselves with fig leaves. God clothed them with the skins of an animal, the outcome of the sacrifice that God himself provided for them. God provided a sacrifice not to give them salvation, but to restore fellowship between God and Adam.

I'm also noticing that you make the same error in your thinking about being "born again" as did Nicodemus in John 3: John 3:4 (ESV) Nicodemus said to him, "How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?"

Being born again has nothing at all to do with physical birth or in the case of Adam, being created instead of birthed.

It has everything to do with two births!
If you are born once you will die twice.
If you are born twice you will die once.

It has everything to do with God bringing the imputed power of the atonement into the "dead in sin and trespass" individual and making them "a new creation." I believe that this happened to Adam, as it did to any or every other OT character who was saved in the biblical way, by grace through faith in the only name that brings salvation, Jesus.

It couldn't happen to Adam. Adam never lost what God gave him at creation. Scripture does not bear this out, and you haven't given anything but ideas. Where in the Bible does it say Adam lost his salvation or needed to be saved? It doesn't. And for all your posts, you haven't given any Scripture or evidence that convinces me that Adam was ever lost.

 

[Eric B]

3. Repentance is not shown immediately but slowly. Ultimately it is accepted by God when God Himself provides a blood sacrifice. Would God provide a blood sacrifice without repentance? The same question could be asked of John: Would John the Baptist baptize those who did not repent? There is a definite pattern in the Bible that not even God would break.

Well, God did provide sacrifice for a lot of people who do not repent and receive it. Both now (Christ), and in the OT, they had the sacrifice and anyone could have gone through the motions without truly repenting.

4. When God meted out the consequences of their sin in the Fall or the curse of the Fall, what he gave to Eve was the promise of the Messiah in Genesis 3:15, the protoevangelium. An unsaved person does not look forward to the coming of a Messiah; Adam and Eve did, and a promise of a Messiah was given to them.
5. The fruit of their repentance is shown in the names of their children:
a. Abel--"of the Lord," gratitude given to God for this child.
b. Seth--"appointed" Perhaps he was the appointed one, chosen of the Lord.

But couldn't anyone do that, and still not have repented? That's often the sort of thing people will do today and think it substitutes for repentance (think Catholics and other such religions).

You admit that God does not disown us today. Why do you find it so hard to believe that God would not disown Adam? He wouldn't. Adam never lost the salvation that God gave Him when he was created. There is no Biblical evidence to support such an idea.

Quite true. He wasn't. He wasn't born but created. He was created directly as God's child, not as one of the devil's children as we are (John 8:44; Eph.2:1-3). We are born in sin; Adam was not.

And please explain how that magically and mystically gave Adam himself a "sin nature" that he didn't have before. If that is not directly stated in the Bible then you are reading into the Bible a very mystical belief.

The consequence of that sin was that a "sin nature" (which Adam did not have) would be passed on throughout all generations. That was God's curse because of Adam's sin. It was part of the Fall. Are you trying to tie the hand of God by your own philosophy saying that God can't do things unless he does them your way? I go by the Scriptures, not by philosophy.

The question here would be why wouldn't this curse include Adam? Because he was created "good", and since none of his progeny (who were in his loins) were born yet, they were still left 'up in the air', to in effect become evil at birth?

I'm not arguing that Adam was lost; but this is just one area where I have never seen a completely consistent, scriptural argument. It does seem to be just as much philosophy (and speculative at that) as anything else.

 

[glfredrick]

DHK, in all due respect, while you chide me for arguing "philosophy" instead of "text" you are doing exactly the same thing by asking me to prove a negative ("show me chapter and verse that says...") I believe that you, as an educated man, understand the difficulties that come when such an intentional fallacy is introduced into an argument. We cannot "prove" a negative (that something does not exist).

What I can bring, I've brought before, and it is "text."

Rom 5:12 (KJV) ¶ Wherefore, as by one man [Adam] sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

As a proposition, Paul is saying that:

A. Adam sinned (which you have freely admitted)
B. That Adam has passed down that sin to the entire human race (that you admitted)
C. And, that "all" have sinned, "all" being a set that includes Adam.

If one "sins" one is a "sinner." We seem to know that and use it constantly in our witnessing encounters with phrases along the lines of, "If you only but committed one sin, you would be condemned to damnation for that sin, for you broke God's moral code (Law, etc.) and you ARE a sinner."

I've asked you for positive proof that shows that Adam never sinned instead of my trying to prove a negative, "show me chapter and verse." So, can you? I've brought a text from Paul and reasoning from Adam's story in Genesis 3 that indicates in the very plain sense that we understand sin, that Adam sinned and passed that sin into all the world.

Your turn...

 

[DHK]

I've asked you for positive proof that shows that Adam never sinned instead of my trying to prove a negative, "show me chapter and verse." So, can you? I've brought a text from Paul and reasoning from Adam's story in Genesis 3 that indicates in the very plain sense that we understand sin, that Adam sinned and passed that sin into all the world.

Your turn...

I have never denied that Adam sinned. The result of Adam's sin was the Fall. The consequences of the Fall that Adam himself had to pay was that "by the sweat of his brow he would have to till the ground, and it would bring forth thorns and thistles." Life would not be so easy for Adam. It would be fraught with hardship and sorrow. This is the curse that Adam would have to endure. But that has nothing to do with salvation. It is simply the consequence of sin.

Genesis 3:17-19 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

God did not have to restore salvation. God restored fellowship. The ground would be cursed "for thy sake."
"In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, til thou return unto the ground."
This last statement refers to the fact that physical eternal life was no longer available to him, at least not until the resurrection would take place. It says nothing of spiritual eternal life not being available to him.