Featured Could Fallen Adam choose Life

Brother, I gave you a biblical response, and swept nothing under the rug. You just disagree with me, and that's okay.


Jesus said in John 6 that no one could come unto Me except My Father which sent Me draws Him(vs 44). I find where God communed with Adam after he fell, and even gave him and Eve a covering for their nakedness. But God thrusted them out before they could lay hold on the Tree of Life and live. I don't disagree with that. However, God fixed it that for them to get back, they would have to go through a flaming sword that turned every direction, and placed two cherubims to protect the way of the Tree. That's a picture of the gospel right there.


What you're inferring is that Adam and Eve had a desire to go and eat of that Tree of Life and live forever. I can't find where they had any desire for the Tree of Life. I find where they had a desire to eat of that sinful tree, but not the Tree of Life. Can you?

 

It was not so much a matter of believing, it was a matter of obeying.

 

Adam and eve were created before the fall though, so why would their examples be same as regarding if we can and still have same choices they had to make?

 

Do you agree with the scriptures that what Adam could freely decide to do was different pre/post the Fall though?

 

I like to pick others' brains on about any given subject, so I googled this question and came across a pastor named Brother Don Fortner. He pastors a Reformed Baptist church somewhere around Lexington, Ky. He had a sermon regarding this, and I will paraphrase some of what he said in his sermon.


He stated that the Tree of Life was a literal tree, and I wholeheartedly agree. Now, if Adam was to have eaten of that Tree of Life and lived forever, he would have found eternal life outside of Christ. The Tree of Life was symbolic of Jesus Christ, yet it wasn't Jesus, literally. That is why God drove Adam and Eve out of the Garden.


Here's the link to the sermon: http://www.donfortner.com/sermon_no...22-24 The Man is Become as One of Us 1885.htm

 

First thing Adam and Eve did was try to cover their nakedness, their sin, and then they hid from God.

Reminds me of that passage of Scripture describing the Second Coming:

Revelation 6:12-17
12. And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;
13. And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.
14. And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.
15. And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;
16. And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:
17. For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?

Thankfully God sought out Adam and Eve, as He does His Elect, but when Jesus Christ returns it will be too late and that is a fact of Scripture.

 

Did God provide a temporary covering, atonement, for their sin?

Did God shed innocent blood to make an atonement for their sin?

 

He is very much against Reformed Baptists. His sympathies lie with the Sovereign Grace movement. There are some similarities, but also some pronounced differences.

 

So what are the differences? I thought Reformed Baptists believed in Sovereign Grace.

 

Yes, of course they do. But I am speaking specfically of the Sovereign Grace Movement.

Don Fortner is against creeds and confessions altogether. He's against the 1689 London Confession as he is against the Westminster Confession. He's against Reformed theology as such. He's against a number of doctrines that Reformed Baptists hold to. He calls Reformed Baptists "Ducking Presbyterians."

Despite these and other differences that I have with him, I find his sermons largely profitable and edifying. He is a gracious man and faithful in his ministry. Plus, he's a pretty good hymnwriter.

 

My opinion is that Baptists {I am speaking as a member of a Southern Baptist Church.} really need a Confession of Faith. I like the 1644/46 Baptist Confession. It leaves out much the 1687 Confession contains but that is not necessarily bad. I must confess I have not done an exhaustive comparison of the two.

It sounds good to say "no creed but the Bible" but how many Baptists know what the Bible teaches or what Baptists believe.

 

They study it.