Featured What Was Adam Pre-Fall

No. That was actually his argument on another topic about free-will. I'm not saying I agree, but the argument itself is inconsistent (Adam had spiritual life but lost it due to his free-will places what Scripture calls the will of the flesh over this "spiritual life").

 

Another issue is the Tree of Life.

This is a reason I believe Adam did not possess spiritual life (I associate the Tree of Life with spiritual life). Had Adam "eaten" of this tree he would have everlasting life.

So I view Adam as created flesh (with a human spirit Scripture calls "the flesh" in the NT). Adam could freely eat of the Tree of Life or disobey and eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Adam was tempted by his desires and transgressed God's command. Sin is the reason Adam was separated from the Tree of Life. Had Adam eaten of that tree he would not have eaten of the other (whoever eats of the Tree of Life has everlasting life).

 

What do you think about the Tree of Life (that gives everlasting life)?

I tend to think of Adam as created innocent with a human spirit. There are two choices - death and life. Adam chose death.

I think when we create these expansive narratives we miss the point of Scripture and allow theory to trump what Scripture is telling us.

 

No. I view Spiritual life as the Spirit of God indwelling man. I do not believe either Tree to magic trees. In my understanding Adam was created with a human spirit and ultimately it was demonstrated that human spirits do not merit divine righteousness (Adam was created in the image of God but still less than God). He had a choice but he was always going to "miss the mark". Sin separates man from God. Logically there was a time prior to sin that Adam was sinless (Adam was created "upright", God did not author Adam's sin). This does not necessitate two human natures in Adam.

 

The issue is the passage itself is not looking at Adam but Christ. Adam is the natural in the passage, Christ the spiritual. You horribly skew that passage by reading into it your theology.

 

I used several. God will remove man's heart of stone and give him a new heart, a new spirit, put His spirit in them (I believe this is speaking of one thing - the new birth). Christ became a life-giving Spirit. First is the natural (Adam), second the spiritual (Christ). Spiritual life is of the "imperishable seed". Christ is this Life.

 

Again, I am not sure why you have to insult me every time I ask you a question.

The reason I am asking is not that I do not understand the verse but that I understand the verse as typically interpreted by Christian commentators to be dealing with the order of resurrection. The body which is sown is not the body which is to be. The body is sown a natural body and is raised a spiritual body. The first man, Adam, became a living soul. The last Adam became a life giving spirit. The spiritual is not first, but the natural, then the spiritual.

I have not encountered the interpretation that you offer. I am sure that your interpretation is extraordinarily clear to you, but as it departs from the normal reading of the passage I am asking you how you arrive at your conclusion.

In this passage you view the "last Adam" which became "a life giving spirit" to Adam rather than Christ. What I am suggesting is that you may be viewing this verse through a formed theory and twisting what the verse is saying to suit your philosophy rather than holding to what is actually in Scripture. Since you depart from the normal reading and from most (all that I know of) Christian interpretations of this passage I think it reasonable to ask how you arrive at your interpretation.

 

Yes, that is what he is saying. But he could say it without the insults.

I never claimed to be the most astute fella. But I know which end of the knife not to hold (the pointy end), so I get by.

I do not know why he has to start every reply with an insult. I guess it's the Calvinism showing through .