Spiritual life to me would be one in a right standing with God, being in Covenant with him, so Adam had that by Creation, OT saints have it, but the Spirit is upon them for certain works and callings, but not indwelling all as now under the NC!
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Spiritual Life
- Thread starter JonC
- Start date
- Status
I think that there may be some confusing about "being in a covenant". What the Jews were concerned about was not being in a covenant with God (they were in a covenant with God) but being righteous by that covenant. In other words, those Jews who are condemned are no less covenant people than those who are by faith righteous. I do not think that we can definitively say, for example, that Judas had "spiritual life".
The other issue is that our relationship with God is not spiritual life itself (it is the result of spiritual life) as it is sin that separates man from God. The only spiritual type of life that the Bible speaks of is the indwelling of the Spirit ("Christ in us").
Not all Israel was actually Israel though, as only the redeemed were in that relationship with God in either old or new covenants, while Adam was unique, as he was created without any need for messiah until he sinned!
The problem here (with the idea of Adam) is that you are relying on faulty logic rather than Scripture itself. No verse states what you believe. And the conclusion you arrive at is by definition a product of a formal logical fallacy.
Not really, as scriptures teach to us that Adam was in a covenant relationship with God when originally created, did not need a messiah at that point in time, and that the fall made him both spiritual disconnected from God, and physical now able to die.
That's just it. Scripture itself does not teach that there was a covenant between God and Adam. While it may be true, it diminishes Scripture to claim the conclusion to actually be taught by Scripture.
He was under the Covenant of Works, as the One of Grace not needed to be implemented until after the fall!
The problem is you are taking a minority position (most scholars are not Covenant theologians and even within Covenant theology the covenant with Adam is suspect).
So what you are doing is instead of arguing your view you simply and falsely claim it is in Scripture itself.
The same might be said though of some of your positions!
Yes. It could. The difference is I do not claim those to be actual Scripture and I explain my reasoning.
As Christians we need to be able to identify what is Scripture and what is our understanding. Correct?
Trinity as a term not found in scriptures, can be inferred and deduced from them, correct?
I am not talking about English words (that is an ignorant argument).
"Covenant" DOES appear in Scripture. But not in Genesis 1-2, nor does God's command to Adam meet the Biblical definition of a covenant.
If you believe Scripture does not explicitly state that the Spirit is God's Spirit, that the Father is God, and that Jesus is God then we have more serious issues here than your downgrade if Scripture.
That said, if you believe Scripture does not say the Spirit is God's Spirit, the Father is God, and the Son is one with God then you would be wrong to claim it is in Scripture while actually believing it is not.
I am saying that we can deduce nad infer from the scriptures that there is One God, who eternally exists as 3 Persons within Himself, even though that specific name Trinity not found!
In like fashion, we know from scriptures thatAdam did not need a messiah until he dinned and fell, so had to be on something other than Covenant of grace!
the Bible does indeed teach to us the trinity, but there is no passage that actually uses that term, in like fashion, Adam had spiritual life, or else could not be in covenant with God in the beginning!
What is a covenant? The Hebrew word used in the Old Testament is Bara, which comes from a root word meaning ‘bonds’ or ‘yokes.’ The idea is of two parties binding themselves to perform some mutually agreed action. The Greek word is diatheke, which means a ‘disposition’ or ‘arrangement.’ The puritan John Owen defined a covenant as, ‘A voluntary convention, pact, agreement between distinct persons about the ordering and dispensing of things in their power, to their mutual concern or advantage.’ A simpler definition might be, ‘A mutual agreement, a benefit being assured on the fulfilment of certain conditions.’
There is an example of a covenant in 1Sam 20:11-17. Jonathan promises to help David escape from Saul, and David promises to show kindness to Jonathan’s descendants (cf. 2Sam 9:1 ). There is an oath and the name of the Lord is invoked (vs 12, 16-17 ). This is an example of a covenant between equals. Sometimes we see covenants between parties where one side is clearly superior to the other. These are called by theologians Suzerainty Covenants.. In such cases, the terms of the covenant are dictated by the stronger side (eg. 1 Kings 20:34 ), and the benefits are therefore likely to accrue to the stronger at the expense of the weaker. It goes without saying that God is always the Superior and He dictates the terms of the covenants into which He enters. However, God’s unmerited love towards sinners means that His covenantal plans bring blessings to those who are without power or strength (Romans 5:8 ).
The first covenant to be discussed is the Covenant of Works. This is the covenant made between God and Adam in the Garden of Eden before Adam sinned. Now straightaway, we must face the fact that such a covenant is not directly named in the Bible. The nearest we get to it is in Hosea 6:7. “But like Adam they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt treacherously with Me” (NKJV margin). The problem here is that ‘Adam’ is a transliteration for the Hebrew word meaning ‘Man.’ Either rendering might be correct. However, if we look at God’s words to Adam in Gen 2:16-17, I believe that we shall see all the attributes of a covenant as laid out above. As Baptists, we require a greater level of Biblical evidence than our Presbyterian brethren. Our doctrines must be either stated explicitly or ‘necessarily contained’ (1689 Baptist Confession ) in the Bible. This I take to mean that all doctrine must be found within the pages of the Bible; if not in the form of a straightforward command, at least contained within the Bible as an example or precept.
‘Then the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; 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 “’(Gen 2:15-17 ). The covenant comes in the form of a provision, a command and a warning, but a gracious promise is implied- eternal life; ‘if you don’t the forbidden fruit, you shall live.’ Adam was put into the position of a tenant moving into a house. The landlord might tell him, “You can live here rent-free in return for doing the garden; you can eat all the stuff that grows in the garden, but don’t touch the vintage claret in the cellar or you’re out!”
This arrangement has all the attributes of a covenant. The greater party (God) gives to the lesser party (Adam) a perfect environment, ample provisions and eternal life. The lesser party agrees to oversee and to care for the environment, and to obey the rules laid down for him. A breach of these rules is a breach of the covenant and must lead to the forfeiture of its benefits. The covenant might be better termed the ‘Covenant of Obedience’ since it was obedience rather than works which were required, but it has been called the Covenant of Works to distinguish it from the Covenant of Grace.
It might be supposed that Adam had no other law to obey save the single one of not eating from the forbidden tree, but that would be a simplistic view. Adam was under the Moral Law of God, the Ten Commandments, as a moment’s thought will confirm. Suppose Adam built an idol in the garden to worship, or suppose he strangled Eve! Would God have said, “Oh, that’s alright, Adam, just as long as you don’t eat the fruit!” The very thought is absurd. It is true that Adam could not have coveted his neighbour’s ox or his ass since he had no neighbours, but he certainly coveted that which God had denied to him and stole it to his own inestimable loss and that of his posterity. ‘Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned’ (Romans 5:12 ).
There is no doubt but that the Covenant of Works was a gracious covenant. God was under no obligation to do anything for Adam, yet He gave him a wife, placed him in a beautiful garden with only light tasks to perform (there were no weeds before the Fall- Gen 3:17-18 ) and gave him dominion over all the rest of creation. However, there is no mention of mercy in the covenant. Adam is warned, “In the day you eat of it, you shall surely die.” To put it another way, “Do this and live.” Adam’s privileges were dependent on his obedience. Yet he was well able to perform this obedience. God had made him entirely righteous; otherwise He could not have pronounced the whole of creation ‘very good’ (Genesis 1:31 ).
Yet Adam was not in the most gracious state possible. Though he had been created sinless and righteous, he was still able to sin; he stood or fell by his own actions. This has led many theologians to postulate that Adam was on probation; had he not sinned, they say, God would have promoted him to a still more gracious position in which he would have been unable to sin. We read in Gen 2:9b of the ‘Tree of Life.’ It is suggested that at the end of their probation, Adam and Eve would have been permitted to eat from this tree and their eternal lives would have been assured. Certainly, after their fall, the way to the tree of life was lost to mankind (Gen 3:24 ) and is not heard of again until Rev 2:7 and 22:2 where it is seen as the reward for those who persevere, the very thing that Adam and Eve failed to do. This idea is quite attractive and may be correct, but we cannot insist upon it because it is a conjecture and is not clearly found in the word of God. If we want to remain true to the Baptist Confession, we must take all our doctrine from the Bible and eschew all conjecture.
[continued]
There is an example of a covenant in 1Sam 20:11-17. Jonathan promises to help David escape from Saul, and David promises to show kindness to Jonathan’s descendants (cf. 2Sam 9:1 ). There is an oath and the name of the Lord is invoked (vs 12, 16-17 ). This is an example of a covenant between equals. Sometimes we see covenants between parties where one side is clearly superior to the other. These are called by theologians Suzerainty Covenants.. In such cases, the terms of the covenant are dictated by the stronger side (eg. 1 Kings 20:34 ), and the benefits are therefore likely to accrue to the stronger at the expense of the weaker. It goes without saying that God is always the Superior and He dictates the terms of the covenants into which He enters. However, God’s unmerited love towards sinners means that His covenantal plans bring blessings to those who are without power or strength (Romans 5:8 ).
The first covenant to be discussed is the Covenant of Works. This is the covenant made between God and Adam in the Garden of Eden before Adam sinned. Now straightaway, we must face the fact that such a covenant is not directly named in the Bible. The nearest we get to it is in Hosea 6:7. “But like Adam they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt treacherously with Me” (NKJV margin). The problem here is that ‘Adam’ is a transliteration for the Hebrew word meaning ‘Man.’ Either rendering might be correct. However, if we look at God’s words to Adam in Gen 2:16-17, I believe that we shall see all the attributes of a covenant as laid out above. As Baptists, we require a greater level of Biblical evidence than our Presbyterian brethren. Our doctrines must be either stated explicitly or ‘necessarily contained’ (1689 Baptist Confession ) in the Bible. This I take to mean that all doctrine must be found within the pages of the Bible; if not in the form of a straightforward command, at least contained within the Bible as an example or precept.
‘Then the Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; 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 “’(Gen 2:15-17 ). The covenant comes in the form of a provision, a command and a warning, but a gracious promise is implied- eternal life; ‘if you don’t the forbidden fruit, you shall live.’ Adam was put into the position of a tenant moving into a house. The landlord might tell him, “You can live here rent-free in return for doing the garden; you can eat all the stuff that grows in the garden, but don’t touch the vintage claret in the cellar or you’re out!”
This arrangement has all the attributes of a covenant. The greater party (God) gives to the lesser party (Adam) a perfect environment, ample provisions and eternal life. The lesser party agrees to oversee and to care for the environment, and to obey the rules laid down for him. A breach of these rules is a breach of the covenant and must lead to the forfeiture of its benefits. The covenant might be better termed the ‘Covenant of Obedience’ since it was obedience rather than works which were required, but it has been called the Covenant of Works to distinguish it from the Covenant of Grace.
It might be supposed that Adam had no other law to obey save the single one of not eating from the forbidden tree, but that would be a simplistic view. Adam was under the Moral Law of God, the Ten Commandments, as a moment’s thought will confirm. Suppose Adam built an idol in the garden to worship, or suppose he strangled Eve! Would God have said, “Oh, that’s alright, Adam, just as long as you don’t eat the fruit!” The very thought is absurd. It is true that Adam could not have coveted his neighbour’s ox or his ass since he had no neighbours, but he certainly coveted that which God had denied to him and stole it to his own inestimable loss and that of his posterity. ‘Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned’ (Romans 5:12 ).
There is no doubt but that the Covenant of Works was a gracious covenant. God was under no obligation to do anything for Adam, yet He gave him a wife, placed him in a beautiful garden with only light tasks to perform (there were no weeds before the Fall- Gen 3:17-18 ) and gave him dominion over all the rest of creation. However, there is no mention of mercy in the covenant. Adam is warned, “In the day you eat of it, you shall surely die.” To put it another way, “Do this and live.” Adam’s privileges were dependent on his obedience. Yet he was well able to perform this obedience. God had made him entirely righteous; otherwise He could not have pronounced the whole of creation ‘very good’ (Genesis 1:31 ).
Yet Adam was not in the most gracious state possible. Though he had been created sinless and righteous, he was still able to sin; he stood or fell by his own actions. This has led many theologians to postulate that Adam was on probation; had he not sinned, they say, God would have promoted him to a still more gracious position in which he would have been unable to sin. We read in Gen 2:9b of the ‘Tree of Life.’ It is suggested that at the end of their probation, Adam and Eve would have been permitted to eat from this tree and their eternal lives would have been assured. Certainly, after their fall, the way to the tree of life was lost to mankind (Gen 3:24 ) and is not heard of again until Rev 2:7 and 22:2 where it is seen as the reward for those who persevere, the very thing that Adam and Eve failed to do. This idea is quite attractive and may be correct, but we cannot insist upon it because it is a conjecture and is not clearly found in the word of God. If we want to remain true to the Baptist Confession, we must take all our doctrine from the Bible and eschew all conjecture.
[continued]
[continuation]
We read in Gen 2:25 that, ‘They were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.’ To put this in another way, they had no covering. There was no covering or atonement for sin, but that didn’t matter at the time, because there was no sin to cover. But as soon as they fell into sin, it became of crucial importance. ‘Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings’ (Gen 3:7 ). Sinful man cannot stand before a righteous God unless that sin be covered. But a man-made covering is no covering at all as far as God is concerned. As Isaiah says (64:6 ); ‘But we are all like an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags.’ Even as Adam and Eve put on their home-made garments, they knew in their hearts that the fig leaves were worthless to hide their sin from God, so they hid from His presence (Gen 3:8 ). The true covering for sin must come from God Himself, and it must involve the shedding of blood (Hebrews 9:22 ) as we shall see.
Adam was a public person or a Covenant head. In the Covenant of Works, he transacted not only for himself and Eve, but also for his seed and his doom was also theirs. ‘For as in Adam, all die…..’ (1Cor 15:22 ). His sin is imputed to his progeny. ‘For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners…….’ (Rom 5:19 ). The idea of a Covenant or representative head is not as strange as one might think. The head of a business makes deals and transactions on behalf of the whole corporation. A politician signs treaties that are binding upon the whole population of the country. If the Prime Minister of Great Britain were to declare war upon France, all Britons would be at war whether we approved of it or not, and if we were to meet a Frenchman with a gun, he might well feel justified in shooting us!
So it is that mankind can be described as having a bad record and a bad reputation. Not only are we constituted sinners by our covenant association with Adam, but we are sinners in our own selves. We have inherited Adam’s fallen nature. ‘And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth’ (Gen 5:3 ). Whereas Adam had been created in the image of the perfect and holy God, each of us is born with the sinful nature of fallen Adam. ‘That which is born of the flesh is flesh’ (John 3:6 ). ‘Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned’ (Romans 5:12 ). The state of fallen man is desperate, and entirely our own fault. Adam sinned deliberately and so do we. We cannot plead that God’s judgements are unfair and that we should not be blamed for his iniquity. Adam sinned once and fell; fallen man sins many times a day (Romans 3:10-18 ).
Mankind has therefore utterly forfeited and lost all covenant interest in God. He can no longer claim a right in or hope of the promise of eternal life held out in the covenant. At once, he fell under guilt, which was the sentence of his own conscience, seeing himself under the just wrath of God and therefore dreading His approach (Genesis 3:8-10 ). We are by nature like cockroaches that scuttle into a dark corner when the light is switched on (John 3:19 ). Unredeemed mankind has entirely lost its relationship with God. He is incapable of true happiness because he is at enmity with God and alienated from Him. As we have observed, the image of God in him is now wholly defaced. Where first there was the beauty of original righteousness, now there is only filthiness and deformity (Titus 3:3; Psalms 14:1-3 ).
The curse of the covenant is now in effect; man is subject to fear of death and fear of judgement and hell. He has become a debtor instead of a free man. He owes a debt of obedience that he is by no means able to settle- he has sinned infinitely against the infinite love of God and therefore owes infinitely more than he can pay. The curse is also extended to creation. The world has fallen with fallen man; it is God’s righteous judgement that sinful humans shall not live in a perfect world. “Cursed is the ground for your sake; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life” (Gen 3:17. cf. Romans 8:20 ). Man is helpless and without strength in a harsh environment, unable to bring himself before God on a covenant of works and equally unable to bring himself on any other terms. There was no arrangement in the covenant for a second chance. Man is unable to move even one step towards reconciliation with God. The door of repentance was not opened by the Covenant of Works, and even if it had been, there would have been neither the power nor the inclination to enter it.
And yet……….
‘For when we were still without strength, Christ died for the ungodly’ (Rom 5:6 ).
We read in Gen 2:25 that, ‘They were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.’ To put this in another way, they had no covering. There was no covering or atonement for sin, but that didn’t matter at the time, because there was no sin to cover. But as soon as they fell into sin, it became of crucial importance. ‘Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings’ (Gen 3:7 ). Sinful man cannot stand before a righteous God unless that sin be covered. But a man-made covering is no covering at all as far as God is concerned. As Isaiah says (64:6 ); ‘But we are all like an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags.’ Even as Adam and Eve put on their home-made garments, they knew in their hearts that the fig leaves were worthless to hide their sin from God, so they hid from His presence (Gen 3:8 ). The true covering for sin must come from God Himself, and it must involve the shedding of blood (Hebrews 9:22 ) as we shall see.
Adam was a public person or a Covenant head. In the Covenant of Works, he transacted not only for himself and Eve, but also for his seed and his doom was also theirs. ‘For as in Adam, all die…..’ (1Cor 15:22 ). His sin is imputed to his progeny. ‘For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners…….’ (Rom 5:19 ). The idea of a Covenant or representative head is not as strange as one might think. The head of a business makes deals and transactions on behalf of the whole corporation. A politician signs treaties that are binding upon the whole population of the country. If the Prime Minister of Great Britain were to declare war upon France, all Britons would be at war whether we approved of it or not, and if we were to meet a Frenchman with a gun, he might well feel justified in shooting us!
So it is that mankind can be described as having a bad record and a bad reputation. Not only are we constituted sinners by our covenant association with Adam, but we are sinners in our own selves. We have inherited Adam’s fallen nature. ‘And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth’ (Gen 5:3 ). Whereas Adam had been created in the image of the perfect and holy God, each of us is born with the sinful nature of fallen Adam. ‘That which is born of the flesh is flesh’ (John 3:6 ). ‘Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned’ (Romans 5:12 ). The state of fallen man is desperate, and entirely our own fault. Adam sinned deliberately and so do we. We cannot plead that God’s judgements are unfair and that we should not be blamed for his iniquity. Adam sinned once and fell; fallen man sins many times a day (Romans 3:10-18 ).
Mankind has therefore utterly forfeited and lost all covenant interest in God. He can no longer claim a right in or hope of the promise of eternal life held out in the covenant. At once, he fell under guilt, which was the sentence of his own conscience, seeing himself under the just wrath of God and therefore dreading His approach (Genesis 3:8-10 ). We are by nature like cockroaches that scuttle into a dark corner when the light is switched on (John 3:19 ). Unredeemed mankind has entirely lost its relationship with God. He is incapable of true happiness because he is at enmity with God and alienated from Him. As we have observed, the image of God in him is now wholly defaced. Where first there was the beauty of original righteousness, now there is only filthiness and deformity (Titus 3:3; Psalms 14:1-3 ).
The curse of the covenant is now in effect; man is subject to fear of death and fear of judgement and hell. He has become a debtor instead of a free man. He owes a debt of obedience that he is by no means able to settle- he has sinned infinitely against the infinite love of God and therefore owes infinitely more than he can pay. The curse is also extended to creation. The world has fallen with fallen man; it is God’s righteous judgement that sinful humans shall not live in a perfect world. “Cursed is the ground for your sake; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life” (Gen 3:17. cf. Romans 8:20 ). Man is helpless and without strength in a harsh environment, unable to bring himself before God on a covenant of works and equally unable to bring himself on any other terms. There was no arrangement in the covenant for a second chance. Man is unable to move even one step towards reconciliation with God. The door of repentance was not opened by the Covenant of Works, and even if it had been, there would have been neither the power nor the inclination to enter it.
And yet……….
‘For when we were still without strength, Christ died for the ungodly’ (Rom 5:6 ).
This is excellent, as you clearly lay out for us that the scriptures do indeed teach to us thatAdam was in Covenant relationship with God, and so must have had pre fall some kind of spiritual life....
No one is expecting the Bible to use the term.
I am not saying you are stupid but that is a very stupid argument.
the Bible does not say Adam was under Covenant of Works, but brother MM clearly laid out from the scriptures that he was even without saying it directly!
No. The problem is that Scripture does not present God's command to Adam not to eat of the fruit to be within what Scripture defines as a "covenant". You yourself pointed this out when you mentioned God's covenant with Abraham and walking through the cut pieces of animals. Scripture uses the term "covenant" in a very specific way. You are cheapening the meaning.
It does not matter how @Martin Marprelate explains why he believes this was a covenant. The fact remains Scripture itself does not present it as a covenant so we have to look at the reasons for and against assuming it is. It may be a covenant. But it may also be only a command. Scripture itself presents God's statement to Adam only as a command (so we know we are safe there).
Why view it is a covenant?
God said to Adam that on the day he eats of the fruit death will be certain. Therefore should Adam not eat of the fruit he would live forever. This is the mentality but it is a formal logical fallacy. You are not only basing your conclusion on logic (which is fine) but on a logical fallacy (which is not fine). There are so many variables that you do not know that it is irresponsible to go beyond Scripture simply because @Martin Marprelate says so (which was your "proof"). For all you know, if Adam had not eaten of the fruit he would have beat his wife for nagging him about not eating of the fruit (I know this is silly, but it is a serious point). God could have given another command that Adam disobeyed. A covenant lasts until a party dies (Hebrews 9). If this was a covenant then had Adam not eaten of the fruit Adam would have been free to disobey any other commands of God without the possibility of death (Adam could have not populated the earth, not subdued the earth, etc.).
You downgrade Scripture when you elevate these theories to the level of Scripture. That is my complaint. Not that you are wrong (I believe you are wrong) but that you are comfortable saying these theories are actually Scripture.
- Status